What exactly has he been paying attention to over the past fifteen years, if it's not the world? and
Fred Dumbo Thompson is still alive?
Fred's point-by-litany: Spitzer, Blago (either he believes that's Blagojevich's last name, or else One Take Fred didn't want to chance it), McGreevy, Kilpatrick, Mrs. John Conyers [sic], William Jefferson, Rangel, Murtha, Roland Burris, John Edwards, Bill Clinton. Yuh see any pattern he-yur? Fred asks, rhetorically and with only six extra syllables.
Okay, so we haven't even said anything nasty about Michael Jackson--yet--which ought to prove beyond all doubt that we don't speak ill of the unplanted dead, but ol' Fred's riper'n' the back room of that Kosher butcher shop used t' be over on Westfield Boulevard, so at this point it's somebody else's fault he's not on the other side of the grass. It is, of course, easy enough to point out that some of us could actually identify everyone on the list and maybe cough up a list of their misdeeds, or alleged misdeeds (we're sure Fred, who was a pretend prosecutor before he was a pretend Presidential candidate, wouldn't convict anyone without a fair trial) thanks to The Media; s'easy enough to ask what political figure in American history got as much bad press as Bill Clinton's johnson, or which in the past five years reached Blogojevich levels; some of us might even recall that "Mrs. John Conyers" was christened Monica. More partisan observers of Fred's bipartisanship might be heard to suggest that list would barely cover a decent week back when his party was in power, or that it responded to ethics charges against Tom DeLay by changing the definition of ethics. (There are, of course, many sound reasons not to belong to either party; not having 'Gary Hartpence' tossed at you by some dipshit who imagines it's some sort of Magic Rhetorical Ninja Throwing Star is one of the best.)
Instead, we'd just like to know two things. One, what conceivable news environment exists where the unexplained disappearance of the governor of one of These United States would not be "news"? Particularly when accompanied by a series of conflicting explanations, and non-explanations, from the man's staff and family? And that's leaving out the part about how it was his Republican opponents in South Carolina who were apparently responsible for the truth leaking out. How can anyone in 2009 America--even someone who's been deceased for much of the 21st century--suggest that a politician + sex story plays out in partisan fashion? Maybe one could get covered up that way, but once it feels daylight the 24-hour carnival is on.
Two, if the Sanford story really is a (bipartisan) scandal of John Edwards, et. al., proportions, why did we see such a concerted effort to minimize the effects as soon as the story broke? We haven't seen the likes of the Republican stampede which took place the moment another Clinton cock-sniffer grabbed an express flight to Hypocriteville since the Bush II administration took control of Federal oil and mineral leases. If it's so fucking bipartisan that it's unfair to bring it up, might we enquire as to why you don't even wait on the facts before waddling in?