Can't Anyone Read Anymore?

Dear LRC:

I'm stunned and incredulous.

The smartest political yak show in the mediasphere, the most insightful, out-of-the-box commentators on the airwaves, and you all four utterly missed the point.

I understand when CNN and Fox and tabloids miss the point. It's practically their job description.

But I expect better of you.

Four very intelligent people, and not one of you was capable of parsing several paragraphs in the English language--or as close as The New York Times gets to it.

The Times did *not* run a story making unsubstantiated claims that John McCain had an affair.

The Times ran a story arguing and providing evidence that McCain was capable of serious hubris and blindness in ethical matters--precisely because he's so damn self-confident that he is so highly ethical.

That is arguably a more interesting story. It is certainly a more relevant story when McCain himself puts questions of judgment, experience and character in the foreground of his own campaign.

The question was not whether McCain had broken any particular legal, moral or even ethical rules. The question was whether he allowed himself to do things that gave the appearance of impropriety--and in such a way as to amount to self-sabotage.

This is pretty much clear for those of us who read the headline before racing through looking for the naughty bits: "For McCain, Self-Confidence on Ethics Poses Its Own Risk." And that carries a burden of proof the article pretty much met.

There were three primary examples of this hubris--of which one (and only one) was the appearance to a number and the belief of some on his staff that he was having an affair with a lobbyist.

The other two main examples, on my reading, involved collecting donations from sources that seemed to work against McCain's own famous reform efforts, and (similarly) flying on corporate jets. The corporate jet example is the most fascinating because, on the Times'
explanation, McCain wanted to avoid the appearance that he was benefiting from helping to bring Southwest service to Arizona, so instead he essentially took gifts from corporations currying his favor.

I am saddened to see your normally high-minded (but not Public-Radio-Mind-Numbingly-Obtuse) show fixate on questions of genitals.

Are we all so marked by the Clinton era--and since by Mark Foley and wide stances and the rest--that we cannot comprehend issues of politics and character that remain above the belt-line? I hope not.

Come on, people: you're not Wonkette.com.

Sincerely,
Edward R. O'Neill, Ph.D.