Today it seems that not liking someone is an accepted reason for prosecution.
John Edwards had two main things against him: he acted like a scumbag to his former wife, who was a very sympathetic woman; and he was a partisan politician during the reign of another party. That seemed to be enough. Not only was he charged with numerous offences that were widely known to be trumped up, but there was very little public outcry.
I don't want to repeat the whole sad story, but there's a good analysis of it here: John Edwards case was once thought too sensitive, Justice official says and Government failed to prove case in Edwards trial, jurors say.
For the people behind the prosecution it was win/win: even without a conviction, Edwards' dirty laundry has been so thoroughly aired that not only is his career unrecoverable, but his party's reputation is tarnished as well.
It's easy to call for justice in cases like that of Aung San Suu Kyi, the Burmese politician and winner of a Nobel Peace Prize who was detained for decades by a military junta. It's not so easy to stand up for someone like John Edwards, who is thoroughly unlikable. The big story in the John Edwards case is not that he cheated on his dying wife, but that he was a victim of malicious and politically-motivated prosecution.
4 comments:
I'm sorry, but the "big story" on John Edwards was that everyone in the media knew he was cheating on his cancer stricken wife and said nothing until the National Enquirer broke the story. If Edwards was a Republican who happened to frequent a certain airport bathroom, would they have buried that story, too? The real story is the the media in the US is so enamoured of Democrats that they get a tingle in their leg when Obama speaks and bury stories that might tarnish the party.
Thank god for reputable new outlets the National Enquirer!
Really? I've read that the first President Bush had a mistress before, during and after his time in office, and eveyone in Washington knew about it.
In the case of Edwards, if the Republicans knew then I'm sure they didn't want it revealed in the hopes he'd become the candidate and they could reveal it at the best tactical time. (But as I understand the story, prior to the Inquirer's revelations, it was all just rumors.)
To think that somehow the Republicans are more the victims here than Democrats seems pretty rich, especially given Newt Gingrich masterminding the impeachment of Bill Clinton for lying about an affair when lots of people knew that Gingrich was doing the same thing.
Let's face it, both parties have a pretty disgusting track record on how they treat their wives.
"Really? I've read that the first President Bush had a mistress before, during and after his time in office, and eveyone in Washington knew about it."
The early nineties was a different time, a time before a certain democrat lied about a cigar,a dress, and an intern. Look at the unsubstantiated and politically driven allegations leveled at every single candidate for the Republican nomination and compare that to the velvet glove treatment Edwards got. Sorry, but Bush I was a lifetime ago.
Sorry, Rat, I don't see any velvet glove treatment for Edwards. There was a period of a few months when people suspected something, before the story came out, but I don't think they were deliberately concealing it. After the primaries, I remember reading something about the Hillary campaign suspecting something. Now the Hillary campaign had no reason to hush anything up for Edwards; for one thing, Edwards spent every debate viciously attacking her. For another, no Democrat wanted someone with that big a scandal to win the nomination. It's my understanding that they didn't spread the tale (and there all sorts of backdoor ways to do that) because they weren't sure. Also, as I understand, The Inquirer did quite an impressive bit of investigative journalism.
As to "the unsubstantiated and politically driven allegations leveled at every single candidate for the Republican nomination," I don't know what you're talking about. Ron Paul? Michele Bachman? Rick Perry? Santorum? There were more than allegations about Gingrich and Cain: they were true. I really don't see this as a point where the Republicans get hit worse than the Democrats.
Post a Comment