|
Defending Gary Condit is particularly difficult these days
because everyone thinks he is guilty of something -- as he most
likely is.
Yet even
the police continue to say he is not a suspect in a crime.
The array of talking heads that have appeared in the last few
days almost unanimously seem to avoid saying they think he was
involved in the disappearance of Chandra Levy.
Instead they focus on the his alleged insensitivity to the
Levy family, to his refusal to say flatly that he was sleeping
with Chandra Levy, or his body language (whatever that
proves).
Condit has been roundly criticized for his interview with
Connie Chung for his evasive answers to many of her
questions. Maybe if Condit had just felt our pain, maybe
have a tear roll down his cheek, all would have been
forgiven.
The D.C. police are saying that in fact Condit was not completely
forthright with his answers at first. But of course, the
D.C. police have a vested interest in the focus remaining on
Gary Condit. Those buffoons, after the largest search in
American history since the Lindbergh kidnapping, have turned up
exactly nothing in evidence as to where Chandra Levy might
be. As long as the attention is on Condit, they remain
safe from criticism.
Whether Anne Marie Smith has any ulterior motive remains to
be seen. But her lawyer says she is planning to file a
lawsuit. Can a book deal be far behind?
And the fact is, Gary Condit, a life-long
public servant, owes us, the public, absolutely nothing in way
of explanation. I hate to be the one to break the news to
anyone, but, legally, he owes the parents of Chandra Levy absolutely
nothing. (His moral obligation is a different story, but
this is Washington, D.C. were talking about.)
He may have a lot to explain to his constituents, but the last time I checked, our
Constitution protects individuals and their innocence, until
they are proven guilty. This is nothing short of a witch-hunt.
It seems some want to throw away the whole legal system because
a politician is involved.
Much has been made of the fact that Condit refuses to take
another lie detector test. Why won't he? BECAUSE THERE
IS ZERO EVIDENCE THAT HE HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE
DISAPPEARANCE OF CHANDRA LEVY. Just in case you didn’t get it
the first time, the police continue to say he is still not a
suspect.
But even if he is innocent, there is still the suspicious
behavior that he has engaged in since the beginning of the
investigation. Most notably, his failure to tell the truth in
the first two interrogations he had with police about his
relationship with Ms. Levy.
Let’s just imagine Condit is innocent for a moment, which
after all, is possible. Condit knows he has nothing to
contribute to the investigation because, since he is innocent, he really doesn’t have
any relevant information.
So he makes the decision to spare his own family and his
career and doesn't tell the police about his
affair. After all, he still has a wife, two children, and
over 30 years of loyal service to his
constituents.
He may have lied about cheating on his wife, but there is
still no proof that he lied about Chandra's disappearance.
Am I defending him as a man of decency and morals? No, but do
you know many power-hungry politicians that you would trust with
your daughter?
And let’s face it, if Ms. Levy was willing to sleep with a
married man -- a Congressman at that -- in the post-Clinton era,
then in what other types of risky behavior might she have
engaged in? Not to stomp on anyone’s grave, but she was no
saint.
With all due respect to the Republican Party and their dedication to the moral fiber of this county, we the American
people would rather you focus more on the dwindling surplus and
the crippling economy, and the highest unemployment in nine
years, than on the alleged participation of a Congressman in a
crime in which there is no evidence.
Is Gary Condit a saint? Surely not, but he answered every
single question truthfully, did nothing to slowdown the
investigation, and no one was more cooperative. As he said, too
many "rumors were turned into facts" and that is why I
do not blame him for not being forthright sooner.
Several people have asked me if I would vote for Gary Condit
if I lived in his district. The answer is no. He is way too conservative for me.
Conservatives have too few morals for me to consider ever voting
for one.
Defending the Man who Defended Condit
by Anthony Giardiello
Stop the presses. Hannity and Colmes agree with each other
for the first time. Who would of thought we would see these guys
cheerfully slapping each other on the back as they yukked it up
with their compliant guests who went along for the ride.
Compliant, with the exception of Political USA’s Mario
Giardiello.
The Condit bashing free for all came as no surprise and was
quite predictable. Republicans will do anything to take the
focus off of George Bush and the important issues of the day and
are downright giddy over the prospect of hanging Condit and his
dirty laundry out to dry. The Democrats seem more than happy to
let him hang there, flapping in the breeze. Lets face it, Gary
Condit is a conservative, the Jeffords of the Democratic Party.
The real story in the wake of his interview with Connie Chung is
how the Hill punishes free thinkers. Not the fake
"analysis" of what a terrible a job Condit did of
damage control. That is simply stating the obvious. While the
other guests on H&C were gleefully batting Congressman
Condit around like cats playing with an injured mouse, Mario
refused to join in, remaining above it all. And although Mario
did NOT defend Condit’s character, neither did he stand in judgment
like so many others who saw no risk in doing so. Mario is right
to defend Gary Condit’s entitlement to a presumption of
innocence.
And how would we react if Condit came off as sincere,
forthcoming, and remorseful? Would we all suddenly think
"Gee, what a great guy?" Would Republicans then
forgive him and the Democrats defend him? If you guessed no, you
guessed right. Maybe that would have meant he’s an even better
liar than we thought. Were we simply judging his ability as an
actor? Lets look at the facts (remember facts). There is not one
iota of evidence that Condit had anything to do with Chandra
Levy’s (remember Chandra) disappearance or even had any
motive. He has done nothing to hinder the investigation.
Regrettably, the D.C. police haven’t one clue and no idea how
to proceed. This is frustrating to be sure, but hardly the fault
of Gary Condit.
I predict that the Condit bashing will make him a sympathetic
figure to his constituents. I further predict that his
constituents will re-elect him if he decides to run again. After
all he may be a cad, but he is their cad.
By the way, Mario, no the TV does not make your nose look
bigger than it is. Be proud of that shnozz.
See
Mario's Mail
|
