August 3, 2007

Another Do-As-I-Say Moment For Edwards

The man who decries the "Two Americas" while building a 28,000-square-foot mansion strikes again. John Edwards' presidential campaign has become so desperate that he has started running against Rupert Murdoch, who isn't running for office. He now demands that all of his opponents for the Democratic nomination pinky-swear that they will snub Murdoch and Fox News -- after Edwards took close to a million dollars from the man (via Memeorandum):

John Edwards, who yesterday demanded Democratic candidates return any campaign donations from Rupert Murdoch and News Corp., himself earned at least $800,000 for a book published by one of the media mogul's companies.

The Edwards campaign said the multimillionaire trial lawyer would not return the hefty payout from Murdoch for the book titled "Home: The Blueprints of Our Lives."

The campaign didn't respond to a question from The Post about whether it was hypocritical for Edwards to take money from News Corp. while calling for other candidates not to.

In addition to a $500,000 advance from HarperCollins, which is owned by News Corp., Edwards also was cut a check for $300,000 for expenses.

Edwards now claims that he gave the proceeds of the book to charity. However, he hasn't produced any receipts to support that claim, and as the Murdoch-owned Post points out, that kind of donation would give Edwards some hefty tax benefits. His spokesman only says that the Edwards were happy to give Murdoch's money to the needy -- but that's hardly the same thing as refusing it in the first place.

Instead, he excoriated Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton for accepting $20,000 in donations from Fox executives. While these donations would appear to provide evidence that Fox is not necessarily a bastion of right-wing activism as Edwards' paranoia would have it, Edwards somehow concluded that it meant Hillary was "trying to be friends with the very people trying to demonize the Democratic Party." Edwards pledged to return all similar donations, which in his case, amounted to less than $1000.

This shrieking only hopes to cover up a glaring hypocrisy on the part of Edwards. He had no trouble working with Murdoch's publishing empire when they dangled $800,000 in front of him. Had he found Murdoch so offensive, he could have taken his book elsewhere; it's not like another publisher would have hesitated to get the book. Edwards simply took the best offer and didn't care who wrote the check.

Edwards has transformed himself from an ambulance chaser to a substanceless suit, and now to a classless hypocrite. Even Ann Coulter can't save this embarrassment.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Another Do-As-I-Say Moment For Edwards:

» Around The Sphere August 4, 2007 from The Moderate Voice
Our famous linkfest offering readers interesting links to websites of varying opinions so they can explore the ’sphere. Links do NOT necessarily represent the viewpoints of The Moderate Voice or its writers. Why Television Sucks: Wil Wheaton has... [Read More]

Comments (22)

Posted by jfm | August 3, 2007 9:32 AM

Once a shyster lawyer, always a shyster lawyer.

Posted by SEW | August 3, 2007 9:33 AM

And such is the life of a "personal injury" lawyer. Under normal circumstances in the courtroom he can slander at will without being held accountable. And make millions doing so. And having plenty of jurors that like his hair agree with his nonsense.

Tort reform please, and thanks John for making the case for tort reform.

Posted by unclesmrgol | August 3, 2007 9:35 AM

Thank you, Captain. You've said it all (as did the Post in its unanswered question to Edwards).

Anyone who sets themselves up as a moralist of this type better be prepared to show by their pure actions that they don't live in a glass house.

Posted by Glenn | August 3, 2007 9:40 AM

A lawyer, a hypocrite, and a presidential candidate, John, that's three strikes, you are out.

Posted by NoDonkey | August 3, 2007 9:48 AM

Edwards is a lying, thieving, unaccomplished, unqualified, amoral, incompetent, corrupt, stupid, worthless, foppish, gelded buffoon.

Which sums up every other Democrat politician.

When will one of the Democrats separate themselves from the jackassery herd?

Posted by doc | August 3, 2007 10:05 AM

"You can't Swift Boat an empty suit."
Mark Steyn

Posted by docjim505 | August 3, 2007 10:08 AM

So, in the space of about a week, we have:

One dem presidential wannabe, Barack Obama, threaten to invade Pakistan, and;

Another dem presidential wannabe, John Edwards, commit an act of hypocrisy that is glaring even by the low, low standards of American politics.

If this keeps up, the Hilldabeast is going to start looking like George Washington (shudder).

Posted by richard mcenroe | August 3, 2007 10:20 AM

I take real comfort from the knowledge that every Presidential candidate in the Democratic Party comes from a governing body with a 4% approval rating...

Posted by mikey | August 3, 2007 11:01 AM

Of course, accepting most of your contributions from other lawyers is just A-OK because lawyers are all upstanding citizens.

Posted by Lightwave | August 3, 2007 11:13 AM

Edwards hasn't been relevant to the 08 election since the Amanda Marcotte fiasco. He's more dead in the water than the nutroots' most rabid fantasies of John McCain's "crumbling campaign".

When the only relevant stories about your campaign display how irrelevant your campaign truly is, it's time to withdraw.

Hillary's rapidly running out of veep choices. Somebody should have Kos suggest Al Gore, so that the failure of the Dems in 08 would be complete.

Posted by always right | August 3, 2007 11:38 AM

I am not defending Edwards, But.

Isn't there a distinction between accepting Murdoch’s money for personal campaign vs. getting paid for personal labor/goods?

Posted by Only_One_Cannoli | August 3, 2007 12:54 PM

Mama Cannoli always told me if you can't say something nice ...

Mr. Edwards really does have nice hair. It's clean. It reflects so many hues -- amber, alizarin crimson, emerald green, a deep chestnut brown. If he was a horse he would have a beautiful, dappled coat.

The part of Edwards' hair seems to spring from his scalp with the vigor of a much younger man. And his perfect hair crest flows in one great rhythm across his forehead in a gravity-mocking, razor-sharp wedge. It's as if his hair is saying "Hah! Gravity. I think not." It's almost musical, really -- his flying hair wedge proudly dancing across his smooth forehead before splashing against his left temple like a wave mixing with seafoam, feathering its golden bristles ... There aren't enough metaphors to describe the beauty of Mr. Edwards' hair.

Posted by Glenn | August 3, 2007 1:11 PM

Oops, my bad, I said Lawyer, meant to say liar, sorry.

Posted by DavyChuck | August 3, 2007 2:32 PM

The blogger and his merry sychophants are fools. Do you really not understand the difference between being paid for your work and receiving a donation for you campaign? Captain, you are intellectually dishonest.

Posted by pedantic | August 3, 2007 2:46 PM

"The blogger and his merry sychophants are fools."

Might wanna be a *little* more careful before casting those aspersions, DavyChuck.

Here's what John "The Hair" Edwards actually had to say:


Edwards led the Democratic candidates' boycott of Fox's plans to host a Democratic presidential debate. Now he is objecting to News Corp.'s purchase of Wall Street Journal publisher Dow Jones & Co. and highlighting the relationships that Clinton and other rivals have with the company's executives.

"The time has come for Democrats to stop pretending to be friends with the very people who demonize the Democratic Party," Edwards said in a statement.

He challenged his rivals to refuse contributions from executives of News Corp., and return any they had already received. The Edwards campaign said it would return less than $1,000 in donations from three Fox employees — a worker at a local Fox station in Florida and two staffers from Fox Cable Networks — even though they are not executives.


The Democrats are supposed to stop pretending to be friends with EEEEVIL Fox News and Murdoch; as The Hair says (same article):

"We have to stand up to him. It's time to put a stop to this."

Yes, except for that taking $800K from him, and then waffling about what you're doing with the money.

It's called "lying" and "hypocrisy", DC. Check it out.

Oh, and here's your own petard back. Seems you were hoist upon it.

Posted by Kevin | August 3, 2007 3:28 PM

I tend to disagree with the Captain here---I have no sympathy for Edwards; he deserves plenty of criticism. On many things. But not for this. Reason: yes, he got $ from Murdoch. But for a book for which he contracted. He's criticizing, not $ per se, but _donations_ other candidates received. Not the same thing. You can read more at my blog, here:

Posted by MarkT | August 3, 2007 4:28 PM

Edwards is rich but Fred Thompson borrowed a pickup truck to drive to campaign events to make him look like regular guy

it would be nice to move past this type of silliness and debate policy again

Posted by Ray | August 3, 2007 4:53 PM

Edwards has learned the game of politics well. He is attempting to cut off the source of campaign funds to his opponents and to stir up discontent between his opponents and their supporters as to place himself in a better position.

He's trying to use the "Fox is Too Conservative, return the donations!" rhetoric to embarrass his competitors in the DNC and get them in trouble with their netroot base by claiming that they are in Murdoch's pocket because of the contributions they have received. If he can convince his opponents to return the contributions, he will gain a slight advantage in his available campaign funds. If they do not, he will be able to claim that the other candidates are not "true" Democrats and are closet conservatives as only a conservative would collect campaign contributions from other conservatives. This may allow him to gain supporters by drawing some away from the other candidates.

For Edwards, this can be a win/win situation but only time will tell if it will have any real effect in his campaign.

Posted by ck | August 3, 2007 8:53 PM

If you write a book you earned the money.

If the money was donated then you didn't earn it.

2 completely different things here, and no, it doesn't make him a hypocrite (in this instance anyway).

Posted by Richard [TypeKey Profile Page] | August 4, 2007 3:59 AM

It does`nt matter whether the money he took was in the form of a campaign contribution or not. He gladly took money from his "hated enemy" to advance himself, but tells others not to. He is indeed a hypocrite.

Posted by Karl | August 4, 2007 8:52 AM

"Edwards has transformed himself from an ambulance chaser to a substanceless suit, and now to a classless hypocrite"

OK, I give up. What's the difference?

Posted by Douglas | August 7, 2007 7:27 PM

Elizabeth Edwards sez, "We can't make John black, we can't make him a woman, and we can't make him serious."

Post a comment