"But he is instead facing prison for alleged campaign-finance violations, and it is our obligation to come unenthusiastically to his defense. He may be guilty of bribery, and if he were a sitting senator he would likely be guilty of gross ethics violations, but the facts do not support prosecuting Edwards under campaign-finance laws."
Say the editors of The National Review.
१९ एप्रिल, २०१२
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
५० टिप्पण्या:
Like Zimmerman's prosecution, it's punishment sought due to outrage, not any particular crime.
Sentence first, then the trial.
Yeah, I'm a total non-fan of John Edwards (and I'm not a Democrat) but I have a hard time seeing the crime. It looks a great stretch to me. There was a crime against his wife (at least in a moral sense) but that's an entirely different matter.
Anyone on the left who wants to grasp the seemingly insane notions of Constitutional jurisprudence that the right, to your evident incomprehension , stands for? Take note of how almost every right-leaning pundit thinks what's happening to their enemy, John Edwards, is wrong as a matter of principle. Would Edwards have shown the same dedication to principle for, say, Cheney?
Seems like the trial will tell whether the facts support the campaign finance charge.
The irony here is that plenty of Republicans have gone to jail or had their lives ruined less for what was illegal (think Scooter Libby) than what the Lefties thought ought to be illegal, especially for people on the other side.
Interesting to see who speaks up for one of the slimiest of the Left when they are hoist on that particular petard.
Proving once again that ethical and moral consistency resides on the right.
To the left, morals and ethics are at the disposal of . . . whatever.
And this has to be explained again because . . . ?
If there were a guy I'd put in prison without the necessity of having committed a crime, it would be Edwards. But I don't like this case a single bit, and this should not be prosecuted.
Would Edwards have shown the same dedication to principle for, say, Cheney?
Do you not know how Edwards made his money?
I'm only here to wonder about "louse". Strange word, that. Google Translate says it's "Laus" in German. In Spanish, it's "piojo". That seems much more phonically descriptive.
I think the campaign finance laws are a mess and should be struck down because they are impenetrable. On the hand, Bunny Melon sure funneled a lot of dough to Hunter to help Edward's campaign (and tried to hide the source of the money by using third party intermediate transfers). If there is nothing criminal about that, then sure, drop the case -- along with the farce that the "rich" are legally prohibited from donating more than $2,500(?) to candidates for federal office.
Remember the old Edwards-Coulter dust up in 2008? NR refused to support Coulter in that one. Now they don't like Edwards.
NR, always one step ahead of everyone.
The worst punishment we could all give Edwards would be to ignore him completely. His story's sordid enough without any need for outside piling on. Let him live with it and the rest of us live without it. He's, fortunately for the wisdom of the voters, a non entity. Pity his children.
sis, you are probably right. Psychologists say the worst way someone can be treated is with indifference.
rcocean said...
Remember the old Edwards-Coulter dust up in 2008? NR refused to support Coulter in that one. Now they don't like Edwards.
NR, always one step ahead of everyone.
That was at CPAC and if there was ever a "botched joke", as Lurch tried to spin one of his worst moments, that was it.
I've always thought Coulter had a very tough time dealing with her father's illness and death and that was one of the manifestations.
He is a despicable man. If he were not in the 2008 race, it would not have been easy for DNC to hoist Obama on all of you. May be perennial Hillary haters will still thank him for that. But I know there are many wishing for Hillary now in place of Obama.
Rielle's influence on the law hustler Edwards is a judgement from another court that will surely take Edwards down. He drew the deadman's hand when he submitted to her suggestions to enjoy adultery with her and never be caught.
Beware the power of the ambitious prosecutor.
If there are twelve pediatricains on the jury...he's fucked.
It's National Review, not The National Review. Just sayin'
Will HBO eventually dramatize this for us so we can understand how Edwards changed the game forever?
It seems to me that Edwards is being prosecuted for taking donations to pay off his mistress and not billing it as a campaign expense.
But paying off a mistress with campaign funds is a crime.
So...? He's being prosecuted for failing to violate the law?
"Would Edwards have shown the same dedication to principle for, say, Cheney?
Do you not know how Edwards made his money?"
Yes. Do you? Who do you see Edwards suing with deep pockets if Cheney was criminally charged with something?
Clearly, it's time to Constitutionally forbid one-term United States Senators who come out of nowhere politically from running for president.
Also, have you noticed that there is not one, single solitary person in the universe who will admit to supporting Edwards now? Yet his numbers were mediocre in 2008 and frighteningly decent in 2004.
Finally, John Kerry reportedly got a bad vibe from Edwards when he met him, which means that John Kerry is probably a decent guy. But Kerry nevertheless picked Edwards as his vice presidential nominee, which shows now more than ever how bad Kerry's political instincts are.
Keep rockin!
Edwards is one of the worst examples of malfeasance by the MSM. He was not only a US senator but the VP candidate of a major party and he had a love child right under their noses. But they had to let the National Enquirer report the story. Contrast that with Herman Cain, a Repub primary longshot. He had been a nationally-known figure for about three weeks and they immediately came up with rumors about him from fifteen years earlier.
Seven:
Kerry a decent guy? Maybe not a disgusting slimeball like Edwards, but I've always gotten a vibe of "this company commander is going to get us all killed" vibe off of Kerry. I can just imagine what it must have been like to be on his Swift Boat Crew - he pinged by NCO-issue Rupert Radar off the charts.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Rupert
a vibe of "this company commander is going to get us all killed"
Don't get me wrong. I loathe Kerry. I really feel sorry for the people who had to trust their lives to him in the military. But you can be a buffoon and still be a pretty good guy. I mean, most people are decent people. Just because he's an asshole who is wrong on policy and militarily inept, and he doesn't have the political instincts of even a tick -- none of that means that he isn't a decent person.
Edwards is a scummy, amoral shitbag. I do agree in this case with National Review, though, on mostly the same grounds.
Know what I like to say to Democrats? "Say, isn't John Edwards your hero and idol? No? Then why did you have a John Edwards bumper sticker on your car for 4 years?"
As most of you know, a very large number of Democrats kept their Kerry-EDWARDS bumper stickers on their car for Bush 43's entire 2nd term.
How do you like that! The Rs are starting to play chess.
If the press weren't so insufferably one sided, circling the wagons around all liberals regardless of what enormous scumbags they are, Edwards never would have had a political career. Everyone can go get outraged at what a jerk Edwards is (and they should), but everyone should be even more outraged at the outright lies the NYT and the rest of the MSM told in order to get this man into and keep him in office.
John Edwards is a shining example of just how distorted a picture the MSM gives when it does what it calls "reporting the news".
If the press weren't so insufferably one sided, circling the wagons around all liberals regardless of what enormous scumbags they are, Edwards never would have had a political career. Everyone can go get outraged at what a jerk Edwards is (and they should), but everyone should be even more outraged at the outright lies the NYT and the rest of the MSM told in order to get this man into and keep him in office.
John Edwards is a shining example of just how distorted a picture the MSM gives when it does what it calls "reporting the news".
Seven,
You're too kind to John "Do you know who I am???" Kerry.
Yes, I agree that he doesn't (quite) descend to Edward's level, but anyone that enamored of the petty perqs of office is way more than just a jerk in my book.
Curious,
Pediatricians on the jury.... that's brilliant! :-)
And why, we must ask, should the esteemed National Review stand up for John Edwards? Surely it is not principle... they simply don't do that there. Given the chance to crucify a Democrat, the folks at N.R.O. would simply ask where the nails and hammer were so that they could get on with it. There must be a different reason. And I suspect that reason is that there are a significant number of N.R.-friendly folks caught up in similar circumstances. Why should we.. ever... assume that N.R. acts in good faith? We don't assume that DailyKos and HuffPo do, so should the benefit of the doubt go to N.R. simply because they support Team Republican? No, I think not...
When people insist if Obama had skeletons in his closet they would have been found by the Clintons, I point to John Edwards.
Either neither Obama nor Clinton knew about Hunter and the baby, or they chose not to use it. Either way, evidence that they weren't as thorough at vetting as people assume.
If anybody was a louse they would hang for being a louse because that's what lice do. They hang around on hair pholickles follickles follicles, actually I don't know what follicles are let's just say hair. Lice hang on hair. Like crabs. Their little crab hands are actually hooks that hang onto pubes because that's what they're designed for -- pube-hanging. So if Edwards was a louse he'd be hanging.
but anyone that enamored of the petty perqs of office is way more than just a jerk in my book.
IMO that's well over 95% of all career politicians.
Glad he's not the VP -- what a mess that would have been.
And why, we must ask, should the esteemed National Review stand up for John Edwards? Surely it is not principle... they simply don't do that there. Given the chance to crucify a Democrat, the folks at N.R.O. would simply ask where the nails and hammer were so that they could get on with it. There must be a different reason. And I suspect that reason is that there are a significant number of N.R.-friendly folks caught up in similar circumstances.
You mean, Jonah Goldberg is running for President, has a mistress, and a baby, and he's being hounded and followed by sleazy reporters, and his millionaire buddies are giving money to his hippie girlfriend to shut her up?
Gee, what a coincidence!
In a perfect world, John Edwards would be penniless, and striken with cancer, and his testicles rot off.
Alas, this is not a perfect world, it never was. The little greedy gimp got greedier... while it maybe a sin, it ain't a crime.
Don't get me wrong. I loathe Kerry. I really feel sorry for the people who had to trust their lives to him in the military. But you can be a buffoon and still be a pretty good guy.
A pregnant woman is walking down the street. She is violently attacked with the intention to kill her baby. She loses her baby. (And if you doubt this happens, check out Keeler).
Okay, I am appalled by this crime. I am outraged and angry.
Since I am angry, I am not nice, right? That’s what we often mean by “nice.” We're describing a man who is not filled with anger or hatred. He’s nice and pleasant.
And we want people to be nice.
Nonetheless, when a pregnant woman has the shit kicked out of her, I would suggest a nice man would be angry at this vicious crime. He would want to do something about it.
Kerry writes this letter.
So yes, like many liberals (and conservatives!), Kerry is not angry or mad about a baby’s death. His lack of anger is what we mean when we say he is “nice”. We might also describe this niceness as vacuous, shallow, or empty. Nihilistic, maybe.
Consider the lack of feeling in his response! It’s pure ideology. His biggest concern is not the right to choose (what choice does a woman have when she’s attacked?) His biggest concern is to deny the baby’s humanity.
Is that nice?
It's rather like not sympathizing with a woman who had a miscarriage on the grounds that your sympathy might hurt Roe v. Wade. "Sorry about that fetus thing that you lost that has no moral value."
I assumed he wasn't getting any sex at home.
Compare the "vetting" of Edwards vs. the vetting of Palin, who actually had executive experience. But that 2 Americas speech was so awesome!
Okay, I'm got a case of dumb arse apparently, but someone tell me why $725,000 from Mellon to Hunter for Edwards, who doesn't account for the use put to, during a campaign isn't a violation of campaign finance law?
3/4 of a million for his bed buddy during a campaign isn't a violation.
I shall run for office forthwith!! :-))
"Kirk Parker said...
Curious,
Pediatricians on the jury.... that's brilliant! :-)"
Thans. I was thinking it probably should have been "OB's" though...
A great example of of principle over politics. It does exist on the left as well by the way; it's just rare. I've seen lefties defend process and principle even if it aides conservatives occasionally, once from Susan Estrich (I forget the context) and also from Alan Dershowitz several times.
"Why should we.. ever... assume that N.R. acts in good faith? We don't assume that DailyKos and HuffPo do, so should the benefit of the doubt go to N.R. simply because they support Team Republican?"
-- I follow the National Review about as closely as I follow the other two; every link I receive to DK is wrong on the facts or leaves out critical information. HuffPo, as an aggregation machine, is fine. Their opinion pieces are hit or miss, but usually not as stellarly awful as DK. The few times I'm linked to NR, I do not have to waste more time fact checking and debunking than actually reading the article.
That's enough for me; if you had just compared it to HuffPo, a relatively fair (if opinionated) site, you'd be right. But, really? Daily Kos?
I think I get it. NR can't be acting on principle, because it's axiomatic or something that they don't have principles. Therefore they must have guys of their own that they want to defend from similar charges, and of course giving the other side's guys the same benefit of the doubt is nothing at all like acting on principle, is it?
How come I never hear anyone in the MSN say that Edwards was poorly vetted?
Oh, that road only goes one way.
I still see the occasional Kerry/Edwards bumper sticker. What utter stupidity.
@ Saint Croix – I’m not a Kerry fan by any stretch of the imagination, but I don’t want the people entrusted to make laws for the entire country to do so because they’re “angry” or swayed by any other emotion. Kerry (or more likely the staffer who wrote it on his behalf) states in his email that he believes that attacking a pregnant woman should carry increased penalties but does not agree with granting the fetus legal status. I happen to disagree with Kerry’s position on abortion but would oppose the bill in question because it’s not something that should be done at the federal level (State law is another matter).
Also, have you noticed that there is not one, single solitary person in the universe who will admit to supporting Edwards now? Yet his numbers were mediocre in 2008 and frighteningly decent in 2004.
I will admit to having briefly supported Edwards in 2004/3, Seven, back when I was still a registered Democrat. Of course, I also flamed out at him (in a post which caused my father to rake me over the coals for use of obscenities "on a blog our relatives read") part-way through that campaign season and ended up campaigning heavily for Bush, so YMMV.
Am I priescent or what? I spotted John Edwards as a fake the first time I heard him speak.
Sorry, not the same with BHO, it took a few speeches.
@ Saint Croix – I’m not a Kerry fan by any stretch of the imagination, but I don’t want the people entrusted to make laws for the entire country to do so because they’re “angry” or swayed by any other emotion.
We outlaw crime because it makes us angry. (I grant you that this is mostly done at the state level).
I happen to disagree with Kerry’s position on abortion but would oppose the bill in question because it’s not something that should be done at the federal level (State law is another matter).
14th Amendment grants to Congress the power to protect babies and other people who are denied their civil rights. Congress does indeed have the power to protect people who have been denied their legal rights.
@Saint Croix
The law basically has 1 function. That is to protect the less powerful from the more powerful. Otherwise, we as a society break down into the anarchy of might makes right. An evolution has occurred in human society that has never before happened. Strong members of a social group ceding rights to weaker members.
Liberal anthropologist like to characterize some chimp societies, or gorilla societies as being benign, but that is just wishful anthropomorphism. If the dominant silverback gorilla wants something, he takes it, with no repercussions.
Slowly. western civilization has evolved to the point where this is recognized as a wrong. Eastern cultures are far behind us in these matters. Liberals, so caught up in being anti-western, are in danger of losing the very values they express as holding dear.
These actors/actresses/singers/entertainers, et al, espouse this or that eastern philosophy or cause, such as Islam, or communism. They neglect or ignore that these "'isms" would be the quickest to stand the "dissenter" against the wall. There is no dissent in Islam, there is no dissent in communism. By the very nature of these societies dissent is not tolerated.
I believe very strongly in the western ideals that the strong should help and defend the weak. That dissent is a necessity for our society to prosper. That each person has value, in and of himself.
Because I value each and every person, because I try to protect the weak from the strong, I seethe with anger at the casual disregard the left holds for babies. Not fetuses, not tissue masses, these are babies. Any other definition is BS. If you think its okay to kill a baby in the first and second trimester, why would you draw an arbitrary line at the third? Why would you stop at birth? Why would you stop at anything?
People like Zero, and Kerry, I hold in utter contempt. I would if I could, wish on them, the fates they wish on others more helpless than they. Hiding behind walls of money and the skirts of feminist, I regard them as the Saddam Husseins of our culture, little better than beasts in the fields, because that is the attitude they hold for us.
As far as a politician doing the right thing? That was George Washington, when he refused to be crowned King of America. We've gone downhill ever since.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा