Unless you’ve been living in a cave since last April, you undoubtedly have at least heard of the scandal surrounding missing intern Chandra Levy and Rep. Gary Condit (D-Calif.).
Some friends of mine complained that the media have spent too much time on the story and have blown the whole deal out of proportion.
Sure he hasn’t been completely straightforward, they say, but this story is turning into InternGate II.
I’ll concede that the coverage on cable news networks has gotten rather tedious. One can only stomach watching “experts” on Fox News discussing the issue so many times before a behind the scenes look at the making of an N*Sync video on MTV starts to look appealing.
But while the coverage might be a little much at times, it’s better to devote too much time to the scandal than not enough.
Condit should be attacked from every direction until he can shed some light into exactly how much he knows about Levy’s disappearance.
As a public official, Condit owes it to the voters in his district, as well as the nation, to talk openly about what he knows about Levy’s disappearance.
Even if Condit weren’t a public official, common decency says that if you know something about a crime you should offer the information.
Recently, Condit granted interviews for the first time since Levy’s disappearance. Condit first talked with ABC’s Connie Chung.
The interview was pitiful. Rather than taking the opportunity to clear the air and stop the media circus, Condit carefully avoided answering any questions about Levy with meaningful responses.
Condit’s son, Chad, appeared on Larry King Live shortly thereafter and decried Chung’s interview tactics saying that it was an unfriendly interview.ÿ
Of course it was unfriendly!ÿDid Condit go into that interview thinking that Chung would let him talk about whatever he wished?
He had to be expecting that she would ask if he was involved in Levy’s disappearance. And if Chung had let Condit read his prepared statement about his relationship with Levy and then left the topic alone, she would be working at ABC’s Siberian bureau by the end of the week.
It now seems that Condit never really intended to say anything about the disappearance. The interview with Chung really only served to tell the public a couple of things:
A. He has been married for 34 years.
B. He has not been a perfect man.
C.ÿ He will not discuss the nature of his relationship with Levy.
Thanks, Gary, I’m glad you could clear those issues up for us.
Here all along I had thought that Condit and all politicians were perfect.ÿ
At least House Democratic Leader Dick Gephardt came down on Condit after the interview, calling his lack of candor “disturbing and wrong.”
Gov. Gray Davis (D-Calif.) criticized Condit for not speaking sooner or giving more detail.
This all amounts to the Democrats trying to distance themselves from Condit.
With heavy criticism from the media and his party members jumping off his band wagon like rats off the Titanic, one thinks Condit would finally realize that he needs to be a tad clearer on what he knows.
If he knows nothing, then there’s no more to lose by coming out and talking candidly about his relationship with Levy.
And if Condit is trying to cover something up, well, then all this media attention will help to drudge it up.
So, while it’s tedious to see Condit discussion forums nightly on CNN, at the very least, the amount of coverage might finally get Condit to tell the public what he knows.
And he better do it soon.