Gary Condit is back, once more trying to spin his way into the good graces of his constituents. Being a loyal and liberal Democrat, there is a part of me that would like to see Condit clear his name. By all accounts, Condit has been a respected and productive member of Congress for many years. That would seem to count for little now, because the man has established himself as a liar and a cheat, and his continued political survival past this Novemberís election is suspect. This is as it should be. Even I canít spin this one.
The events of 9.11.01 were, in a twisted way, a godsend for Condit. After the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the search for Chandra Levy was, understandably, no longer front-page news. Ms. Levy is still nowhere to be found, and to her parents that is still front-page news. No one knows the degree or depth of Rep. Conditís involvement, because he is not talking about her disappearance- to the police or to the press.
Granted, I cannot begin to know all of the pertinent details and realities of his involvement (or lack of same) in her disappearance. What upsets me is the stalling, the obfuscating, and the prevaricating that have been designed solely to maintain his political position. The sad part of this is that a young woman who had a brilliant future before her is nowhere to be found, and a Congressman, who by all accounts has until now served his district admirably, is caught up in it somehow.
Personally, I don't much care about the intimate details of what Condit did or did not do with Levy. The hot oil rubdowns, the weekends at his apartment- hey, weíre all adults, right? What is at issue here is his appalling and self-absorbed conduct. The fact that he a) committed adultery, b) lied about it, and c) has been implicated in Levy's disappearance, ought to be more than enough for the voters in his district to send him packing in November. He deserves it.
But aren't a) and b) requirements for a politician?
by Charles at February 27, 2002 2:27 AM
Not requirements, perhaps, but certainly extra credit....
by northstar at February 27, 2002 6:49 AM
I don't know. If Bill Clinton is aloud to get a BJ from an intern, lie about it in court, and get impeached by Congress, and still stay in office, Gary Condit should be aloud to screw an intern, have her killed, lie about it, and get re-elected.
I imagine the next sex scandal will involve a politician felching with an underage intern on video. That may seem outrageous now, but by the time it happens, no one will care. It's sort of like scandal inflation.
by mg at February 27, 2002 9:49 AM
Indeed. The threshhold of outrage continues reach new heights (or depths)....
by northstar at February 27, 2002 11:51 AM
How can I gain access to the world in which Mr Condit lives? Or for that matter, the Benet-Ramseys? The world where you are the prime suspect in a murder, and when the police show up at your door you say, "No thanks boys, no interviews today!"
by westernexposure at February 27, 2002 12:55 PM
MG, you're AWFUL. But I'm laughing!
by jean at February 27, 2002 8:20 PM
So much of this kind of sh*t wouldn't be an issue if we just had term limits. Politicos spend their careers focusing on getting re-elected, not serving the public.
by Charles at February 28, 2002 5:00 PM
Term limits also weed out effective political representation- not just the dead wood. Term limits are a simplistic solution to a complex problem. The problem is that politicians mirror the society that elects them- venal, self-centered, narrow-mided, ignorant, and generally self-absorbed. How will term limits fix THAT???
by northstar at March 1, 2002 1:27 PM