The WSJ's deafening silence over the Mark Sanford affair
June 26, 2009 3:54 pm ET by Eric Boehlert
Or, alternate headline: The WSJ supports the impeachment of Mark Sanford, right?
Do conservative media double standards come wrapped with more neon than this one? I suspect not. It's almost comical to watch the Journal's right-wing editorial page, which crusaded and cheerled for Bill Clinton's impeachment for years, suddenly turn a blind eye when the Republican governor of South Carolina admits an extramarital affair, and then remain mum even after reports surfaced that the governor used taxpayer money to travel to see his girlfriend in Argentina.
Based on the intellectual standard (and I use that phrase loosely) the Journal established under Clinton, Sanford absolutely, positively MUST be impeached from office. Yet not only hasn't the Journal's editorial page made that claim, but the Journal's editorial page hasn't written one word about Sanford.
Crickets.
A. Sanford (and Ensign) both had lengthy affairs with married women. Clinton got a bj only, and had no emotional affair.
and
B. Sanford (and Ensign) both called for Clinton to resign over his bj. In level of intensity, Sanford (and Ensign) committed worse offenses.
Everything I said was factual and relevant and didn't unfairly attack anyone, but someone felt the need to do a thumbs down?
I must really have knocked them silly in a debate with them where they couldn't compete, and this is their only recourse!
Rank innuendo, filth, and smears are only to be used against Democrats, Cons deserve some respect.