Hold That Tiger
- 0 Comments
WASHINGTON — When I read the other day that the lapsed
golfer Tiger Woods’ nationwide approval rating had fallen from
87% to 33%, the only conclusion I could draw was that he had been
out campaigning for the Democrats’ healthcare plan. According to
an interesting piece on him in the current Vanity
Fair, the superb golfer now has a disapproval
rating of 57%. Is this the consequence of his getting too close
to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and the glacial-faced
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi? No, apparently it is the
consequence not of his associating with politicians but rather of
his living like one. His sex life has been exposed, and it is
comparable to that of a particularly virulent germ.
If the reporter for Vanity Fair is
accurate, Woods’ sex life is hyperactive, to say nothing of
unhygienic. Yet his disastrous collapse in the polls still
perplexes me. If he were president of the United States and being
impeached for his wantonness, his polling numbers would soar. His
critics would be assailed with that popular line from the 1990s,
“it’s only sex.” Why, I ask, is a golfer being abominated for
promiscuity? He tried to keep his sex life private. He did not
flaunt his many gallantries. It is not as though he has cheated
on his golf game, and if he has so does Bill Clinton. There are
whole books written about the former president’s cheating on the
golf course. Some Americans find it amusing. Others give Bill a
good-natured pass.
Supposedly the disapproval Woods is suffering is because he
and his handlers carefully choreographed a squeaky-clean image
for him. Yet most politicians live carefully choreographed lives.
Worse they invite the press to cover their lives, while keeping
the unsavory stuff out of sight. Woods did not invite the press
into his private life. He was a very private person. Unlike the
politicians who invite the press into their homes while keeping
the cuties out of sight, Woods never practiced such deception.
The press might at least show him the respect they once showed
2008 presidential candidate John Edwards, who played the
reporters for fools.
With the revelations about Woods’ scortatory pursuits,
millions of dollars of corporate endorsements have been
withdrawn. The claim is that his publicists lied about Woods’
wholesomeness. Well, what is surprising about that? Publicists
are supposed to lie about their clients. They exaggerate their
clients’ virtues and hide their defects. In fact, I would argue
that the word publicist is a euphemism for “liar.” Maybe Woods’
critics should turn their wrath on his publicists, and let him
get on with playing golf. It is his golf game that attracted the
millions of people to follow him, not his sex life — though this
might now change.
One of the complaints now swirling around Woods is that his
handlers carefully manipulated his press conferences. In them he
would, according to an indignant golf correspondent, “talk
forever and say nothing.” Now this brings me to a matter that has
always mystified me about press conferences held for sports
stars. They almost never have anything interesting to say. Woods
is now being criticized for ornamenting his press conferences
with such vacuities as, “I had a pretty good day.” Apparently the
assembled reporters believe he had an obligation to add, “And I
am going to have a pretty good night. I have two bimbos waiting
in the limousine. They’re in the trunk with the
champagne.”
One thing has caught my eye in all the angry coverage of
this fallen golfer. He was a sports prodigy from a very early
age. Reportedly, at the age of two he appeared on The Mike
Douglas Show where he demonstrated his “perfect
swing” — the reference is to a golf swing, I am sure.
Apparently, he has been in the limelight ever since. He has won
about every tournament that an athlete in his sport could win,
often more than once. Then he retires behind a facade. His only
real interest has been golf.
I have actually known two child prodigies from different
sports, one a very popular sport, the other less so. For years
they dominated the opposition. Both men had one thing in common.
They were born blanks. There was nothing to them, aside from
their athletic achievement. Perhaps Woods’ critics among his
erstwhile fans and among the sportswriters would not be so angry
if they had recognized Tiger Woods’ emptiness. Still they only
have themselves to blame for investing in a superlative golfer
qualities that he never had. Yet give him this much credit: he
never made any claims to nobility. The errant politician always
does — and his loyal followers fall for his claims every time.
Even now there are Clinton loyalists out there insisting that
Bill is a noble man. Some might even believe he is a
virgin.
