My advice to John Edwards

Tell the N&O and the cesspool pundits to go eat worms.

Instead some Democrats say convention organizers will try to avoid the lingering questions if Edwards himself doesn't talk.

"He absolutely does have to [resolve it]. If it's not true, he has to issue a stronger denial," said Gary Pearce, the Democratic strategist who ran Edwards' 1998 Senate race. "It's a very damaging thing."

In the good old days, the N&O was a reputable and professional newspaper. Watching its steady decline into mediocrity has been like watching a slow-motion train wreck, leading to everything from whiny columns by John Drescher to the "some Democrats" foil in today's hit piece on John Edwards.

So tell 'em to fuck off, John. You're not running for office, and god knows you've done more than your fair share for this country. You have no obligation whatsoever to feed the frenzy of media madness that passes for journalism these days.

And as to the Democratic convention? You don't need that crap either.

James Protzman

PS. Just to be clear, I don't give a damn whether John Edwards is the father of aliens from another planet. It's his business. Period.

Comments

Some Democrats

think some other Democrats are full of crap. On days like this, I'm glad neither of those categories includes me.

_____________________________________

Jesus Swept, this December

Puppet infiltration of O-No! continues

This time, O-No! relies on the irrelevant musings of John Hood, who believes candidates should not have to disclose their corporate strings personal financial pictures.

_____________________________________

Jesus Swept, this December

Enough Proof

A few weeks ago it was all about pictures, and John being caught coming out of a hotel. Now those pictures have been released, and I think I could have done a more convincing photo shop in MS Paint. The whole thing would be funny, if not for the pain it is likely causing John and Elizabeth.

"Keep the Faith"

"Keep the Faith"

The media circus

is morphing into the Puppetshow. Sadly, they actually think they're doing their jobs when they pursue stuff like this.

I still say he should tell anyone who asks: "I'm not going to dignify your question by pretending like you're a professional."
_____________________________________

Jesus Swept, this December

It's just so damned stupid

Tom Tomorrow has a great cartoon in this week's Independent (sorry, no link). It's about the rise, slight fall, and resurgence of studity, not unlike, in message, like Pamela Troy's "The Power of Bone Stupid" (crossposted here ages ago).

I'm disappointed that Gary Pearce used TAP to "predict" that Edwards must address this because it was about to hit the major media. For some reason George Herbert Walker Bush was given a pass on questions about his mistress when he refused to answer them. John Edwards is occupying no office, and the only "evidence" they've got is so weak that the up-in-arms idiots insisting that he address it are now lowering the bar considerably for what accusations a public figure has to stoop to acknowledging.

Hell, even if there were really a smoking gun there, I don't think it's a matter of public interest. But here we go again tearing down a bright man with great potential to accomplish important things for his country because suddenly the National Enquirer is the standard bearer for what passes for weighty news.

Editor: Link to Tom Tomorrow's Rise and (Relative) Fall of Stupidity

Pearce

I was disappointed, too, but I give him credit for reading the mindset of the nattering classes who pass for journalists these days.

It's no wonder the caliber of people willing to serve in elected office has reached the bottom of the barrel. When the watchdogs do more slobbering and pissing than they do guarding against true threats to the common good, we all end up wet and stinky.

_____________________________________

Jesus Swept, this December

But James . . . . ~SPUTTER SPUTTER!!@#$%^&

I give him credit for reading the mindset of the nattering classes who pass for journalists these days.

What kind of mindreading was required there? Who the hell DIDN'T KNOW that the mainstream media would want to grab this and splay it all over their pages? The trend in that direction has been pretty consistent since Gary Hart and Donna Rice.

I just don't think I can give the boy points for the political equivalent of observing that the sun rises in the East and sets in the West.

Gary didn't say anything about the implications of the press pursuing this kind of blather. He didn't offer an opinion about the way the story was developed. He didn't talk about the history of men (mostly) who have served this country pretty well notwithstanding what we did or didn't know about their sex lives. He really didn't say a damned thing other than "um . . he better say something."

Or WHAT?

He'd better say something or the press will hound him? They're going to do that anyway.

He'd better say something or the public will just natter on and on? They will anyway.

He'd better say something or Elizabeth will find out?

WTF?

It's no one's damned business. Someone in a position of influence ought to be pointing out our acquiescence in this kind of game playing by the media is tacit approval. Why can't we have someone in a position of influence -- like, say, GARY PEARCE -- pointing out how ridiculous it is that this is a news story at all?

But noooooooooooo . . . . Gary takes the big brave step of noting what? That it's going to be a major media story.

Ya know, with Paris Hilton occupying so much of what passes for political discourse these days, I think we had that much figured out.

Okay. Yer right.

I was mostly trying to give him the benefit of the doubt.
_____________________________________

Jesus Swept, this December

You know - it's just stupid.

It's just S-T-O-O-P-I-D.

1. I don't care about his personal life, because it's none of my damn business.

2. I've had dinners at hotels with male friends and business colleagues with whom I have no other type of relationship.

This solidifies my impression of anyone who follows this crap as an idiot.

RTB doesn't deny that the goat-child is his

Extra folks, extra. Read all about it under the DOME.

Dahedgehog has just broken the story in RTB's own turf. Apparently, RTB has fathered a child by a goat and has not yet denied it.

I'd cut-and-paste but think ya need to go over yonder to the DOME and check it out.

The Emperor is naked!

Thank Hera someone posting at Dome can still tell the difference between making up the news and reporting on the news. It's a shame that a blogger (dahedgehog) is the only one.

Nicely done.

 

What I would do

Well if someone made the same accusation about me I'd be suing their ass off and demanding a DNA test to prove they're lying. I would make sure I owned that newspaper before it was over. Especially if I were a lawyer with a lot of experience suing the asses off people and could do it for free.

But that's just me.

BTW, this story has been around for a while. The N&O sat on it until they could ignore it no longer because they were being laughed at.

ETA: I mean I'd sue the NE not the N&O.

Well what about now.

...an almost impossible burden to meet to prevail in a suit for libel.

Nope. Either NE is factually right or factually wrong. There's no gray area. A simple DNA test would prove them wrong. Well it seems that NE is right so far. The truth is an absolute defense against libel. That would explain why JE isn't suing anyone. It would have been free since had he not been lying, NE would have paid his bills before it was over. And it's not like he's doing much with his time at the moment.

...all accusations must now be disproved by the accused.

There were actually a lot of people saying exactly that when three members of the Duke lacrosse team were accused of rape. I guess it all depends of whose ox is being gored. The difference here being that those three were innocent while JE is partly guilty at least. Those three told the truth while JE is now a proven liar.

It's none of your business. It has no bearing on any matter affecting your life or the public's interest. He isn't holding office. He isn't running for office.

Horsepucky. It is my business. He wanted to be President. He was routinely mentioned as either a VP candidate or as a possible US AG. It's clear he was not intending to retire to his palatial estates and mind his own business. Or do I have to wait until he's in office? Wanna' bet the palace in Chapel Hill is by way of apology to EE? Kinda' like that big diamond Kobe bought.

The man's a liar. And a scumball.

With regard to marital infidelity, you may live in a glass house but I do not.

You poor kid

...an almost impossible burden to meet to prevail in a suit for libel.

Nope. Either NE is factually right or factually wrong. There's no gray area.

Wrong. He's a public figure. The burden for public figures to meet in a libel case is very, very high. The malice element alone would be extremely difficult in a case like this. Maybe you'd benefit by knowing a little more about our nation's laws and legal systems. This was one of your more idiotic pronouncements.

It would have been free since had he not been lying, NE would have paid his bills before it was over. And it's not like he's doing much with his time at the moment.

Wrong again. There's no telling what the end of such a suit would be. No sane lawyer would advise him to pursue it, regardless of the truth or falseness of the paternity allegation. And as for time, I can think of far better ways for Edwards to spend what's left to him and his seriously ill wife. Or maybe you think these suits are fun, relatively brief and unlikely to add stress to a family already in stress.

There were actually a lot of people saying exactly that when three members of the Duke lacrosse team were accused of rape. I guess it all depends of whose ox is being gored.


What depends?
You didn't hear me calling for the players to be convicted. You got a point buried in there somewhere? How does the LaCrosse case argue against my statement that making the accused disprove an accusation is twisted? If you're going to be this danged illogical I'm going to give up on you, Loco.

It is my business. He wanted to be President. He was routinely mentioned as either a VP candidate or as a possible US AG. It's clear he was not intending to retire to his palatial estates and mind his own business.

No, it's not your business just because someone said he would make a good VP, because he once ran for President, or because you speculate with confidence (or maybe you're claiming omniscience) as to what his future plans might be.

No, It's not your business when he isn't running for office and isn't holding office. You just want to gloat. Why not admit that and quit pretending you have a legitimate concern here?

Finally, with regard to marital infidelity, the glass house saying (why do I have to explain this?) is just another way of phrasing Jesus' words to the mob who wanted to stone the woman. He said, "Let him who is without sin throw the first stone," not "Let all those who haven't actually committed this particular sin have at it."

Ha ha - the funny legal scholar

Read my original post. The point of the suit would be to defend his reputation. "Winning" in the legal sense would be irrelevant. It would have forced the NE to admit they lied and he wins, and salvages his reputation, even if it could not be shown that they lied with malice aforethought. But those suits can sometimes be successful.

Lawsuits
[Carol] Burnett drew attention in 1981, when she sued the National Enquirer for libel after the tabloid newspaper described her alleged public drunkenness, purportedly with Henry Kissinger. Burnett was particularly sensitive to the accusations because of her parents' own alcoholism. The case was a landmark for libel cases involving celebrities, although the unprecedented $1.6 million verdict for Burnett was reduced to about $800,000 on appeal, and eventually settled out of court.

Carol Burnett
(yeah, yeah, it's Wiki but I remember this story and it's correct.)

JE is filthy rich and has no other job. You don't think JE could pursue one single a lawsuit on 40 hours a week? I do. If he can't, he's not the lawyer we've been lead to believe he is. If he wins he gets paid on top of it.

But now we know there was no reputation to defend which explains why a lawsuit is all a moot point. To return to the original point of this thread, the so-called reputable news media sat on this story for months including the time JE was actually running for office. Seems like they are less creditable than the NE. Either that or they remained willfully ignorant to cover for him.

Don't give me a bunch of malarky about how much JE cares about EE. If JE were all that concerned about his seriously ill wife he would have a) not gone out and had an affair and b) not been running for one of the most stressful and time consuming jobs in the world. I'll bet he's put a hurtin' on her like cancer never did.

So let's review:
JE hires a woman for a six-figure salary even though she has no qualifications for the job. He then proceeds to have an affair with her at the time he's running for a Presidential nomination. He features his wife and children prominently in his campaign. Meanwhile his wife is desperately ill and apparently knows about the affair (if I'm reading the news correctly). When publicly confronted with his behavior he lies about it.

I did get caught speeding once. I guess that makes me morally equivalent to JE. I'm not entitled to sit in judgement on him. I take back everything I said. (Just how do you think the legal system impanels a jury if only perfectly innocent people are entitled to pass judgement?)

I'm am happy that I will no longer have to listen to a hypocrite like John "Two Americas" Edwards lecture me and that I am permanently immunized from his ever having an influence on my life.

Well, sue me for being right

But I am, nonetheless.

It's my burden.

I trust you're comfortable with making multiple unsubstantiated assertions about the Edwards' private life.

Enjoy the bliss.

Feh

On the occasion giving rise to the gossip column item hereinabove quoted, respondent, her husband and three friends were having dinner at the Rive Gauche restaurant in the Georgetown section of Washington, D.C. The date was January 29, 1976. Respondent was in the area as a result of being invited to be a performing guest at the White House. In the course of the dinner, respondent had two or three glasses of wine. She was not inebriated. She engaged in banter with a young couple seated at a table next to hers, who had just become engaged or were otherwise celebrating. When curiosity was expressed about respondent's dessert, apparently a chocolate souffle, respondent saw to it the couple were provided with small amounts of it on plates they had passed to her table for the purpose. Perhaps from having witnessed the gesture, a family behind respondent then offered to exchange some of their baked alaska for a portion of the soufflé, and they, too, were similarly accommodated. As respondent was later leaving the restaurant, she was introduced by a friend to Henry Kissinger, who was dining at another table, and after a brief conversation, respondent left with her party.

Anyone who doesn't throttle Henry Kissinger on the spot when provided the opportunity deserves to be libelled.

--
recently transplanted from Indianapolis, IN to Durham, NC

I wouldn't recommend drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me. -- Hunter S. Thompson

--
Garner, NC

I wouldn't recommend drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me. -- Hunter S. Thompson

Branden, if no one has told you recently.

you are a genius, which is evident in this statement alone. You need never post anything else, and I will remain convinced.

Anyone who doesn't throttle Henry Kissinger on the spot when provided the opportunity deserves to be libelled.

Do a Thomas Jefferson John!

PS. Just to be clear, I don't give a damn whether John Edwards is the father of aliens from another planet. It's his business. Period.* James

Neither do the Alien Lizards! All they do is rape, plunder, and act like Republicans media hounds.

When confronted by the same National Inquirers of that time about his affair with Sally Henning, He simply ingore the bastards and seize the day in the end.

True love is where you find it

I must admit that I would be quite interested in whether or not John Edwards is the father of aliens from other planets. That fact would mean so much to our world. The ability to have sex with aliens from other planets opens up a whole new realm for many of us. I personally have just about run out of available partners in my neck of the woods. Of course those aliens from other planets might not take to me. I mean, John is a right nice looking guy. Me, not so much. The sci-fi movies portray many aliens as being able to transform themselves into human-looking beings. Wouldn’t it be nice if they could transform themselves into the object of our desires. I would go for Christie Brinkley……. or Helen Crump from Mayberry. And that lady who lost the French election to Carla’s husband is attractive……..brunette and so serious looking.

If I have a child with an alien from another planet, will that child be considered an illegal immigrant? Can they go to the community college? Will they call me daddy?

National Enquirer was right

At least on part of it.

Have you ever heard of a liberal shooting up a church?

Two minds.

First, disappointed in Edwards the man.

Second, glad that we didn't have these strict rules for Eisenhower (who probably slept with his secretary), JFK (who slept with everyone), RFK (who supposedly slept around), etc.

Not horribly surprised by all this, even if I was hoping it wasn't true. That said, time to move along.

Jesus Swept ticked me off. Too short. I loved the characters and then POOF it was over.
-me

if it can be credibly asserted...

...that campaign funds were used to finance her rent, personal travel or other non-campaign expenses it may be impossible for them to resolve the issue privately; and the requisite investigation may be the thing that keeps this from simply going away.

unfortunately, as happened with vitter and craig, this may also spill over beyond his own life and may impact the presidential election tangentally...but it's hard to see how this might help dole in nc at the moment.

finally, as i've said before...jesus ain't running; and that suggests the remaining politicians will be imperfect people.

"...i feel that if a person can't communicate, the very least he can do is to shut up." --tom lehrer, january 1965

Sadly, yes, this aspect is what confers a patina of legitimacy

to the mainstream media's chum-fest. The funds aspect, that is. I don't think there's a strong argument that it has any effect on anyone's political campaign.

But if it can be proven that campaign funds were used to pay for anything other than political services (in the traditional sense), then they've got a "public interest" tack to hang this story on. The other excuse they're using is that Hunter was relatively inexperienced at the time of her hire. So far that's just a murmur, and I don't know how strong the evidence is there one way or the other.

But ya know, Hunter's relative campaign videographer's experience (or lack thereof) and her pay were known during the campaign, and the rumors about the affair were also abuzz during the campaign. If the mainstream press is going to maintain with a straight face that this story was pursued because of these legitimate concerns about campaign financing, why wasn't it pursued during the campaign?

I can't help thinking these "issues" are afterthoughts that the media wants to use as justification for their dogged investigation of a National Enquirer sex story.

if i was the msm's "fake press consultant"...

...i would suggest, as some are, that to pursue this during the campaign would have been to reinforce the tabloid aspect of the race above issues.

i would remind the questioner that only the national enquirer was running the story, and that our fine news organizations did not seek association with those who "front page" alien autopsies and the latest runors about oprah's weight.

we would probably not say that we held the story out of concern for elizabeth edwards; but i think some might argue that the msm should.

as for experience: let's not forget that edwards employed bloggers who were relatively new, which created issues...but also creates a precedent, should he choose such a defensive argument. that's a tactical point, however, and the stategic response might not addresss that issue at all.

"...i feel that if a person can't communicate, the very least he can do is to shut up." --tom lehrer, january 1965

It was PAC money, yes?

Is that the same as campaign funds? I don't think it is. Fine line perhaps, but the line is still there.

all of it is campaign funds

Does not matter where it came from, it all has to be reported to the FEC on campaign finance reports.

Have you ever heard of a liberal shooting up a church?

This is the "gotcha"

This is the afterthought of a rational for the mainstream media to pursue the story -- this matter of how campaign funds were used.

It's a given that this is a GOTCHA. He can't claim any privacy issue with respect to how the campaign funds were used.

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing
-Edmund Burke

the relentless news cycle...

...will have an impact on how long this story can live...as will the perception of his relative political clout.

the competition for daily news media attention will include both traditional gotcha news and celebrity gossip of all sorts, suggesting lindsey lohan could be as helpful to edwards' future image as a mccain flip-flop or the news from "soviet" georgia.

the rs will be less likely than more likely to revive this--particularly in light of the fact that america's most famous airport restroom is only a few miles from their convention hall.

"...i feel that if a person can't communicate, the very least he can do is to shut up." --tom lehrer, january 1965

I don't know what to think

That was one of the first big campaigns I was with. I shook the mans hand. I still value the ideals the campaign stood for, but its still hard not to feel wounded by hearing news like this.

to paraphrase george burns...

...everyday someone's moving issues that matter forward is a good day.

and in all fairness edwards did make issues of poverty and war and corporatism front and center in his campaign--to an extent others were not--and today those issues still matter, no matter what may have happened in edwards' private life.

so what do we do?

i guesss we accept this for what it is, get up tomorrow, and get back to work pushing issues that matter.

"...i feel that if a person can't communicate, the very least he can do is to shut up." --tom lehrer, january 1965

But, I think every single candidate for president......

A quote from John Edwards:

"But, I think every single candidate for president, Republican and Democratic have lives, personal lives, that indicate something about what kind of human being they are. And I think it is a fair evaluation for America to engage in to look at what kind of human beings each of us are, and what kind of president we'd make."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/24/60minutes/main2605038_page4.shtml

Have you ever heard of a liberal shooting up a church?

Yeah, really strong point there, except

he isn't a candidate.

He hasn't been a candidate for ever so long. Nor was he running for office when the National Enquirer reporters busted him in a hotel hallway late, late, late at night.

I'm still looking for the answer to the question of how this private matter has bearing on the current national political scene.

And I'm still wondering why folks keep pretending that this fairly significant detail has not already been noted -- repeatedly.

Where is the public interest in knowing that someone who isn't running for office or holding office had an affair two years ago?

It's really very simple

I'm still looking for the answer to the question of how this private matter has bearing on the current national political scene.

Even though he's no longer a candidate, millions of Democrats from across the country believed in John Edwards and his ideas about social equality. This affair is evidence (to some) that those Democrats were fooled into believing in something that exists only in their naive fantasies, and it raises the (maybe subliminal) idea that Democrats could be wrong about Barack, as well.

Conservatives will ride this thing into the ground. Not because of a dislike for John Edwards per se, but because it makes Democrats (as a whole) appear to have poor judgment when choosing a leader.

I just posted this elsewhere

but I'm going to go into more depth here.

So often, those of us who are avid followers of politics "believe in" our politicians. We have to stop doing that. They are not gods. They are men and women. John Edwards is not Jesus. Barack Obama is not the 2nd coming. They are men.

We have to believe in their policies, their ideas, and their plans. Because no matter what you think about John Edwards now that some of his inner Id has been exposed to sunlight, his plans for health care reform and his full-frontal assault on poverty in the US and abroad are damn good ideas. If it had not been for him being in the race, neither Obama nor Clinton would have paid as much attention to issues that affect the working poor, such as affordable accessible health care and child care. Edwards' political legacy - even if it ends today - is a strong one.

If you're looking for someone to believe in, either look in the mirror, or go to the religious institution of your choice. If you're looking to change society for the better, find the smartest politicians in the room, get their ideas, and work with them. Just don't hang out after hours with them, and don't think they're any better than anyone else, because they're not. In fact, many times, they believe, in their heart of hearts, that they are special. And many of them are - but they're not perfect.

Except of course, Joe Hackney.

oh geez, don't jinx the man, Linda!

Even if, yes, Joe Hackney is, in fact, the cat's pajamas, the best thing since sliced bread, and the surest bet we have for ethical leadership in either House of the General Assembly.

The New Math

Conservatives will ride this thing into the ground. Not because of a dislike for John Edwards per se, but because it makes Democrats (as a whole) appear to have poor judgment when choosing a leader.

Eh? Didn't John Edwards do about as well in the Democratic primaries as Fred Thompson did in the Republican ones?

In any case, Edwards was never in any real danger of seizing the nomination, so, uh, the Democratic voters did not choose him.

Admittedly, conservatives aren't known to be very good at math, so maybe your point stands.

--
recently transplanted from Indianapolis, IN to Durham, NC

I wouldn't recommend drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me. -- Hunter S. Thompson

--
Garner, NC

I wouldn't recommend drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me. -- Hunter S. Thompson

having made his statement...

...and assuming there are no future legal implications from all this, i agree.

"...i feel that if a person can't communicate, the very least he can do is to shut up." --tom lehrer, january 1965