I think I generally agree with this reader’s assessment:
The Edwards “revelations” were fascinating. Edwards’ supporters will, of course, respond back that our side has its reprobates, too, which is, of course, true — and entirely beside the point.
Our side’s reprobates rarely last as long, or advance as high, as Edwards for one singular reason: the liberal media. The liberal media routinely say that any inquiry into the character of a candidate is irrelevant, unless, as in Ms. Palin’s case, that candidate is not liberal so that anything that can be used under the guise of “exposing hypocrisy” is fair game.
Politics and power have always attracted deeply flawed characters like Edwards, and always will. The difference in our current culture, though, is that the deeply flawed nature of liberal is hidden and protected by the MSM, while being exposed and trumpeted if it involves a non-liberal. Thus, politicians like Edwards skate along far longer than they should, while politicians like Sanford are spit out of the body politic before ever getting a chance to go for VP or the Presidency. While liberals might say “you conservatives have your Edwardses, too,” our response should be “Yes, of course we do, and they are washed out precisely for those flaws long before they get the chance to become President.”
I guess we can offer a non-sarcastic “Thanks, liberal media!” for this.
(Some will object to the comparison of Mark Sanford to John Edwards. There was something strangely schoolboyish about Sanford affair, and his painful-to-watch, endless public disclosure of it all. We’re used to seeing politicians’ affairs as the older guy chasing his secretary around the desk; we’re not used to seeing a guy write love letters to his mistress half a world away. It’s still wrong, of course, but it suggests that it wasn’t the standard-issue sexual manipulation of a younger plaything. All of the revelations about Edwards suggest something ghoulish, e.g. describing to his mistress the wedding they would have once his wife passed away.)