I'm Running.

December 8, 2001 12:07 AM

I'm Running. How stupid is this man? Does anyone think Gary Condit could/should win reelection to Congress?
posted by jameschandler (38 comments total)

Wow. No one has to vote for Condit if her or she doesn't want to do so. Here's a reminder: You can do what you like in America, as you long as you don't break the law or seriously injure anyone physically (and you're not tried and convicted for doing so, of course, or even indicted). Spread the news.
posted by raysmj at 12:20 AM on December 8, 2001

Isn't the man innocent until proven guilty?

Nevertheless, his political career has been ultimately fucked.
posted by Aikido at 12:30 AM on December 8, 2001

Gary Condit is as innocent as OJ Simpson.
posted by Real9 at 12:41 AM on December 8, 2001

Isn't the man innocent until proven guilty?

Yes. But, does that ameliorate the manner in which he stonewalled and hindered the investigation (as long as it was feasible)? He took credit for full cooperation while using every legal technicality and rhetorical trick to stave off embarassing questions that highlighted his affair. Again, the fact that he had an affair is not the issue (who cares?), the fact that he considered its concealment more important that a murder investigation is. Even if we knew for a fact that he had nothing to do with the murder/disappearance, his actions in response to the situation were reprehensible.
posted by RavinDave at 1:09 AM on December 8, 2001

raysmj: True true. This, of course, includes the right to point out the mental failings of those around us, particularly those in power, and laughing maniacally. A right I'm entirely willing to fight for, as without it I become quite unfunny indeed.

Funny ha ha.

On the bright side, won't this be a fun campaign? Disregarding, of course, the embarrassment of the locale, the inevitable step downward in political discourse, the forthcoming insinuations of foul play, abuse of office, distractions, etc., the strengthening of the precedent that you really can do anything and keep your job, and naturally the grating on the still open wounds of the family and friends, the damage to our image on the international stage and the near ignorance of most any other race in the country.

Aside from that, we should get some bitchin' bumper stickers!
posted by apostasy at 1:34 AM on December 8, 2001

and lets not forget that girl thats missing
posted by ducktape at 1:43 AM on December 8, 2001

Hey, Real9..

How's omniscience workin' out for ya? (I included the dictionary.com link to save you the effort.)
posted by Optamystic at 3:24 AM on December 8, 2001

I wonder if he's seen this?
posted by Potsy at 4:43 AM on December 8, 2001

Actually, the recent controversy has given him powerful name recognition. As the old adage goes: there's no such thing as bad publilcity. There's a number of other democrats threatening to run against him, and odds are people who don't like Condit will be hard pressed to combine their efforts to vote against him. The anti-Condit vote will be spread across more than one individual, which could help Condit get the majority. It depends largely on the people behind the scenes in Condit's camp; whether or not they know how to turn lemons into lemonade, and so far it looks like they're doing a good job.

I know it's frightening to some, but it's very probable he will be re-elected. God bless America, eh?
posted by ZachsMind at 6:11 AM on December 8, 2001

Please, he didn't stonewall the investigation, he just didn't mention that he had had a romantic affair with her.

It just makes me sick the way everyone seems to want to crucify the man even though the only thing potentially linking him to the disappearance was the fact that he fucked her.

Anyway, his political carrier is over, after all the dirt that was dug up. If it had happened on September 12th though, no one would know or care.
posted by delmoi at 6:13 AM on December 8, 2001

I think it's interesting that the Modesto Bee didn't see any Condit opponents on hand yesterday: "Calling it a tough decision but confident that voters will treat him fairly, U.S. Rep. Gary Condit on Friday defied the political oddsmakers and declared his candidacy for re-election. Forty minutes before a 5 p.m. filing deadline, the Ceres Democrat arrived at the Stanislaus County Elections Office in Modesto. He marched through a swarm of reporters and camera crews to the elections office counter..."

defeatgarycondit.org (Potsy cited above) seems to be one man, John Anthony Estrada, on a mission: "Building a network of Americans from sea to shining sea...to defeat Members of Congress who lost their way." He has sought support from a strange ally and is a Free Republic Forum member.
posted by Carol Anne at 6:15 AM on December 8, 2001

Strangely enough, the bad publicity that he generated over the Levy affair may just work to his favor.

First of all, he is an incumbent and will probably have name recognition, if nothing else going for him. Secondly, this could be a case where the locals rally around their favorite son who was being savaged by the mean old national media. Thirdly, never underestimate the basic ignorance of voters come Election Day.

I'm hoping to sate my schadenfreude factor with this. Condit is such a sleazeball and deserving of punishment for just being a public jerk that the thought that he would end up suffering a totally humiliating election loss would warm the cockles of my heart.
posted by MAYORBOB at 6:25 AM on December 8, 2001

zachs right, he probably will get re-elected.
posted by clavdivs at 6:30 AM on December 8, 2001

Is it possible to start a political campaign to encourage more lying adulterors into politics? I'm just tired of everybody assuming that all politicians should have the same morality as The Pope. It's never gonna happen.
posted by ZachsMind at 7:29 AM on December 8, 2001

Gary Condit is an American hero. Of course he'll win.
posted by fleener at 7:38 AM on December 8, 2001

(That's my way of saying this is a stupid link post.)
posted by fleener at 7:38 AM on December 8, 2001

Please, he didn't stonewall the investigation, he just didn't mention that he had had a romantic affair with her.

They weren't investigating overdue library books. Condit was the guy in the chair -- he doesn't get to decide what is pertinent to the investigation. And, yes, making it difficult for bona fide investigators to do their job in a serious matter is stonewalling.

USAToday:
Police have said Condit, 53, was not candid early on about his relationship with Levy. In carefully chosen language Thursday, he denied hiding the nature of his relationship with the 24-year-old intern.

"I worked with law enforcement people in every step ... to make sure that they had all the information that they needed," he told ABC's Connie Chung.

D.C. Assistant Police Chief Terrance Gainer immediately disputed Condit and said, "It took us three interviews and a lot of effort to get as far as we got."
posted by RavinDave at 7:54 AM on December 8, 2001

The thing that seals it for me is: A) Chandra Levy disappeared with none of her identification. B) the fact that the fine Democratic Congress critter was known to request that his women not carry id on them when together.

These two facts create set the default assumption that Chandra Levy was expecting to meet with Gary Condit when she disappeared.
posted by Real9 at 8:25 AM on December 8, 2001

The part that baffles me about this whole 'affair' is that he would ask her not carry ID. Why would anyone comply with that?

Clearly, the man is a low character, shady, disingenuous slimeball. Good thing there is a national practice of isolating these types by putting them all in institutions (congress - senate - whitehouse) where they will never interact with the public
posted by srboisvert at 9:12 AM on December 8, 2001

These two facts create set the default assumption that Chandra Levy was expecting to meet with Gary Condit when she disappeared.

That is utter gibberish.
posted by jpoulos at 9:37 AM on December 8, 2001

"No one has to vote for Condit if her or she doesn't want to do so. Here's a reminder: You can do what you like in America, as you long as you don't break the law or seriously injure anyone physically (and you're not tried and convicted for doing so, of course, or even indicted). Spread the news."~~ God Bless America.
posted by Kafei at 9:47 AM on December 8, 2001

Voters, collectively, get what (and whom) they deserve.

The plummeting number of people who actually bother to vote is, to me, a much more significant "scandal."
posted by sacre_bleu at 10:45 AM on December 8, 2001

B) the fact that the fine Democratic Congress critter was known to request that his women not carry id on them when together.



Nothing like unsubstantiated rumors to condemn someone, especially ones that are disprove later on.

No one, not one single person, knows of an incident where Condit asked Levy not to carry ID with her, at least, according to the police. If it was true, and the two were the only people who knew (and nether is speaking), then it would have been impossible for anyone to find out after the incident and inform the press. It's just complete bullshit.

But then again, we all know how effective the press is in retracting stories, to make sure everyone who read the wrong info is corrected.
posted by delmoi at 11:05 AM on December 8, 2001

Ultimately, it doesn't matter what I think. What matters is the opinion of the voters in his district.

If it were my district I probably wouldn't vote for him. I say "probably" because it certainly is possible to have a candidate that is less honest and with a worse voting record. Or another Lyndon Larouche, for example.

Gary doesn't have to appeal to me. I'm not his constituency.
posted by hadashi at 11:42 AM on December 8, 2001

wait! maybe when he said he was running, he didn't mean running for reelection but rather running for exercise or to get away from a mugger or something.
posted by mcsweetie at 11:46 AM on December 8, 2001

Look, if an almost-walking and (unfortunately) talking vegetable like Strom Thurmond can get elected to congress, anything's possible.

I think you should have to pass a test before you are allowed to procreate or vote. It should be as hard or harder than getting a driver's license. Who's with me?
posted by UrbanFigaro at 2:28 PM on December 8, 2001

As previously stated, he could probably get reelected if he plays up the "media witch hunt" angle.

Chandra Who? Nobody cares. The media hype has disappeared.

Sorry, but it's true. How many times have you thought of Gary Condit since 9/11?

Me? Not a single time. I'm way too busy worrying about Bush, Cheney and Ashcroft's new police state.

I wouldn't vote for the sleazebag, I can tell you that.

Then again, I wouldn't likely vote for his Republican opponent either.
posted by zeb vance at 2:29 PM on December 8, 2001

Voters elect dead men (Ashcroft lost to one before President Bush made him Attorney General). At least Strom Thurmond and Gary Condit can fog a mirror.
posted by sacre_bleu at 3:32 PM on December 8, 2001

UrbanFigaro, I'm with you. The American electorate cannot be trusted (except when my candidate wins, which is not as often as I and the American public deserve). --antiflame disclaimer: I'm kidding.

But what is true is that controversies like this never stopped anyone (except Gary Hart) and never stopped anyone from voting for them.
posted by Taken Outtacontext at 3:39 PM on December 8, 2001

Classic quote from Former Louisiana Gov. and felon Edwin W. Edwards, which relates to the phenomenon Taken Outtacontext was talking about: The only way he could can lose an election, he said many times, is "if I’m caught in bed with a dead woman or a live boy."
posted by raysmj at 4:23 PM on December 8, 2001

If I believed that Gary Condit would do more for me and my family than his opponent, I'd vote for him in a second. I don't care if a candidate has frequent anal sex with chipmunks, as long as they're going to serve my interest. Voting any other way is ridiculous. "I know he's for debtor prisons and the elimination of the black race, but congressman Smith is just SUCH a nice man...."
posted by Doug at 4:44 PM on December 8, 2001

and lets not forget that girl thats missing
And let's not forget that there hasn't been any creditable evidence that connects Condit to her disappearance.
posted by Bag Man at 5:00 PM on December 8, 2001

I don't care if a candidate has frequent anal sex with chipmunks

Wouldn't you at least want to know which one was the top?
posted by rodii at 7:34 PM on December 8, 2001

Chandra Who? Nobody cares. The media hype has disappeared.

The media hype may have disappeared, but there are still plenty of people who care that this young woman has disappeared in a manner which is strongly suggestive of foul play, and that a US Congressman was far less than candid in two out of three interviews with the police who were searching for her. Maybe the general public has a short-term memory, but there are plenty of us who haven't forgotten one bit.

The thing that I think Condit and others are forgetting is this -- Chandra Levy's parents are still alive and well and in his district. They consider the man scum and will likely do everything in their power to make sure that the voters in the valley know it in no uncertain terms, and more power to them in the process.
posted by Dreama at 11:58 PM on December 8, 2001

The charge that Gary Condit may not possess the moral authority to hold elective office isn't made because of his sexual dalliances. It's a matter of how the man behaved in relation to the authorities investigating the disapperance of his intern (because the police at first didn't ask him if he was involved with Levy, he didn't offer that information; that may be lawful, but it's hardly forthcoming, which is how he and his handlers spun it; moreover, was withholding that information, even though he wasn't asked about it directly, ethical, considering the intimacy of their relationship and, thus -- and this is the part that really matters -- the frequency of contact they had?), and a matter of how he interacted with the press immediately after the intern's disappearance and in the months that followed.

It's like the Clinton/Lewinsky thing all over again. Not the sex; the game-playing with authorities and the public. We're a forgiving people, we Americans; but don't play us for a fool. (Especially not again... and again... and again.)
posted by verdezza at 6:00 AM on December 9, 2001

The American people rewarded Clinton with high poll numbers, as far as I recall, and no one was being accused of being murdered (either directly or indirectly) besides, except by the lunatic right.

Whatever the case, the American people had never ever ever ever heard of Condit - a highly minor, Conservative Dem. Congressman (there you go, it's 341 on the power ranking, was 321 in the last Congress) - before. All they knew about was what they heard from anonymous sources, and his mug on the screen 24/7. He came across quite badly when he did speak too. But the American people had no sort of relationship with him before. His constituents did, though. And if they want to throw him out, they may certainly do so, or vice versa.
posted by raysmj at 6:38 AM on December 9, 2001

Sorry, conservative with a small C. Been writing a paper about Britain and the EU. It's long, thus the capitalization is becoming habitual.
posted by raysmj at 6:49 AM on December 9, 2001

Come now. The American people saw the Lewinsky scandal for what it was -- a rightwing attempt to embarass the president over a trifle (and boy, did they ever have to dig long and hard for that nugget) that had absolutely no bearing on his ability to lead. Yes, like Condit, he was evasive in answering question. But unlike Clinton, the stakes in the Condit situation were much higher. Had he been forthcoming, the police might have found a lead to pursue that might have led to finding Chandra or bringing closure to the family. Of course, we'll never know -- but that's beside the point. Moreover, the police had no interest in airing the lurid details of Condit's life beyond those that which impacted the Levy case. He simply had no defensible reason to stonewall. Dragging Clinton into this is just an anemic attempt to muddy the water.
posted by RavinDave at 7:43 AM on December 9, 2001