The American Spectator

Reader Mail

(Page 5 of 11)

Let us not ignore Elizabeth as a full partner in this cover-up. She had a hand in planning the intricate details. Perhaps she can write the book for Bill and Hillary so they may come to a less contentious understanding.

We are told Edwards was not running for anything, when he has never stopped running for everything. As if he could.

If Edwards was a eunuch, there is no possibility he could be a great public servant. Socialism destroys the fabric of the public character. I'm telling you this?

p>Ben Stein's great mind illuminates all the better the ancient Greek maxim that we do not see things as they are, but as we are. But here's a more modern cure for this condition courtesy Will Rogers: When you are in a hole, stop digging. Please. br> -- James Wilson /p> p> I like Ben Stein, but occasionally he goes Malibu on us, wanting to hold hands as one big happy political family singing "kumbaya" while being blind to the fact that his thinking has become cluttered by too much green tea. Yes, of course, the neo-Soviet invasion of Georgia is more important than a lying philanderer. But, when that philanderer has a power base still able to effect national policy; when that philanderer has a near-psychotic separation from truth telling; when that philanderer has built his entire political reputation on being a great defender of "fair play;" and when that philanderer is still young enough to have a viable political career in the future, then all the tawdry lies, deceits and fundraising manipulations of John Edwards need to be researched, documented and shouted from the highest rooftops. Edwards is a political cancer: he invades healthy political areas, mutating reason with hateful class warfare in order to take over those regions for his own political ends. He brings dysfunction to the nation. Any opportunity to remove him permanently from the body politic should be grasped with clear moral foresight. The Edwards/Hunter affair/pregnancy should be faithfully reported because of its power to reveal, document and codify the consumptive fundamental hypocrisy of the adulterer John Edwards. br> -- Robin Wilkenson br> Collegeville, Pennsylvania /p>

Let's deal with Ben's position that this story "broke" after John Edwards was out of public service and not running for anything. This is false. And, if the MSM had even casually pursued this story, the "tabloid press" would not have had to do so.

Now let me address Ben's point that this was just natural behavior on John Edwards' part. While it is true that men are not monogamous by nature, women usually are; polygamous behavior is not an uncontrollable addiction. Now I do not have personal knowledge of the Edwards' marriage vows, but if they were in any way traditional, then he violated a sacred promise to his wife, at a time when she was dealing with a tragic illness. So much for honor and nobility.

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.

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