In the Right

The lengths to which reporters, producers, and even on-air talent will go to try to cajole you into letting them interview the boss under fire is ridiculous.

(By way of example, in the middle of one such crisis, I received a voice mail from the anchor of the most popular television morning show in the country, imploring me to bring my boss on his show. He had done his homework and had learned that I am a golf nut. His message included an invitation to play a round of golf with him after the show's airing, at his New York country club -- a venue that has regularly hosted PGA Tour events. I declined to return the call.)

So far, at least, Ensign has done about the best he could do, given the weak hand he dealt himself.

Once he and his advisers realized that he faced a threat of exposure, he had to get back in control of his own fate.

And the only way to do that was to break the story himself, at a place and time of his choosing.

The place was obvious -- home, in Nevada, where the local press corps would, he and his advisers figured, give him an easier time of it than would the Capitol Hill press corps.

The statement was elegant in its simplicity -- Ensign acknowledged what he called "absolutely the worst thing that I've ever done in my life," took full responsibility for his actions, and said a simple "I'm sorry" to everyone involved.

He did not make his wife suffer the indignity of standing by him as he acknowledged his failing.

He did not use weasel words or the passive voice.

And he refused to take questions.

By refusing to take questions and leaving after delivering his prepared remarks, Ensign guaranteed that the only thing he could be quoted saying was something that he and his advisers had already decided was alright for him to be quoted saying.

Now, contrast Ensign's handling of the revelation of his extramarital affair to the revelation of the extramarital affair of another Sen. John E -- John Edwards that is.

Edwards denied the affair for months, even when accosted directly by reporters.

When he first acknowledged to his wife that he had, in fact, cheated on her, he continued the lie, by telling her that it had been just a one-night fling.

When he finally caved to the pressure and decided to acknowledge the affair publicly, he made sure his wife was ready to acknowledge publicly that she had forgiven him.

(Trust me -- no wife wants to be standing by her husband's side when he faces the press on a matter like this. They line up dutifully because their husband's handlers convince them that not to line up will be taken by the press corps as a sign that she has not forgiven him.)

Consequently, Edwards looks to all the world like the jerk he is, while Ensign may end up looking like a man who broke his marriage vows and is truly sorry for doing so.

The irony, though, is this -- because Edwards is a Democrat, and Ensign is a Republican, it is likely Ensign whose presidential aspirations have just evaporated.

Why? Because for a certain segment of the population, the simple knowledge that a man has broken his marriage vows is enough to disqualify him for higher office.

"If you can't trust him to keep the vow he made to the most important person in his life, how on earth could you trust him to keep his word on a simple little political promise, for goodness' sake?" goes the thinking in such quarters.

Those quarters are largely inhabited by adults of voting age who happen regularly to vote for Republican candidates -- in particular, in places like Iowa and South Carolina, two crucial early stops on the route to the GOP presidential nomination.

Odd, this. But, sadly, likely, nevertheless.

Follow me on Twitter!