Jack Shafer smells a double-standard. Me, not so much. Shafer compares Edwards to Larry Craig, and correctly notes that Craig was not simply suspected of having sex with a man, he was actually charged with a crime. But Shafer still sees a double-standard. It seems to me that the crime--even more than Craig's hypocrisy--is key. I don't much care if John Edwards is having an affair. Who knows what arrangement he has--or doesn't have- with his wife? I do care if my public servants are breaking the law.
« A counter to David Brooks and debt | Main | Nerd Nirvana pt. 2: Dungeons & Dragons as a parenting tool » The Edwards "love-child" story23 Jul 2008 10:25 am Comments (11)
"Yet, if the press craves consistency, it owes its readers some sort of assessment of Edwards." No. FAIL. The Craig story was relevant in because 1) gay sexuality is a current issues interest story, thanks to sleazy politicians wanting to score points off of it who pushed it into the public eye 2) Craig's anti-gay policy stances were actually harmful to a lot of Americans. His attempted fling with another man in the bathroom is therefore of news interest. A standard marital affair is very, very old news as far as a topical issue goes. And the only people getting hurt are those directly involved. So the press "owes" its readers nothing. To my mind, it owes the Edwards some respect for their privacy. 
Yes, but what the story is really about is the media. Do you think the media would have essentially ignored the story if Craig did not have an anti-gay history? I think that they would have covered it just the same. I think that media would actually like to cover the Edwards story, at least subconsciously. But since no laws were broken, they feel like it is off-limits. If someone involved was arrested, then they would start to cover it.
Um, I think the really important point here is that the source of the news is not reliable, at all. Court proceedings take extreme pains to be accurate depictions of what happened. Which is why Craig's conviction was an instant story, the source was near unimpeachable, so they could run with it. The National Enquirer lies, all the time. They lie constantly and without reproach. Nobody should trust them. And any real news source should quadruple check any "facts" they claim are "true." Also, Edwards is not a current public figure until and unless he seeks office, or is put on the Obama ticket. So this is less important.
"i do care if my public servants are breaking the law": adding to what breukelyne said, i don't think the pertinent issue with craig was that he broke the law. that seems to me a straw man--i don't care if one of my public servants smokes a little pot, which is also breaking the law.
"i do care if my public servants are breaking the law": adding to what breukelyne said, i don't think the pertinent issue with craig was that he broke the law. that seems to me a straw man--i don't care if one of my public servants smokes a little pot, which is also breaking the law.
"i do care if my public servants are breaking the law": adding to what breukelyne said, i don't think the pertinent issue with craig was that he broke the law. that seems to me a straw man--i don't care if one of my public servants smokes a little pot, which is also breaking the law.
Craig was railroaded into copping a plea when all he was guilty of was having a wide stance. Ok, maybe not. Seriously though, wasn't everyone who had this same issue with Clinton during his escapade into perjury territory accused of being an uptight Purtan that shouldn't care about a man's private sex life? Clinton's criminality (not his sexual proclivities), like Craig's criminality, was (and should damn well still be) an issue that matters when we pass judgment on a government official in a position of trust.
Until the WOMAN comes out and says, IT'S TRUE, I'm not trusting the National Enquirer owned by a Hillary Sycophant. Sorry. I'm not saying it's NOT true, I'm just saying I need way more than the National Enquirer. And, if true, this is but another case... Men, I ask again.. He had 3 healthy children...if you want to cheat, why not get a vasectomy?
"A standard marital affair.." I care if my elected officials are having affairs. If you can't keep your covenant with God, how are you going to keep you word with me?
I'm not a fan of delving into public people's private life if it has no bearing on their job performance. Screw around, you get a pass. Are a drunk, let's talk. Especially as Edwards is not up for any job, this is doubly irrelevant. As for Craig, I don't care who he sleep with, per se, but if he builds he career on making the lives of homosexuals miserable, the fact that he engages in behavior he vilifies is entirely pertinent and deserves our scrutiny. The fact that he "broke the law," is to me a red herring. It was a dumb law that shouldn't exist. Good for him and any other gay people who break it. I feel the same as if he was straight and broke an anti-miscegeny law. He's kind of like a gay Strom Thurmond. He had a daughter by a black woman when there were anti-miscegeny laws in place, and was an ardent segregationist. The problem with Thurmond wasn't that he broke the anti-miscegeny laws, it was that he was an evil, racist, motherfucker. Same deal with Craig.
|
Subscribe to Ta-Nehisi Coates by Email 
Trailer for The Beautiful Struggle  Monthly Archives
Recent Posts
Keepin It UnrealStanley Crouch Is A Gangsta RapperConfessions of a 30-Year-Old GamerRice, Rice, Baby!Compa$$ionate Capitali$MJust Another Quick-Witted, Egg-Roll-Joke-Making, Insult-Hurling, Chinese-American RapperThe Irrelevant Rev. SharptonWal-Mart's Urban RomanceBlack and Blue |
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
To be honest, this would have been a huge story if JRE had been the candidate (and goes to show that "vetted" candidates not always are as vetted as people assume they are) but considering he is, well, nothing, I don't really care.
It is their business and as far as I can tell, it is not really proven (although I sort of believe it).
It would be relevant as a Presidential candidate because frankly it goes to explore the kind of person JRE is (just the same way I think McCain's first wife should not be grounds for attack but certainly should be ground for discussion because it illustrates McCain's "character"). But I don't see the point in exploring this since JRE is not an elected official in any kind of way.
Posted by benjamin | July 23, 2008 9:43 PM