"Gary Condit's Thoughts On Sex, Relationships" 
  09/01/2001

Gary Condit (D-California) promised to talk about his relationship with Chandra Levy. And, in a twisted way, I suppose he did. But talking about a relationship with someone and being open and honest about that relationship, I suppose are two entirely different conversations, especially if you listen to the doublespeak of the Condit Camp.

During his interview with Connie Chung, it wasn’t surprising to hear Condit refuse to discuss the intimate details of his special relationship with Levy, who has been missing since April 30. His tactic for avoiding the questions posed by Chung, specifically if he was intimate with Levy, 24, who was a former U.S. Bureau of Prisons intern, was to say the family did not want him to discuss specific details about his relationship. He was asked several times by Chung, in various ways, for particulars. Each time the question would come up, Condit would avoid the subject, yet maintained his demeanor.

The Levy family, during interviews with reporters, has said they believe Condit was having an affair with their daughter. Condit maintains that the two were friends and that he has been married for 34 years and is “not perfect." He maintained to Chung, as well as other reporters, that he didn’t want to discuss the specifics of his relationship with Levy out of respect for his family, as well as a “specific" request from the Levy family.

Let’s look at this a little closer, shall we? He didn’t want to discuss specifics about his relationship with Levy out of respect for his family? I wonder if he’s come clean, I mean truly clean, whiter than white clean, you know, get down to the nitty-gritty with his family. I don’t believe he has. It’s been nearly four months since the 24-year-old disappeared from her apartment, and it’s been nearly four months that Condit has remained mum on the subject. Sure, he’s been interviewed four times by various police agencies, but even they maintain that he has impeded the investigation into the young lady’s disappearance. Another point to consider, especially in light of his statement about respect for his family, is if he really respected his family, why would he want to hide behind a veil of suspicion, creating public ill-will and mistrust about his dealings with the missing woman. If he did have an affair with Levy, as many suspect, that doesn’t show much respect for his family, now does it? If he didn’t have an affair with Levy, and he continues to hide behind a thin veil of secrecy, yet creates suspicion about his intent, his relationship, and his trustworthiness, is that being respectful of your family? Again, the answer is no.

Moving on to the second point of respect, but this time about respecting the “specific" request from the Levy family, Condit had to eat his words. After using the alibi that he was respecting the Levy family’s wishes, he was challenged and later admitted that it wasn’t really a direct request from Chandra’s family that he was respecting, rather his murky interpretation of a statement made by Billy Martin, the Levy family attorney, on a television show in the days prior to Condit’s tell-nothing interview. That statement was, “They [the Levys] don’t really want to hear anything about the relationship; they don’t want to know how he felt about Chandra; they don’t want to know how Chandra felt about him – those are issues they’d like to put behind them," Martin said on CNN’s Wolf Blitzer show.

It’s heartening to see numerous lawmakers around the country, Democrats included in the
bunch, saying the 53-year-old congressman was evasive in his answers to Chung.

California’s governor, Gray Davis, when responding to questions at a bill-signing ceremony, said, “I didn’t see the interview, so my information comes from news accounts and transcripts of the interview, but I am disheartened that Congressman Condit did not speak out more quickly or more fully." He continued, saying, “I don’t have any specific advice for the congressman. What he should or shouldn’t do are matters best left to him and his constituents."

The day after Davis’ comments, Condit’s two children, Chad and Cadee, resigned their positions with the Davis’ office. Chad, 34, worked as an assistant to Davis. He dealt with
agricultural and legislative issues pertaining to the state’s Central Valley. His position paid $110,000 per year. Cadee, on the other hand, made $52,000 per year as Davis’ special
assistant, overseeing the day-to-day operations of the governor’s private office.

Just hours after the governor’s comments, the Condit Kids issued a statement about the
governor’s comments. They said, “Friendship should not be based on poll numbers. You may
remember out father’s strong public support, endorsement, and organizational effort for you during the bleakest moments of your 1998 primary campaign. It is that kind of loyalty to friends that has been the hallmark of his career and is a standard we strive to live up to. Continued employment with the governor’s office after your public statement regarding our father would undercut that standard."

The statement issued by the Condit Kids is telling, as well. Friendship shouldn’t be based on polls, huh? Nope, they are right, friendship has to have deeper ties that public opinion polls, but politicians have to follow the ups and downs of the charts. If they don’t understand that, they really don’t belong in politics, especially the lucrative jobs they seem to have landed in the governor’s office, or at least held in the governor’s office. Isn’t it interesting that Daddy Condit lent support for Davis’ campaign, only to be followed up with appointment of the Condit Kids to good paying jobs in Davis’ administration? I wonder if that’s called friendship or politics. In my neck of the woods, that’s called politics. Perhaps in California’s Central Valley that’s called friendship, but that’s not the kind of friendship I would like in my life – it’s too cheap.

The day before Davis’ comments on Condit’s actions, Chad appeared on CNN’s Larry King
Live, saying his father’s political future was up in the air at that time. “I don’t know if he’ll run again. My family vote would be that he doesn’t. I don’t think he deserves this. I don’t think my mom deserves this. But that will be decided in the next few weeks."


Chad continued with his dad’s propaganda, saying, “He doesn’t know where she [Chandra
Levy] is, what happened to her – anything of that nature." Really, Chad? Would you testify to that under oath? If so, how do you know that your father doesn’t have any idea where Chandra Levy is at, what happened to her, or anything else? Oh, could it all be, um, how do they say it in court, hearsay?

Also during the show, Chad refused to answer other questions about his father’s relationship with Levy, saying the family had made a mistake in choosing ABC’s Connie Chung to do the first public interview. “He answered all the questions Connie Chung posed him or asked him," Chad said. “We picked the wrong interviewer." Poor Chad. Poor Gary. Poor Condit family. I agree, the family did pick the wrong interviewer. They should have had someone there that would not have beaten around the bush and taken the political doublespeak. They should have had an experienced investigative reporter, perhaps, who would have asked tough questions, pointed and direct, and maintained the line, demanding the yes or no answer that many of the questions required. Ah, such is the art of interviewing.

So, now in addition to Chandra; Anne Marie Smith, the flight attendant who claims to have had a 10-month affair with Condit; as well as possibly involving his staff in perjury; now the Condit Kids have falling victim to their father’s possible indiscretions. Sure, the kids are adults and can make their own decisions, but it’s also logical they choose to trust and belief their father’s story over anything the police or press will tell about their father.

Over in alt.true-crime, Maggie wonders “if Gary Condit has ever in his life done *anything* wrong. Too bad for him that he's surrounded himself with such evil and irresponsible people – all of whom, even including his lawyer, lie and mislead."

On the rec.arts.tv newsgroup, Rote argued “the media has so thoroughly demonized him that
faultless or not, there was nothing that he could do to weather a line of questioning custom designed to underscore that demonization." In rebuttal, HudsonGrl said, “Condit could have batted a home run if he had acted compassionate and caring about Chandra's disappearance." She wrote that she didn’t really have any thoughts or convictions about Condit prior to his interview with Connie Chung, but has since changed her mind. “However, after the interview, my opinion of him was swayed negatively, because of his demeanor. I don't think the media "demonized" him until after Chung's interview. Anything that is happening to him now, he pretty much brought upon himself." Good call, HudsonGrl!

Then, over on the soc.men newsgroup, Jill and dg411 are arguing about Condit’s behavior,
including going out of his way to dispose of certain items of evidence in a dumpster, er, trash bin, um, perhaps you better read the thread of “Condit and the perfect man" for yourself and determine what was disposed of, and where.

Gary Condit’s weak excuses and poor technique when it comes to dodging questions, not only
from the media, but also from his constituents and the rest of America – you know, the other people involved in paying the salary he receives for his D.C. work – leaves me longing for better days. Well, perhaps not better days, but better lying techniques. In fact, it leaves me almost longing for Bill Clinton to re-appear on the scene to respond to the questions on Condit’s behalf. Maybe that’s Condit’s answer right there: get tutoring from Mr. Bill!

 - by Dave Jackson