The American Spectator

Reader Mail

Ben and John

8.19.08 @ 12:01AM

(Page 3 of 5)

Does this disqualify Mr. Edwards from being an effective leader? No. But, he did find it expedient to lie to the media concerning this affair and through them to the American people. Now lying, especially for personal gain, may be perfectly all right with some people; but I find it difficult to trust either the words or the actions of a man who would do that. If I can't trust a man, then I certainly do not want him representing me or my interests.

Now, I think that this story should be shelved, as far as continued public scrutiny is concerned. But it is important that the public have a clear idea of the character of their public servants.

As for judging, it is a part of life and we all do it. If Ben were serious about following his last words, he would not have written the article.
-- Michael Tobias

Although I normally have little disagreement with the writings of Mr. Stein, it seems to me that, in this article, he is completely missing the only salient point regarding the media coverage of John Edwards' affair.

Contrary to Mr. Stein's assertion that "courage and love of life is the real story here," I would argue that the only story here that is any of the American people's business is Mr. Edwards' complete lack of integrity. While a candidate for the American presidency and, as such, a recipient of the American taxpayer's dollars, Mr. Edwards repeatedly and publicly lied to the American people. Had he been a man of forthright veracity, as he represented himself to be, it would have been unnecessary for the tabloid media to have "hounded him into hotel basements and men's rooms" to expose the truth. Men of honor do not seek to avoid the truth -- they live by it. Further, the media's pursuit of that truth, which can indeed be accurately characterized as "vicious" in this case, can nonetheless in no reasonable way be held responsible for having "wrecked his wife's remaining life." Mr. Edwards, I'm afraid, bears the sole responsibility for that.

The familial collateral damage arising from Mr. Edwards' disgustingly deceitful actions is heartbreakingly tragic, but it does not constitute justification for withholding truth from the American people. To suggest otherwise, as does Mr. Stein in this article, merely elevates moral relativism to a higher degree of regard than that of eternal truth. In my opinion, this clearly shows that, upon occasion, Mr. Stein suffers from a case of "whacked priorities" himself. He advises us that "judge not, lest ye be judged is still good advice" but, frankly, I can think of no poorer advice when it comes to assessing the merits of a public official. Inasmuch as taxpayer's dollars were being expended on his behalf during that period, I, for one, both expect and demand the absolute truth regarding his conduct during that period. If they, our political candidates, will not provide the truth, then I fully expect our free press to disclose their dishonesty, regardless of the consequences to their loved ones, their career, or to the political party to which they belong.

While not unmindful that public officials, too, have a right to their private lives, I, as their employer, afford them no right to engage in immoral or dishonest behavior during their off-hours. Why? It's because such actions reflect on their character and their character, in turn, or lack thereof, can reflect upon myself and my country. I therefore demand good character from my elected officials and, for that matter, from anyone else whom I pay money to represent me. Had the debacle of President Clinton's lying to a federal court culminated in his being tarred, feathered and thrown out of Washington by a crowd of angry taxpayers, indignant over having been deceived into electing a deceitful, conniving reprobate, perhaps Mr. Edward's would have thought twice before he, too, deliberately tried to deceive an entire nation of his own people. Likewise, perhaps Mrs. Clinton, in her unsuccessful bid for the nomination, would have spared us her lies about braving the fire from Bosnian snipers.
-- Thomas Donley
Remus, Michigan

I've already heard a lot more of the Edwards' adventurous trek into the brave new world of the innovative and new developments in the "Marriage lifestyle." Who would think it that a lawyer to made his fortune suing "Big Tobacco" for the bad choices of other free and rational moral agents would be brought so low? Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.

I have already heard more about the Edwards follies than I care to hear. It would be nice that if these things were covered at all that the story would appear in the latest opera review on page 42. Good luck with that. As much as I would like to agree with Ben Stein, there are other considerations. These politicians want to occupy the most powerful positions in the world. They could have taken up teaching, become nurses and doctors, lead businesses, become professional soldiers or any one number of things and had good lives. But they want to walk on the national or even international stage. They will have the power to take my property away, limit medical treatments for my illnesses, and send my children to war. I want to know exactly who and what kind of people they are. If they don't like having their private lives put on display for one and all, tough. It's a package deal.

In our present extravaganza, once again we get to witness the old two-facedness of the media. When a Republican is caught doing the love dance in an airport restroom, it's fair game and it's a grand time for the circus to come to town. When a Democrat is discovered to have a secret love child, we'll get the same fun and games. But with the Democrats we will also get treated to the display of the troubled consciences of our media heroes, who wonder out loud that maybe "we" are going too far. All this hand wringing generates worries that our news wizards will develop carpal tunnel.

Yes. Yes. Poor Edwards has to go home and sit on his pile of money while thinking of what could have been. A few years from now, hardly anyone will remember this scandal. Then he can appear on Face The Nation and Meet The Press as the "tried and true," experienced yet above the fray "deep thinker" on the events of the day. The press might even stop and reflect on "what could have been" if only the self-righteous busybodies hadn't stuck their noses where they didn't belong. Then Brian Williams will come out of the wilderness like John the Baptists crying "Repent. Repent."
-- Mike Dooley

Ben Stein is apparently willing to overlook John Edwards' defining moment: saying that he had his affair while his wife's cancer was "in remission." Maybe that's not a "sign that Edwards might not have been a great public servant" for Ben Stein, but I'd bet dollars to doughnuts it's a primary disqualification for a ton of decent Americans.

As for "whacked priorities" the MSM's determination to ignore the story when Edwards was running for president is right at the top of the list.
-- Arnold Ahlert
Boca Raton, Florida

Ben Stein must have been writing in a hurry when he said:

"Nor is it a sign that Edwards might not have been a great public servant. The list of important men with great achievements who have had extramarital liaisons goes from Julius Caesar to Napoleon to Thomas Jefferson to John F. Kennedy to Bill Clinton and undoubtedly has a lot longer to run."

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Taxes, Bill Clinton, Business, Abortion, Law, Iraq, Russia, NATO, Socialism