Gail Collins, "Remembering the Affair to Remember": People Who Live in Glass Houses Should Not Throw Stones

How does a national columnist write an opinion piece concerning the sexual foibles of politicians from South Carolina without a mere mention of former Democratic Senator John Edwards? In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Remembering the Affair to Remember" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/04/opinion/collins-remembering-the-affair-to-remember.html?_r=0), Gail Collins, focusing on former Republican Governor Mark Sanford's effort to return to his old House seat, demonstrates how it can be done.

Do I find the lives and loves of Edwards and Sanford remotely entertaining? No. On the other hand, it might serve Collins and her readership well to examine the ethics of her own beloved newspaper.

In a December 4, 2012 op-ed entitled "Iron Empires, Iron Fists, Iron Domes" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/05/opinion/iron-empires-iron-fists-iron-domes.html), Thomas Friedman falsely alleged that Israel's planned E1 construction "would sever any possibility of a contiguous Palestinian state." This was followed by a December 20, 2012 editorial entitled "The Fading Mideast Peace Dream" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/21/opinion/the-fading-mideast-peace-dream.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=1&), in which The Times went on record as stating:

"So far this week, Mr. Netanyahu’s hard-line government, defying the Western powers, has approved construction of more than 6,000 new housing units. The approvals follow an announcement late last month that Israel would continue planning for new development in the E1 area — a project northeast of Jerusalem that would split the West Bank and prevent the creation of a viable contiguous Palestinian state."

Unfortunately for both Friedman and the editorial board of The Times, E1 construction by Israel, if it ever happens, will not sever the West Bank. This is a fact.

As provided by Section 15 of "Ethical Journalism, A Handbook of Values and Practices for the News and Editorial Departments" (italics added) (http://www.nytco.com/pdf/NYT_Ethical_Journalism_0904.pdf):

"The Times treats is readers as fairly and openly as possible. In print and online, we tell our readers the complete, unvarnished truth as best we can learn it. It is our policy to correct our errors large and small, as soon as we become aware of them."

As further provided Section 16 of the "Handbook of Values and Practices for the News and Editorial Departments" of The Times:

"Simple courtesy suggests that we not alienate our readers by ignoring their letters and e-mails that warrant reply."

The New York Times did not bother to correct Friedman's op-ed piece or its editorial, notwithstanding my e-mails to Andrew Rosenthal, its editorial page editor, and Margaret Sullivan, its public editor. Moreover, both Rosenthal and Sullivan didn't bother to reply to me.

The ethics of politicians and journalists? Today, is there any difference?

Quite honestly, I am far more perturbed by the conduct of Friedman, Rosenthal, Sullivan and the anonymous editorial board of The Times than that of Edwards and Sanford.

Gail Collins, "Mr. Edwards and the Shrimp": No Mention of Jobs, No Mention of Seamus

I ordinarily don't read Gail Collins's New York Times opinion pieces anymore, which have become tedious, vacuous and repetitive. Today, however, I made an exception and read "Mr. Edwards and the Shrimp" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/02/opinion/john-edwards-and-the-shrimp.html). I was curious whether Collins would relate to the horrifying May jobs report (see: http://money.cnn.com/2012/06/01/news/economy/may-jobs-report/index.htm) and/or again regale us with her lame running "joke" concerning the Romney family dog. Needless to say, no mention of the economy, and this time no mention of Seamus.

How bad is the economy? No one sums it up better than Peter Wehner at Commentary (see: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/06/01/obama-overmatched-by-events/):

"It’s not simply that the unemployment rate rose from 8.1 percent to 8.2 percent, or that it’s remained above 8 percent for 40 consecutive months, or that in May we gained less than 70,000 new jobs. Nor is it simply the fact that in May the number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks and over) increased from 5.1 million to 5.4 million. Or that the average work week fell to 34.4 hours. Or that, as John [Steele Gordon] points out, March and April’s jobs reports were revised downward. Or that in May, stocks suffered through their worst month in two years."

So what did Collins tell us about John Edwards in her op-ed?:

"But, somehow, the public realized that this guy who looked so good and sounded so glib was really a fraud."

Peculiar, but I can think of someone else who also "looked so good" and "sounded so glib," who managed to be elected in 2008.

Maureen Dowd, "Brutality of Servility": Politics and Narcissism

Today, in an op-ed entitled "Brutality of Servility" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/25/opinion/dowd-brutality-of-servility.html), Maureen Dowd holds John Edward's stinky feet to the fire. Edwards is being prosecuted for receiving illegal campaign contributions, however, as observed by Dowd:

"The case is supposed to be about exceeding a $2,300 individual campaign contribution limit, quaint in light of Citizens United. But it’s really a set of intersecting love stories. Andrew, a caricature of calculated servility, loved his golden boy boss — 'more than he loved Cheri,' his wife, Rielle said.

Flaky Rielle loved the 'hot' meal ticket Johnny. Bunny Mellon crushed on John because he reminded her of the Kennedys. And John, of course, loved John, growing so narcissistic that he was blind to Andrew’s bile and his own grand delusions."

If there is a silver lining to this story, Edwards, according to Dowd, has learned to get his hair cut "for $12.95, not $400." Hmmm. If Edwards is not convicted, maybe Obama should hire him to head up the Office of Management and Budget.

But what about Obama? No, I'm not suggesting any extramarital hanky-panky (Michelle would whip his ass), but why does Dowd avoid reference to the purchase of Obama's Chicago mansion? On the same day Obama purchased his house, the wife of convicted felon Tony Rezko bought the adjacent empty lot from the same seller, who wanted to sell both properties together. However, as reported by ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4111483&page=1):

"While Rezko's wife paid the full asking price for the land, Obama paid $300,000 under the asking price for the house. The house sold for $1,650,000 and the price Rezko's wife paid for the land was $625,000.

Obama denies there was anything unusual about the price disparity. He says the price on the house was dropped because it had been on the market for some time but that the price for the adjacent land remained high because there was another offer."

Nothing unusual about the price disparity? Yeah, right, this was no sweetheart deal . . .

But let's ignore any possible allegation of a bribe or kickback. Instead, let's focus on whether Obama received a gift, which went unreported to the IRS. According to the IRS (http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=108139,00.html#2), a gift is defined as "Any transfer to an individual, either directly or indirectly, where full consideration (measured in money or money's worth) is not received in return."

In 2005, when the Obama/Rezko real estate transaction was consummated, there was an annual exclusion of $11,000 to each donee. Did Obama receive a "gift" in excess of $11,000? Should a Form 709 have been filed by the Rezkos, listing Obama as a "donee"?

Yes, narcissists, whose lives are guided by an exaggerated sense of self-entitlement, are drawn to politics like moths to a flame.

Gail Collins' "The Year of Living Adulterously": Frankly, My Dear, I Don't Give a Damn

Another Thursday, and another Gail Collins op-ed, this time entitled "The Year of Living Adulterously" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/19/opinion/19collins.html?hp), which obsesses over the sexual misdeeds and marital indiscretions of Republicans and their spouses. Collins writes in her New York Times column:

"What is it with Republicans lately? Is there something about being a leader of the family-values party that makes you want to go out and commit adultery?

They certainly don’t have a lock on the infidelity market, and heaven knows we all remember John Edwards. But, lately, the G.O.P. has shown a genius for putting a peculiar, newsworthy spin on illicit sex."

Obviously concerned with a possible Mitch Daniels candidacy, Collins pointedly observes:

"Daniels is apparently worried that a presidential run might prove embarrassing to his wife, who ditched him and the kids and ran off to California to marry a doctor and then later recanted everything and came back. I think it is pretty safe to say that this topic might come up."

I suppose Collins thinks there is no need to rehash the Monica Lewinsky affair, or to examine the current living arrangements involving the Clintons. Yes, I'm certain they're the ideal couple.

No need to mention former New York Governor and Attorney General Eliot Spitzer and his trysts with high-priced prostitutes.

No need to mention former New York Governor David Paterson, who acknowledged having extramarital affairs.

No need to mention former New Jersey Governor James McGreevey and his extramarital affair with a male employee.

No need to mention Congressman Barney Frank and his relationship with Stephen Gobie (see: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/03/who_is_barney_frank.html).

I could continue ad infinitum; however, perhaps it is wiser to refer those who are interested to a Newsweek article entitled "Sex Scandals Through the Years: Both Parties Even" (http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/the-gaggle/2009/06/25/sex-scandals-through-the-years-both-parties-even.html).

Of course, if the Democrats formally decide in Charlotte to run in 2012 as the "non-family-values party", I suppose that their pecadilloes will be exempt from criticism by the American electorate.

Are marital infidelity and sexual indiscretion peculiar to politicians, or are they part and parcel of the human condition?

"Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn!"