Monday, May 04, 2009
Edwards postlude
I take no pleasure from kicking a man while he is down, but the AP ran a story on Sunday concerning former presidential candidate John Edwards:
"The two-time Democratic presidential candidate acknowledged Sunday that investigators are assessing how he spent his campaign funds — a subject that could carry his extramarital affair from the tabloids to the courtroom. Edwards' political action committee paid more than $100,000 for video production to the firm of the woman with whom Edwards had an affair."It's not enough that his wife is suffering from a terminal illness and that his political career is essentially over, but now he is subject to an investigation over payoff or hush money. As the article goes on to say, "willfully converting money from a political action committee for personal use is a federal crime."
I must be a bad person, because I do not feel a great deal of sympathy for the former U.S. Senator and VPOTUS candidate in 2004, although I do feel bad for his wife. I think that his constant litany of "Two Americas" must have made me numb toward him. Or, maybe in politics, both the message and the messenger are important and inseparable.
10 Comments:
By 
, at
Mon May 04, 03:28:00 PM:
You are not a bad person. John Edwards made $20 million in 4 years suing doctors based on faulty research. Tort lawyers like John are part of the reason the poor in this country have a difficult time getting affordable health care. I have sympathy for his wife and family, but I hope his victims get justice.
By 
TigerHawk, at
Mon May 04, 03:57:00 PM:
I think it is hilarious that the A.P. called him a "two-time" candidate. What are the odds that they were not deliberately hinting at "two-timing"? Or am I giving them too much credit for wit?
By , at
Mon May 04, 04:13:00 PM:
Elizabeth's cancer seems to be taking it's time. Not very consistent with my experience as friends and family died.
Wasn't her cancer announced as certainly, absolutely, and beyond all doubt fatal almost two years ago?
I can't wish John any fate but to vanish from American politics.
OTOH my mild curiosity about her cancer is just that, a mild curiosity; I hope she is cured.
By , at
Mon May 04, 04:46:00 PM:
This story demonstrates the importance of a free and independent press (emphasis on independent). As I remember it, the NYT et al were eager to publish Front page innuendo about a Republican candidate's supposed indiscretion, but suppressed the Edwards story until a after scandal tabloid forced them to report it. As bad as the current administration is, it would have been even worse to have had an administration dealing with the sort of problems Edwards was willing to inflict on us. He deserves all the grief that federal prosecutors are going to deal him.
As for his wife, yes she is a victim Edwards. But even after she knew what he had done, not only did she publicly stand by his side but she very actively abetted his continuing efforts to become president, risking a scandal that would have badly damaged this country. I wish her good health, but I have no sympathy for either of them.
By , at
Mon May 04, 05:23:00 PM:
Three things:
1) Elizabeth's cancer is in fact incurable and will eventually kill her, however her timeline was in years when it was last announced.
2) The idea that this guy's career is over may be far reaching. If you are a Democrat you have innumerable public lives. Look at Gary Hart, Bill Clinton, any of the Kennedy's, Charlie Rangle, etc... The newest reclamation project who will be back in the public eye in no time will be Elliot Spitzer. This piece of dung is being hailed as the kind of cop we needed during the mortgage fiasco; how it was his vigilence that showed the true AIG and other big banks. Spitzer is not even remotely a sympathetic figure and even he will be back. Once old Johnny becomes a single father, holy-hell bar the door for sappy naratives coming from his direction.
3) His ego is so enormous and his belief that he personally can change the course of this terrible America will drive him back into our living rooms and the lap-dog press will beat him up for about 60 seconds before they are eating out of his hand again.
By , at
Mon May 04, 06:37:00 PM:
Why do you claim that Edward's wife is suffering from cancer? How do you know she has a terminal disease? You know it only because Edwards told you and you know he is a serial liar.
Please supply your medical evidence before you again repeat Edward's self-serving story!
By , at
Mon May 04, 08:08:00 PM:
Gee whiz!
I was the Anonymous who posted at 13:00.
Is there any reason to believe this is an Edward's lie? I don't.
QuakerCat: Thanks for the information. Even when using Google it can be tedious to sort out her situation. And I am pretty lazy about such matters.
I don't feel as negative as you do about Spitzer. He was a mean jerk and a bully (avoiding more accurate organic and anatomical words).
But when caught he fessed up and took the consequences.
Perhaps he will now be a better person and do some good work.
Usually when I post as Anonymous it just shows I am lazy. My more usual signature is:
K
By , at
Mon May 04, 09:27:00 PM:
Edwards is a criminally sleazy scumbag. His wife was a partner in all of his efforts. Based on past lies, I believe the cancer to be a faked propaganda ploy, for sympathy. I hope he gets major prison time.
By , at
Tue May 05, 09:30:00 AM:
K - the reason I think Spitzer was a piece of dung is because of his use of the huge splashy headlines to try company's with virtually no proof. His use of the media to try companies in the court of public opinion versus real evidence would make even McCarthy blush. If you look at all of the headlines he created and the number of convictions he actually had (none), you really wonder whose good did he really serve. Was running out one of the smartest business minds in our day out of AIG really good for our country? Would AIG have engaged in such huge swap exposure under Greenberg's control? It is tough to speculate, but based on the 30 year career of fantastic success, I am thinking the exposure would have been a lot less.
The point I am making is that Spitzer emodied all that is bad about a liberal politician who does not have any type of push back from the press. As a matter of fact, they fed this asshole's ego and made him feel invincible. So much so, that when he went to Albany as Governor he tried the same strong-arm, all bluster/no facts tactics on his own party and it failed miserably.
So the prospect of a jerk like Spitzer coming back, does no favors to the prospect of having any type of real give and take political dialogue between different schools of thought.
By , at
Tue May 05, 04:48:00 PM:
QC: I agree. Spitzer behaved terribly. He was a mean, self promoting bully who lectured others about their transgressions.
When he was caught virtually no one helped him. That tells you a lot.
The guy was a Democratic Governor of NY. Normally the unions and media and party would have fought all the way for him. He could have committed axe-murders and they would have made excuses for him.
To me that says even the liberal establishment disliked him as a person.
Even so, I have no concerns about whether he again is in public life. Let his deeds after the disaster tell us if he has changed.
Your view is equally valid. Maybe he is really the old Eliot in a new suit.
K
