The similarities between the cases, and the conduct, of Ex-president Bill Clinton, and that of soon- to- be- ex- Congressman and fellow Democrat Gary Condit, are startling. This is true for both the conduct of the central figures, and the defense being put up for each.Now, we both know that the happenings of Bill Clinton, are well documented first in ‘Body Count ” and and in other places since, are well enough known.
So I won’t delve too deeply into them here, except in comparison.
Last I knew, we’re supposed to operate under presumption of innocence in this country. When we do so, we abandon the mentality of the mob.(A mentality which oddly enough, seems rather prevelant when Conservatives are accused of something or another.) So, we’ll push aside the ideas and arguments surrounding the charge that Chandra Levy is dead and Condit has something to do with that death, for the moment.
That done, there is still much in the way of similarity between Condit’s case, and Clinton,s vis-a-vie Monica Lewinsky, and the rest of the number of women.
In the time since Levy’s disappearance,
*Condit’s has engaged in Clintonesque evasion.
*Condit’s has engaged in Clintonesque spin.
*Condit’s has engaged in Clintonesque flat out lies.
*Condit, like Bill Clinton has apparently engaged in apparent attempt to suborn perjury.
*Condit, like Bill Clinton, is both lecherous and dishonest. An evil mix in normal life, much less public life.
*Condit, like Bill Clinton is rather cruel, at need. ( having obviously and deliberately misled and stonewalled Ms. Levy’s parents in the matter or where she was, and the nature of the calls made to him, by her, on his secure phone line..)
*Condit, like Bill Clinton, either delegated or ‘permitted’ aides run a Clinton-like whisper campaign against Chandra Levy. This ‘nuts and sluts’ tactic backfired rather badly, and was soon abandoned. A new tactic was promptly employed: Attack Chandra Levy’s parents. Sounds just like Bill Clinton, no?
It gets better: we now have reports from people investigating Condit that they are in fear for their lives. Just like Bill Clinton.
*Like Bill Clinton, Condit has a history of sexual abuse. Reports to show in the national media within a week of when this is written, report that Condit was investigated for it in 1983. The case officer at that time reported that the teenage girls he attacked were also terrified of Condit to the point that they fled their homes…
Just like Bill Clinton.
Also, the case file was later stolen…(Or was it simply mislaid?)
Just like Bill Clinton.
Clearly, Bill Clinton, if nothing else, has eroded our vision on the question of “private character” vs. “public virtue”. Integrity you will recall, used to be defined as ‘what controls what you do when nobody’s looking’. It is apparent that definition has been altered to ‘what you do when people are looking on’.
As a quick aside, let’s ask ourselves the question… Even assuming a public figure could be a sexual predator, and a criminal in private while being a prince in public, should s/he be rewarded for that roguish behavior with our high public offices? Do we really want to publicly approve of a leader who supposedly does their job well, but can’t seem to keep their hands off young interns? What kind of lesson does that teach the next generation, particularly in a society so consumed with protecting women’s rights, at the exclusion of common sense?
The biggest and first rule in “The Ethics Manual of the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct” tells members to “conduct themselves at all times in a manner that reflects credibility on the House.”
Now, look gang, I really don’t care, for the sake of argument, what you think or don’t about of adultery, per se’. It is, as it happens, still a crime in the District of Columbia, though I can’t find any record of it having been enforced recently. (I’ve looked) But regardless, does the House really want to say that having sex with an intern reflects credibility on the institution? That spin, evasion and flat out lies to cover up such entanglements reflects credibility on the institution?
That point having been raised, the question also comes to mind, what of Bubba? Assume for the moment, that Condit gets ousted, as he should. Does that ousting mean that the only reason Bill Clinton wasn’t ousted from his office was because, of the two similar behaviors, Condit alone was the one didn’t have the power of the presidency to protect him in his misdeeds?
Yes, it does.
But there is another similarity, here. A larger, more compelling and more dangerous one… and sadly one the Democrats are more likely to ignore… Sad, because it runs against their stated purpose of helping the helpless in our society. In this, it is revealing, as well.
At the bottom line, Condit, like Clinton, is one of the powerful, not giving a damn about the less powerful. In the Condit case, the Levys are just an average family. They have means that, relative to Condits, are rather modest. Condit knew full well they lacked the power to cause him any real problem and so wasn’t at all worried about putting his own self-interest above their needs. This elitism may also explain why the press is so reluctant to report on the matter… CBS and ABC in particular. The so-called mainstream press has show symptoms of this elitism in the past, even the recent past. I suppose and expect this is simply one more example of it.
Just like Bill Clinton; consider the treatment of the people who got in his way.. even the ones who were his sexual servators. There is a similarity in the way the press treated these, as well. Hump as many interns as you like, abuse your power all you like…. so long as you save the snail darter.
Don’t misunderstand; This is not to suggest Clinton broke any new ground for the Democrats. Consider the treatment of the Kopeckne Family by the press, and by Ted “Hang a left off the next bridge” Kennedy. Jesse Jackson, seemingly, is in similar trouble, and tried a whisper campaign of his own against the woman in question. William Kennedy Smith, of teh rape case of two years ago, is now considering a run for the Senate from Illinois. WHich would seem to partially
explain Hillary Clinton running from New York instead of her home state, Illinois. Gee… anyone would think there’s something of a pattern developing here, were this any other group on the planet. But these are liberal Democrats and so this problem goes without note.
The question has now elevated to the point of: “Are the Democrats going to stand up and be counted in their fight against the powerful abusing the powerless, or are they going to hide because the powerful happen to be Democrats?”
Alas, I fear the latter, given the long history of this situation.
But more, I fear the press, too, will let them get away with it again. And again, and again. And yet more, I fear so too, will the congress, who will ignore their duty, all in the interests of ‘diversity’, of course.
Humping interns is a diversity thing, isn’t it? Only a personal judgment, after all.
One wonders if the Amercan people haven’t had enough of the judgments of such abusers. And if not, why not?
Perhaps we’d better put some ice on that.
edit: (David L)