John Edwards Exposed: How This Scandal Reveals The “Rielle” Scandal–Media Bias
July 28, 2008 / 8:47 am • By Dr. Melissa ClouthierThe comparisons being made between John Edwards and Larry Craig make little sense. Craig was convicted of solicitation, a crime, if a feeble one. Edward’s only crime is a moral one–if you have morals or believe in a moral code, which the Left does not. “Edwards Love Child, Yawn” is about the reaction.
The better comparison is between John Edwards and that big-church pastor in Colorado. I can’t even remember his name, but one look at his picture and I thought, “he is so gay”. A vindictive gay lover outed the pastor’s proclivities and alleged drug use. The media didn’t just investigate, they gloatingly relished reporting this man’s shame. Ace’s headline said it all, “Biggest Story Of The Century: Some Guy You Never Heard Of Is A Homo”. The pastor was not elected. He was not running for office. No crime had been committed (that had been confirmed). And the Left and press doesn’t give hare’s hootenany who screws who unless exposing the screwing person will benefit the Left somehow. Then all bets are off. But the pastor was conservative and extolled virtue, which made him a target if he ever displayed anything but virtue. In Edwards case, he’s a ambulance-chasing attorney who bloviated populist tripe–so he clearly has no virtue to besmirch. Oh, and he’s a Democrat.
Exposing Edward’s infidelity, love child, and the fact that it occurred while the loving father just happened to be running for president while his cancer-stricken wife campaigned for him benefits no one on the Left. In fact, it makes Edwards look like a scumbag and those who trusted his word a few months ago like a bunch of willful ignoramuses.
Thus the American media silence. Thus the media’s shameful bias.
If you read a newspaper in England, you’ll get the obvious conclusion. Not so, in America. Just try to imagine what the media storm would be like had Mitt Romney hid some love child somewhere. Imagine. Yeah.
Some people on the Left are getting the implications. The Google search is still amazingly thin. I did find pictures of Edwards with his new baby, though. Was it at the New York Times? No. The Washington Post? No. Was it at a right-wing blog? Yes.
No matter how you cut this story, it’s news. Well, it would be if Edwards had an “R” after his name.
Cross-posted at Right Wing News
UPDATE:
I don’t know why I didn’t think of this before, but just for giggles, I searched The New York Times for references to Ted Haggard.
Here’s the Washington Post.
Anyone want to explain why that guy was news but John Edwards isn’t?
3 Responses to “John Edwards Exposed: How This Scandal Reveals The “Rielle” Scandal–Media Bias”
July 28 2008 / 10:11 am
Reply
Once upon a session, fixing up the innernets by making sure everyone had the same opinion about everything as me…and I think it was during the Craig thing…I had challenged what the purpose was of these scandals nowadays, offering that I was having a lot of trouble thinking of a single conservative Republican who had survived a scandal, or of a single democrat who had not.
Someone offered up Torricelli’s name. No lie.
These people are sick. People arguing on the innernets, people who write for newspapers, the whole sorry lot. They wouldn’t know “objective” if it swam up and bit ‘em square in the butt.
Still, there is an element of validity to the argument that it’s about hypocrisy. The counterpart on the democrat side of the line would not be the discovery of infidelity, but rather of intolerance, since they’re supposed to have a monopoly on tolerance just like Republicans are supposed to be leaders in family values. And it does seem to work like that; the Jeremiah Wright thing did damage Obama much more severely than the Hagee thing damaged McCain.
I’ll concede that is a deeply flawed parallel, since McCain let go of the live wire while Obama hung on and got himself cooked. And some folks still want to skewer McCain over Hagee and just let the Wright thing go. But you can’t measure these things by observing the behavior of the extremist kooks. I think, within the reasonable moderates, most people are even-handed in weighing the damage on this stuff and they consider hypocrisy to be the worst sin.
It’s just that when democrats absorb damage by being caught in hypocrisy, *cough* Al Gore’s House *cough*, we don’t hear that much about it. Therefore, there’s no consequence. YES, I’m saying we live in a plutocracy, in which a class of elites decides who stays and who goes. Democracy decides who gets in, and then the “scandal” is used to polish the peoples’ choice down to the liking of those whose opinions really count. It’s that bad.
July 28 2008 / 1:03 pm
Reply
Here’s the Washington Post.
Anyone want to explain why that guy was news but John Edwards isn’t?
Ees Party Line, Comrade.
Don’t ask Political Questions.
Just sing along:
“O come let us adore Him,
O come let us adore Him,
O Come Let Us Adore HIIIIIM –
BA-RAAAAAACK O-BAAA-MAAAAAA!!!”