I wrote critically about Republican Gov. Mark Sanford's infidelity, and Ta-Nehisi Coates gets on me for being mean to Sanford, saying he doesn't really get why conservatives are so willing to be harsh to their own.
Now, had I not criticized Sanford, how many liberals (perhaps not Coates) would have crawled all over me for being "hypocritical" and willing to overlook the sins of people on my side? You'll remember when I and others reacted favorably to the way Sarah and Todd Palin handled their teenage daughter's out-of-wedlock pregnancy, we got creamed for, yep, "hypocrisy."
There's no way to win with liberals in these matters. You simply cannot please them. Whatever you do or say will be the wrong thing.
UPDATE: I just posted this to the Sanford thread below, the one about his love letter to his mistress, bragging about his world travels and the prospect that he'd be the VIP nominee. Because that thread is far down the page, you might not see this:
That "not worthy" comment was harsh, and I withdraw it. What Sanford did was revolting, but I'm in no position to judge his worth to his wife and kids. By now, regular readers know that I feel extremely strong about fidelity to spouses and children. I get emotional about these things. If, God forbid, I was ever tempted to cheat on my wife, I hope I would have the presence of mind to know that I was not only betraying here, but betraying two little boys and a little girl who believe in their father, and who count on him to be the man he professes to be. When I see that bond broken in marriages that have children, I feel it intensely. Reading Sanford's e-mail love letter, all I could think about was his wife and kids. I should probably not blog about men who betray their wives and children until I've had time to cool down.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Wow. I just read T-NC's post, and all the comments over there.
The depth and thoughtfulness of the discussion, the intellectual engagement ... I cannot believe that Rod could read through that and have no reaction beyond "Coates said something mean about me!" I'd be thrilled to read a blog post and comment thread here at CC that was as thought-provoking as the post Dreher linked to.
In any case, others here have made this point, but it's worth repeating: you're making the mistake of pigeonholing everyone to the left of you as "liberal" and then assuming that they all must have exactly the same opinion on every issue and circumstance.
Instead of complaining that you can't "win" (because one "liberal" criticizes you for X and a different one criticizes you for Y), you should be considering whether there's any validity to either of their ideas. The blogosphere isn't a zero-sum game.
From the article at: www.thestate.com/sanford/story/839350.html
"E-mails, obtained by The State newspaper in December, between Gov. Mark Sanford and Maria, a woman in Buenos Aires, Argentina."
Thomas R. posted: "...but it's very hard to argue Sanford's was undercovered."
Actually, I think a damn good case can be made that this was effectively hidden by The State and other media sources. I mean, going by Rod's own standards in the Edwards case, the media had an alert that Edwards was having an affair for around 8 months (Oct 2007 to July 2008) before Edwards confessed. Rod finds much to critique the media for in not pursuing the story in that case, in spite of several media outlets saying they could not verify the story. He raises the banner of "liberal media bias" in his accusations.
I am curious as to what Rod believes the media in this case did by sitting on the story for six months while Sanford was being trotted out on national news programs as a potential GOP candidate for President? Is this evidence of the "conservative media bias" or simply good reporting techniques in waiting for confirmation before going with a story?
After reading Coates' original post, I'd say that Rod acknowledged that he was right by making the updated comment that he did.
And I really like this comment from Coates:
What good is marriage if it doesn't humble men? What good is a creed that does not leave you self-aware and conscious of the evil that lay in the marrow of us all? What, precisely, is the point?
Of all the damage that our Crossfire political culture inflicts on society, a lack of self-reflection is by no means the least.
Of all the damage that our Crossfire political culture inflicts on society, a lack of self-reflection is by no means the least.
Yes, exactly. I thought there was a lot of matter for reflection and introspection in Ta-Nehisi's post and in the comments that followed it. I wish Rod had encouraged people to read that post and thread, rather than dismissing it as a win/lose left/right thing.
"Actually, I think a damn good case can be made that this was effectively hidden by The State and other media sources." RJ
TR: Yes I'm sure a person can make a case for anything they want. They can make a case Michael Jackson's death is being undercovered or that we should've covered OJ more.
However Sanford was not running for President this year, or 6 months ago, and yet once it was out the coverage was just as harsh on him as Edwards. So yeah you really really love stories of social conservatives in scandal and don't think Rod punished this guy enough. I get that, but it has nothing to do with reality.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.