Doesn’t your own family story (however embellished) speak against your prescriptions? Does it never occur to people like John Edwards that mill workers bringing babies home to a two room house have a powerful incentive to improve their own circumstances with hard work and industry? And doesn’t the fact that John Edwards’ own father took the initiative to move his family out of that house within a year of little Johnny’s birth impress him? Instead of pointing to my humble beginnings in a shack to impress you with what I didn’t have, I think I might be more inclined to say, "Look at what I’ve been able to achieve for myself now!" and point to his . . . what DO you call a house like his? Mansion doesn’t quite capture it . . . But then, maybe Edwards is embarrassed by how much he’s been able to accomplish without much hard work or industry (at least in comparison with the hard work his father undoubtedly put forward).
Edwards sees a set of facts and draws conclusions that are exactly backwards. I see his story as cause to celebrate the greatness of our country . . . he sees cause to decry its injustice.
That is the Edwards schtick and he is beating us with it for the holiday. In some ways being a wealthy populist must be very difficult. In others, financing your campaign, for example, the wealth must make life much easier.
At this point the poor (!) man has to be noticed somehow and somewhere. I haven't read anything about Edwards in weeks.
Note to reader: If you read this comment, then rest assured that this blog does not pull controversial comments.
Memo to John Edwards:
You have a big problem, sir. The National Enquirer is not backing down on the story about your recent adultry. As Dick Morris, former Clinton buddy, found out from "THE STAR" tabloid, when the tabloids don't back down then only two things could be true.
Either, the National Enquirer is being totally fooled by a completely believable carload of factual-appearling evidence such as emails, witness statements, pictures, and other court-worthy stuff, OR, the National Enquirer is absolutely knowingly slandering you, Mr. Lawyer, and the now-pregnant former party girl, your supposed girlfriend.
So, if this story by the Enquirer is just a big lie, then WHERE IS THE SLANDER LAWSUIT? Right, I guess the last question is the guts of the matter.
Who is David Perel? John Edwards knows.
Mr. Perel is the courageous man who is standing up to the lies and distortion of John Edwards and making the case that, at the very very very minumum, that the former coke head TOLD her FRIENDS that she BELIEVES that she is carrying JOHN EDWARD's BABY. Whether it's his or not is not the point.
And, He ain't backing Down!!! He stands by his story that John Edwards is a cheater and that his "love child" is on the way.
In the hierarchy of American tabloids, The National Enquirer, based in Boca Raton, Fla., is considered the most respectable. It boasts the largest newspaper circulation in the country at nearly 3 million. Editor-in-chief David Perel majored in English at the University of Maryland, went to work for the Washington Post and took a year off to travel. He began his career with the Enquirer as a reporter 19 years ago. He is married, with three children and a rabbit.
He's the messenger. So vette him. So John Edwards can join the group of:
Gary Hart, Dick Morris, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Arnold Schwartneggar, and the long list of cheaters that only the tabloids have the courage to out!
That's a good "question for John Edwards." Well put, Julie.
Julie wrote: " A Question for John Edwards ... Doesn’t your own family story (however embellished) speak against your prescriptions?"
David Frisk wrote: "That's a good 'question for John Edwards.'"
Two quick points:
As to #2 -- I would argue something similar rumbles in the belly of Clinton (clearly); Obama (but his judgment might be clouded by his own messianic sense to truly think otherwise); McCain (who depends on publicity like we depend on air); Huckabee ("thin skinned" and "Christian" are supposed to be oxymorons); and Alan Keyes, who is an complete attention whore.
I'm still trying to figure out Thompson, Guiliani and Romney.
Harsh? A bit. But in the case of Edwards, he is so transparently self-serving that his lack of electoral traction is because voters see him ... or rather, through him.
"... supposed to be mutually exclusive" would have been a better way to phrase that.