I really am tired of reading stories like this. Can't his candicacy just end...

http://www.nypost.com/seven/08032007/news/nationalnews/edwards_in_a_biz_hate__witch_nationalnews_charles_ hurt__bureau_chief.htm

Edwards is a funny guy...way 2 young thou

I especially can't stand the way he pretends to be able to "speak to the other side" and bilk money off of little old ladies. His show has been debunked by skeptics like Shermer, Randi, and others who have shown how he uses cold reading and a staff of investigators that look into the lives of people that participate in his studio audience. I think they've even been caught at it.

Crossing Over With John Edward was the worst show on SciFi.

Oh... you're talking about a different John Edward.

News flash: all politicians are frauds. Take the monkey in the Whitehouse now for instance.

Whatever.

Whatever.

, said the nation and picked an alien from Proxima Centauri as their president...

...the ashes of Earth were long seen as a popular attraction for the Nemesis children.

Thats a funny site, I didn't realize News Corp. also owns The New York Post. Reminds me of The Sun in the UK.

that's too funny

didn't he cry only a few days ago about some rich people who make >$100M/yr that are trying to shut him up?

they're his prime compain contributors! hahaha

what a douche

but he's got great hair!

He wrote a book and is collecting the royalities on his work. Big freaking deal. This is just a partisan hack job by a biased rag.

I really am tired of reading stories like this. Can't his candicacy just end...

This is something I like: the GOP is even more frightened by Edwards than his Democratic contenders.

Of course, since conservatives can't tell the difference between money earned and money donated, we can expect to hear more of this kind of crap from the GOP and its poodles.

Of course, since conservatives can't tell the difference between money earned and money donated, In the GOP coffers (under the current Newt/Delay incarnation of the GOP) often there is no difference - influence money and pirated corporate swag is both "donated" and "earned", simultaneously.

Well, now we know why the GOP is banking on Hillary. They pretend she can win the primary but not the election, but we see the real source of their fear is John Edwards.

Hillary Clinton's name is mentioned more than anyone else's. Some are defending her recent debate dustup with Barack Obama, adding that they never thought they'd support a Clinton, but most think she's going to win the Democratic nomination and then lose the election. (TheStranger.com (http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=279254))

The entire article is actually funny. Some part of me wishes the author had used a different phrase: "... they never thought they'd support a Clinton, but the alternative is a ...."

Would've been priceless.

Edwards is a funny guy...way 2 young thou

He's fifty-four. How old need he be? Clinton was 46, and GW Bush 54. Carter 52, Nixon 56 at inauguration, and only 47 when he lost to a 43 year-old JFK.

He's fifty-four. How old need he be? Clinton was 46, and GW Bush 54. Carter 52, Nixon 56 at inauguration, and only 47 when he lost to a 43 year-old JFK.

wow! the guy looks young.

There is the Ken-doll factor. It served Quayle well enough until he actually got into the Veep's office. I don't know Dan Quayle. Dan Quayle is not my friend. But I can tell you that John Edwards is no Dan Quayle.

He wrote a book and is collecting the royalities on his work. Big freaking deal. This is just a partisan hack job by a biased rag.

It may be a hack job, but logically speaking, I fail to see how a person can criticize Murdoch and characterize his donations as unethical or immoral in some way if that same person has done business with him.

Plus, this is just his latest holier-than-thou remarks to back-fire on him. Let's review, shall we?

- He criticizes Wal-Mart, then sends a campaign staffer there to purchase a game system for his kids. Story comes out, Edwards fires the staffer.

- He criticizes hedge funds. NYT points out he worked for one. He says he did so because he wanted to "learn" about them so when he became president he could regulate them better. NYT quips that's like hiring a stripper to learn about how women are exploited.

- He has business interests with pay-day lenders, the same pay-day lenders who do business with John's "other America."

- He set up a non-profit center to study poverty. NYT exposes the fact he used the majority of the donations to finance his "education" as a candidate in the years leading up to his latest run for office. The funds paid for staffers and trips to primary states.

There's also the fact he used his wife's cancer to generate sympathy donations for his campaign...

He's fifty-four. How old need he be? Clinton was 46, and GW Bush 54. Carter 52, Nixon 56 at inauguration, and only 47 when he lost to a 43 year-old JFK.

and Teddy (my favorite) was 42.

Do you think Edwards will get a lot of the sympathy vote. dead kid, cancer stricken wife?
I know nothing about the man except for those 2 things

Read the above...

Read the above...

yeah, but you don't like him. :D

there is a rather big difference in between being paid for a book you wrote and accepting campaign donations considering the second implies you will do things favorable for your donors and their intrests

I really don't think there is. If you're positioning yourself as a man of integrity, then how strong is that integrity if you're willing to do business with people you openly criticize and disdain?

yeah, but you don't like him. :D

No, I don't. I think he's a political huckster, masquerading as a crusader. To me, there's nothing more dangerous in the political world. A everything I've written about can be cited and verified...

I really don't think there is. If you're positioning yourself as a man of integrity, then how strong is that integrity if you're willing to do business with people you openly criticize and disdain?

I despise Rupert Murdoch, but I would jump at a chance to publish through HarperCollins. And, besides, he has the right to do business. I'm not about to boycott Clive Barker because he publishes through HC; if I was going to boycott Clive, it would be over the deal with the Mouse, and that ain't happening. That Murdoch should be able to contribute to campaigns is not a matter of question.

But there is a difference between a company owned by Murdoch's enterprise saying, "I want to make money from your product," and, "I want to have influence in your political office".

Democrats would be wise to continue to blackball FOX News, and I think they would be making an appropriate gesture to refuse campaign donations from a company bent on wrecking journalism in order to interfere in the nation's political affairs.

I really don't think there is. If you're positioning yourself as a man of integrity, then how strong is that integrity if you're willing to do business with people you openly criticize and disdain? How are we ever going to get a President who openly criticizes and disdains the corrupt moguls who currently dominate the US media and economy, if our mark of integrity is never having any significant economic connection with them at all ?

Given two people who have cut deals with part of Murdoch's empire, I'll take the one who criticises and disdains it over the one who supports and praises and cooperates with it - even on a straight integrity scale.
No, I don't. I think he's a political huckster, masquerading as a crusader. To me, there's nothing more dangerous in the political world. Sure there is. We've got a prime example in the White House now. At least a crusader has to back up his rhetoric occasionally, make it look good.

I despise Rupert Murdoch, but I would jump at a chance to publish through HarperCollins. And, besides, he has the right to do business

I'm not saying he doesn't. But I'm sure you're aware that Murdoch uses his book companies as means to backdoor donations to politicians. The most famous example is the six-figure sum Trent Lott received for a non-starter book weeks before Murdoch was due before a committee Lott served on...

But there is a difference between a company owned by Murdoch's enterprise saying, "I want to make money from your product," and, "I want to have influence in your political office".


See the above. Additionally, I would point out how political book companies are in who they chose to promote and accept when it comes to political books. Conservatives set up companies in 1980s to publish their books because the houses in NY wouldn't even look at them. I'm sure you think that's wonderful, but it's hardly fair. And it goes against the notion that these are entirely for-profit centers. There are plenty of highly successful conservative writers.

Democrats would be wise to continue to blackball FOX News, and I think they would be making an appropriate gesture to refuse campaign donations from a company bent on wrecking journalism in order to interfere in the nation's political affairs.

You'll need to prove how Fox News is "wrecking journalism" before I take that statement seriously. You'll also need to explain how a news station and a book company occupy different moral plains, per your world view, or someone could say you're being awfully inconsistent: IE, it's OK to do business with one media outlet, not another?

How are we ever going to get a President who openly criticizes and disdains the corrupt moguls who currently dominate the US media and economy, if our mark of integrity is never having any significant economic connection with them at all?


I don't know, voting for someone who doesn't do business and make millions with the very entities he criticizes ight be a start.

Given two people who have cut deals with part of Murdoch's empire, I'll take the one who criticises and disdains it over the one who supports and praises and cooperates with it - even on a straight integrity scale.

I think saying or knowing that something is wrong and then doing it anyway is far worse than not knowing something is wrong and doing it or thinking it is right and doing it, but hey, that's just me.

Did you read the list I posted? Edwards poverty trips is obviously nothing more than a gimmick? The man ripped off his own non-profit...

You'll need to prove how Fox News is "wrecking journalism" before I take that statement seriously.

If the documented fact, rehashed many times at this website, that FOX News viewers bear the most inaccurate views of what's going on in the world isn't a significant point to consider, I don't know what is. If ambushing an executive of an airline company and pressuring him to cut any associations of an event because of a spuriously-asserted connection isn't dishonest "journalism", I don't know what is. If hyping a "media conspiracy" in order to justify blatant propaganda isn't damaging to the concept of journalism, I don't know what is.

The most famous example is the six-figure sum Trent Lott received for a non-starter book weeks before Murdoch was due before a committee Lott served on.

I'll borrow a page from your book, Countezero. I'm going to ask you to prove that John Edwards is as corrupt as Trent Lott, and demonstrate the equivalent conflict of interest in the Edwards deal that you suggest of the Lott deal.

Additionally, I would point out how political book companies are in who they chose to promote and accept when it comes to political books. Conservatives set up companies in 1980s to publish their books because the houses in NY wouldn't even look at them.

One thing the right wing doesn't seem to understand is that when you go out of your way to offend people, you shouldn't expect them to bend over backwards to accommodate you. Additionally, it is a politically-conservative outlook that suggests the solution is to "start your own business". Think of it like Creationists: their assertions are rejected by scientists as being non-scientific, so they go out and start their own "scientific" institutions like ICR; that they call it legitimate doesn't make it so. Furthermore, I just don't see how you can classify HarperCollins as a "political" house; explaining the diversity of their catalog according to political definitions is one of those exercises best left to the people willing to spend what few brain cells they have left. Here is the current catalog for HarperCollins (http://www.harpercollins.com/Book/Browse.aspx); it does not cover subsidiaries and imprints that include, among others, Morrow and Avon. Dealing with HC is a long, long way from dealing with Murdoch. In fact, the necessary accusation that HC is corrupted by Murdoch is ludicrous and desperate. Demonstrate, please, through HC's catalog, Murdoch's influence.

You'll also need to explain how a news station and a book company occupy different moral plains, per your world view, or someone could say you're being awfully inconsistent: IE, it's OK to do business with one media outlet, not another?

Really, Counte? You seriously need it spelled out for you?

The first thing is that a news-media outlet claiming journalistic legitimacy is obliged to journalistic integrity. A broad-spectrum publishing house like HC is not. To the one, if HC was bound to journalistic integrity, how could they possibly publish the range of material they do? To the other, a news-media outlet that relies on propaganda to justify its propaganda is clearly exploitative and illegitimate. If FOX News would simply admit that they're entertainment, we could move on. It's kind of like professional wrestling: once they admitted they were not a real sport, but rather an entertainment enterprise, people stopped caring about the stupidity of calling pro wrestling a sport. (And before anyone chooses to point out how hard these guys work and what they go through, consider that neither ballet nor broadway dance are sports.)

Perhaps I should turn to the gallery at this point and take a survey: How many people cannot tell the difference between a purely commercial enterprise and one that shields itself behind abstract principles?

Free press, for instance, is explicitly protected in the United States. Free enterprise is argued at best as an implicit right under the Constitution.

Different stakes, different moral justification, different mechanisms.

I also wanted to stick my nose into your discussion with Iceaura. Your list would be a joke if only it was funny. For instance:

He criticizes hedge funds. NYT points out he worked for one. He says he did so because he wanted to "learn" about them so when he became president he could regulate them better. NYT quips that's like hiring a stripper to learn about how women are exploited.

The NYT has made an error, and you are repeating it. It would be more appropriate to say that one might work as a pimp in order to learn about how women are exploited. Of course, maybe he should just read a book about it. Like, maybe, Kessler's Running Money. Oh, wait, that one's published by HarperCollins (http://www.harpercollins.com/book/index.aspx?isbn=9780060740641), and by your argument about HC, the book is politically tainted by Rupert Murdoch.

He criticizes Wal-Mart, then sends a campaign staffer there to purchase a game system for his kids. Story comes out, Edwards fires the staffer.

Okay, here's the big question: What does your opinion matter if you can't be honest?

Really, Countezero, why should we care? You've inaccurately represented the story (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15764859/); is this another case where you simply can't tell the difference between one and the other?

See the above. Additionally, I would point out how political book companies are in who they chose to promote and accept when it comes to political books. Conservatives set up companies in 1980s to publish their books because the houses in NY wouldn't even look at them. I'm sure you think that's wonderful, but it's hardly fair. Its unfairness would depend on an absence of corresponding events on the other end of the political spectrum.

But we find that such profitable left authors as Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky forced to find small house publishers, in one case having a book already in press withdrawn from publication for its political content - a much more striking indication of bias than a rejection of manuscript, especially such manuscripts as we see were rejected.

I actually played/improvised as John Edwards as a candidate during the political debate in my high school political class...3 years ago.

But we find that such profitable left authors as Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky forced to find small house publishers, in one case having a book already in press withdrawn from publication for its political content - a much more striking indication of bias than a rejection of manuscript, especially such manuscripts as we see were rejected.

Profitable? I'd need to see some data on that. Chomsky's well-known, but he doesn't exactly strike me as the type who rakes in the dollars: He's on the very fringe of the political spectrum for starters, and he's above most peoples' heads for seconds. I think his only best-selling book was that pocket-sized 9/11 manifesto he put out about a week after the attacks, and some people have speculated the only reason he made the list then is that a lot of people trying to educate themselves didn't know what they were buying.

Regardless, I fail to see how citing two authors publishing woes undermines my premise that the major NY publishing houses universally tilt to the Left. If they didn't, there would be no reason for Regnery Publishing, etc...

Profitable? I'd need to see some data on that. Chomsky's well-known, but he doesn't exactly strike me as the type who rakes in the dollars: He's on the very fringe of the political spectrum for starters, and he's above most peoples' heads for seconds...

Chomsky gets shite from right-wing critics because he's wealthy. See Peter Schweizer, "The Branding of the World's Top Intellectual: Noam Chomsky (http://techcentralstation.com/1019055.html)".

Regardless, I fail to see how citing two authors publishing woes undermines my premise that the major NY publishing houses universally tilt to the Left. If they didn't, there would be no reason for Regnery Publishing, etc... And if they didn't tilt right, there'd be no reason for South End Press, etc. - small lefty presses that exist to put out the stuff the major houses won't touch are old news, in the US. They've always been necessary.

I repeat: Chomsky and Herman had a book in press at a major house - the money spent, the ads bought, tens of thousands of printed and bound books on pallets in the warehouse - and had it pulled when an executive got hold of a review copy. They wrote off their entire publishing investment - outside of the author's promo tour, which in those guys' case would have made its own profit.

They're corporations, fairly big ones. They have union troubles, stock options, executive retirement packages threatened by confiscatory taxation, international legal crises, and Beltway connections. They are not naturally left biased - although the reading public is female and educated, so their customer base is something to consider.

I really don't think there is. If you're positioning yourself as a man of integrity, then how strong is that integrity if you're willing to do business with people you openly criticize and disdain?

maybe that publishing company offered him the best dealfor publishing his book i really don't know but what i do know is that the two are very different

I'm not saying he doesn't. But I'm sure you're aware that Murdoch uses his book companies as means to backdoor donations to politicians. The most famous example is the six-figure sum Trent Lott received for a non-starter book weeks before Murdoch was due before a committee Lott served on...




See the above. Additionally, I would point out how political book companies are in who they chose to promote and accept when it comes to political books. Conservatives set up companies in 1980s to publish their books because the houses in NY wouldn't even look at them. I'm sure you think that's wonderful, but it's hardly fair. And it goes against the notion that these are entirely for-profit centers. There are plenty of highly successful conservative writers.



You'll need to prove how Fox News is "wrecking journalism" before I take that statement seriously. You'll also need to explain how a news station and a book company occupy different moral plains, per your world view, or someone could say you're being awfully inconsistent: IE, it's OK to do business with one media outlet, not another?

here is how you prove the fox news thing go turn your tv on to fox news. watch for half an hour there is all the proof you need

If the documented fact, rehashed many times at this website, that FOX News viewers bear the most inaccurate views of what's going on in the world isn't a significant point to consider, I don't know what is.

If it's documented, then show me.

If ambushing an executive of an airline company and pressuring him to cut any associations of an event because of a spuriously-asserted connection isn't dishonest "journalism", I don't know what is. If hyping a "media conspiracy" in order to justify blatant propaganda isn't damaging to the concept of journalism, I don't know what is.

I don't watch Fox News, so I have no idea what you're talking about here. However, the language you use sounds awfully subjective, and it isn't too hard to imagine a conservative rant about CNN that sounding pretty much the same...

I'll borrow a page from your book, Countezero. I'm going to ask you to prove that John Edwards is as corrupt as Trent Lott, and demonstrate the equivalent conflict of interest in the Edwards deal that you suggest of the Lott deal.

I never said Edwards is as corrupt as Lott is, because I have no idea how corrupt Lott is and therefore couldn't make a logical comparison. I mentioned the Lott/Murdoch book deal to show how book deals, which you argued are innocuous, can be used to curry political favor. You seem amazed by this, which surprises me (the phenomena was joked about in the Eddie Murphey film The Distinguished Gentleman, for example). It's a well-known fact that most of the books written by politicians don't sell all that well, so why are they being bought, and why are the advances so large?

Furthermore, I just don't see how you can classify HarperCollins as a "political" house; explaining the diversity of their catalog according to political definitions is one of those exercises best left to the people willing to spend what few brain cells they have left.

I didn't say it was a political house, I said that it probably makes a lot of decisions about books based on the ideology of the editors, who I'm willing to wager are largely liberals or Democrats. I admit, I have no solid proof of this, beyond the people I know in publishing and the conservative and non-conservative authors I've spoken with who all paint a fairly vivid picture of the publishing elite in NY. And again, places such as Regnery publishing wouldn't exist if their stable of authors could get published elsewhere...

Dealing with HC is a long, long way from dealing with Murdoch. In fact, the necessary accusation that HC is corrupted by Murdoch is ludicrous and desperate. Demonstrate, please, through HC's catalog, Murdoch's influence.

The only allegation I made, which really was me parroting the NYT, is that Murdoch has been known (on a few occasions) to throw politicians on both sides of the aisle book deals whenever he is due to come to their arena. Corruption? I don't know. It's the Left who seem upset with Murdoch's media holdings (not me) and allege he has unhealthy influences among them. For examples, see the Wall Street Journal frenzy or your obvious feelings about Fox News...

Really, Counte? You seriously need it spelled out for you?

Yes, I do. I'm stupid. Just ask your friend, Iceaura.

The first thing is that a news-media outlet claiming journalistic legitimacy is obliged to journalistic integrity.

I agree.

A broad-spectrum publishing house like HC is not. To the one, if HC was bound to journalistic integrity, how could they possibly publish the range of material they do?

I agree. They are not bound by the same ethics of journalism, but I would hasten to add that publishing a sweetheart book deal because the boss wants you to is unethical and propagandistic.

To the other, a news-media outlet that relies on propaganda to justify its propaganda is clearly exploitative and illegitimate. If FOX News would simply admit that they're entertainment, we could move on.

You don't like Fox News, I get it. But I'm not going to condemn it based on your feelings and your subjective judgments. If that were the standard used, there would be no media outlets left, as somebody always hates something. Think of the vitriol Republicans have toward the NYT. I like the NYT. Do I think it's biased? Sure, I do. But I don't think it's printing lies or exploiting something or pushing propaganda. I just think it chooses and reports on stories based on an Upper East Side ethos. The same is probably true at Fox. They report from their ethos. That doesn't make them liars or any of the other names you'd like to call them, however...

Perhaps I should turn to the gallery at this point and take a survey: How many people cannot tell the difference between a purely commercial enterprise and one that shields itself behind abstract principles?

I don't know. Is the gallery qualified to answer? Regardless, I fail to see your point here. All media of any significance is in the business of making money...

Your list would be a joke if only it was funny. For instance: The NYT has made an error, and you are repeating it.

I'm glad I amuse you. This is, after all, what we're doing in our free time...

So what's the error? I'll give you the direct, since you accuse me of being a liar and engaging in "jokes."

From the NYT Sunday Magazine, June 10, page 76:

"The decision that most complicates Edwards's political message, though, is his affiliation with Fortress Investments, the hedge fund where he worked in 2006. ... (hedge funds have) led, more than anything else, to the gross inequality that Edwards deplores. ... Fortress has invested in exactly the same kind of subprime-mortgage dealers that Edwards has repeatedly castigated for praying on the poor. ... When the Fortress story first surfaced ... he told (the AP) that he joined the hedge fund partly because he wanted to learn more about the way markets affected inequality. This is rather like saying you hired a stripper in order to better understand the exploitation of women."

If you like, I can start directly citing the other funnies I made...

Okay, here's the big question: What does your opinion matter if you can't be honest?

I'm sorry, but to my knowledge, I was being honest. If I made a mistake, I'll own up to it, as I did in another pair of threads recently. A staffer for Edwards tried to purchase a PS3 from Wal-Mart. The story comes out, Edwards throws the kid under the bus (my interpretation, of course). I seem to recall the staffer was later let go (I heard this on NPR I think?!?!), but that may not be the case, as I'm going off my memory from months ago. It is a small episode, but paired with Edwards general do as I say, not as I do approach to life, I find it an instructive metaphor or sorts...

But regardless of whether the staffer stayed or not, the allegation you've chosen to call me to the carpet on is the least important. How about him ripping off his non-profit, or the info I posted above?

Really, Countezero, why should we care?

I don't know. You seem to have spent an awful lot of time on that response, though...

And if they didn't tilt right, there'd be no reason for South End Press, etc. - small lefty presses that exist to put out the stuff the major houses won't touch are old news, in the US. They've always been necessary.

Small lefty presses cater to small lefties like you, Ice. That's why the big houses don't buy their shit. Nobody would buy it but people (like yourself) who live out on the fringe of the political spectrum. The difference, and pay attention because this is important, is that mainstream Democrats or liberals or whatever you want to call them get a lot more play from NY than mainstream Republicans and conservatives, who often times have to go to a big "righty" house like Regnery to get future bestsellers published.

I repeat: Chomsky and Herman had a book in press at a major house - the money spent, the ads bought, tens of thousands of printed and bound books on pallets in the warehouse - and had it pulled when an executive got hold of a review copy. They wrote off their entire publishing investment - outside of the author's promo tour, which in those guys' case would have made its own profit.

I know nothing about this incident, but for the moment, I'll take your word for it. But Chomsky is an extremist, so it doesn't surprise me a major house would tremble about publishing his work. They probably didn't want the negative press that might result from so obtuse accusation he leveled at someone...

They're corporations, fairly big ones. They have union troubles, stock options, executive retirement packages threatened by confiscatory taxation, international legal crises, and Beltway connections. They are not naturally left biased - although the reading public is female and educated, so their customer base is something to consider.

I've never come across a group of a person that you would describe as lefty, so anytime you start talking about where you assign people on the spectrum I quit listening to you...

If it's documented, then show me.

I hadn't realized you missed it.

See "World Public Opinon: Misperceptions, the Media, and the Iraq War (http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/international_security_bt/102.php?nid=&id=&pnt=102&lb=brusc)". See also the Google HTML (http://72.14.253.104/u/pipa?q=cache:M-tjR2tJCegJ:www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/IraqMedia_Oct03/IraqMedia_Oct03_pr.pdf+2003+fox+news&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us&ie=UTF-8) of the 2003 PIPA press release, or the PDF version (recommended) (http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/IraqMedia_Oct03/IraqMedia_Oct03_pr.pdf):

The polling, conducted by the Program on International Policy (PIPA) at the University of Maryland and Knowledge Networks, also reveals that the frequency of these misperceptions varies significantly according to individuals' primary source of news. Those who primarily watch Fox News are significantly more likely to have misperceptions, while those who primarily listen to NPR or watch PBS are significantly less likely ....

The analysis looked at three major misperceptions: that evidence of the Iraq-al Qaeda link had been found, that WMD's had been found, and that the world community favored the American invasion of Iraq. FOX viewers scored abysmally, with only 20% of the "primarily FOX" respondents escaping all three misperceptions. (The oft-vilified NPR/PBS crowd scored best at 77%.)

I don't watch Fox News, so I have no idea what you're talking about here. However, the language you use sounds awfully subjective, and it isn't too hard to imagine a conservative rant about CNN that sounding pretty much the same...

O'Reilly himself has been crowing about his war against the Daily Kos. He accused the site of posting hate speech and threats, and even patted himself on the back for causing JetBlue to cut its ties to the Yearly Kos convention. Various liberal blogs have happily posted the YouTube clip of O'Reilly tooting his horn; try ThinkProgress (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/20/jetblue-still-a-sponsor/). I'm slogging through the DailyKos responses, and I must at this time recant the phrase "spuriously-asserted connection". Nonetheless, O'Reilly's exaggerations and comparisons of DailyKos to the KKK and Nazis are exceptionally dishonest. Right now I'm looking for the video of O'Reilly cutting the microphone on a guest who pointed out that BillOReilly.com was riddled with hate and threats. In the meantime, as Joe Conason noted in an opinion piece for the New York Observer last month,

To listen to the Fox News host—who has publicly urged the destruction of the entire city of San Francisco and the entire nation of Iran, among thousands of other equally charming remarks—is to hear corrosive hatred distilled into a nightly dose of poison. The occasional outburst on a liberal blog, almost always in the anonymous comments section, cannot compare with the daily outpouring of vitriol on Fox. (Conason; accent added (http://www.nyobserver.com/2007/murdoch-s-crackpot-minion))

Additionally, the controversy has apparently caused The O'Reilly Factor to lose at least one sponsor:

Lowe's constantly reviews advertising buys to make certain they are consistent with its policy guidelines. The O'Reilly Factor does not meet Lowe's advertising guidelines, and the company's advertising will no longer appear during the program. (DailyKos.com (http://kos.dailykos.com/user/kos/diary/2))

Check out Senator Dodd opposing Bill O'Reilly's crusade against the Kos (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/8/3/92321/45620). A July 23, 2007 post from the Kos himself notes,

So apparently Bill O'Reilly today, in his latest feverish rant, claims that this site advocated the violent overthrow of the U.S. government today.

Whoever finds this magical post gets a pony. (DailyKos.com (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/7/24/01037/4744))

(Note: I'm still waiting to see what happens to a comment I submitted to Rep. Eric Cantor's blog. I was smart enough to snap a screenshot of the post in case it evaporates; I expect to know the answer sometime tomorrow. I'm surprised nobody at FOX got a screenshot of the offending DailyKos post; after all, when nobody wins the pony, O'Reilly can accuse Kos of scuttling the post. Some semblance of proof would be useful.)

After O'Reilly raised his colors against DailyKos, liberal bloggers responded by documenting hate speech at O'Reilly's site. A few gems can be found at the Kos (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/7/23/152412/873)and SJIHBOR (http://www.sweetjesusihatebilloreilly.com/archive/072307.html) (acronym). Interestingly, if we pop back to the issue of FOX's viewership, the emails O'Reilly viewers sent the DailyKos are rather affirming (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/7/17/63235/7095).

A great clip is one at Crooks and Liars (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/07/26/oreilly-cuts-halls-mic-to-get-the-last-word-about-billoreillycoms-hate-comments/) in which O'Reilly cuts off Jane Hall's microphone rather than hear the truth about the people posting to his own website. If you watch the Hall clip, note when Bill O'Reilly says they take down the offensive posts. As Aravosis points out at AmericaBlog (http://www.americablog.com/2007/07/bill-oreillys-web-site-threatens.html), the O'Reilly website advises,

BillOReilly.com will not be held liable for any user activity on the message boards. We do not actively monitor user-submitted content

In fact, as Aravosis notes,

Unlike DailyKos or AMERICAblog, or any other liberal blog, in order to post on BillOReilly.com, you need to give them your credit card info. O'Reilly knows exactly who these people are who are making the threats. Has he done his moral and legal and patriotic duty and reported the names and addresses of these people (which he has because he has their credit cards) to the Secret Service for investigation?

So over at News for the Left (http://newsfortheleft.blogspot.com/2007/07/bill-oreilycom-being-investigated-by.html), author Lane Hudson took up Aravosis' question and reported certain the comments at O'Reilly's site to the Secret Service.

Really, I would advise people to stay tuned to this row. It's about as entertaining as O'Reilly's shite can be. (Okay, it's not as entertaining as the falafel bit, but how the hell can anything compete with that?)

Okay, enough about O'Reilly's part. FOX News in general also has a minor problem that when it's bad news for Republicans, FOX can't seem to report it correctly (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/7/24/184250/101).

The problem is that FOX News' slogan, "We report, you decide," ends up meaning, "We tell you what to think, and you think it."

One that will take me a while to dig up, if I can find it at all: Once upon a time, a FOX correspondent was interviewing Ariel Sharon in the wake of a bus-stop suicide bombing. Sharon refused the phrase "suicide bombers", insisting that the Palestinians were "homicide bombers". FOX ran with the term for a while. The problem, of course, is that Israeli and American pilots are also "homicide bombers". At least "suicide bomber" makes the distinction. FOX, however, preferred to use a political term for sensationalist reasons. I don't think they use it much these days.

Anyway, moving on ....

I never said Edwards is as corrupt as Lott is, because I have no idea how corrupt Lott is and therefore couldn't make a logical comparison. I mentioned the Lott/Murdoch book deal to show how book deals, which you argued are innocuous, can be used to curry political favor.

No, you didn't, but if you intend to extend the Lott deal as a generalization to indict Edwards, you're going to need to show the corruption. That Edwards got paid on par with celebrities publishing through major houses does not in any way imply corruption.

It's a well-known fact that most of the books written by politicians don't sell all that well, so why are they being bought, and why are the advances so large?

Track record is everything in selling books. Whether you're a writer or agent or potential publishing house, your track record is the most important thing you can offer. And Edwards' Four Trials saw excellent sales after winning some primaries in 2004. Given his popularity, the notion that he would run again, and the fact that popular politicians can see excellent book sales in general, why not offer a strong advance to secure your position in any potential bidding war? Edwards would have been an excellent bet for HarperCollins: celebrity, prestige, easy marketing, strong sales, prospective return customers from Four Trials, and the Ken-doll factor doesn't hurt either. I'm surprised the number is under $350k; I would have expected a half-million payout.

I didn't say it was a political house, I said that it probably makes a lot of decisions about books based on the ideology of the editors, who I'm willing to wager are largely liberals or Democrats. I admit, I have no solid proof of this, beyond the people I know in publishing and the conservative and non-conservative authors I've spoken with who all paint a fairly vivid picture of the publishing elite in NY.

I would prefer if you didn't try to stand on "I didn't (explicitly) say ...." After all, your point, which I will reiterate below, draws the connection:

"Additionally, I would point out how political book companies are in who they chose to promote and accept when it comes to political books."

Okay, now all I would ask you to consider on that is a simple question: What does it matter in this case what "political book companies do"?

HarperCollins most definitely is not a "political book company"; again, I would point toward its current catalog (link in prior post). So the problem I'm running into with your point is that it doesn't matter what political book companies do.

As to the ideology behind book selection, yes, there are a good number of factors. Sales potential rates well ahead of politics at a company like HarperCollins. I mean, quality counts, too, but you're not going to net a legendary writer every year; that's the point of the high standard. When literature catches up to the greats, new greats will rise to new heights.

The only allegation I made, which really was me parroting the NYT, is that Murdoch has been known (on a few occasions) to throw politicians on both sides of the aisle book deals whenever he is due to come to their arena. Corruption? I don't know. It's the Left who seem upset with Murdoch's media holdings (not me) and allege he has unhealthy influences among them. For examples, see the Wall Street Journal frenzy or your obvious feelings about Fox News...

Indeed; the right wing seems to favor media consolidation, but that's a different issue, I think. If Murdoch threw Edwards a book deal, I'd need to see the memos. Honestly, the thought that Murdoch is working that far down the ladder ... really, whoever at HC got the call from the agent ....

HC: Hello?

Agent: Yes, I'm _____ from ______, representing former Senator John Edwards; we'd like to query about your interest in publishing his next book, which is--

HC: Yes!

If someone had to email Rupert Murdoch for advice or permission, they ought to be fired for delaying the process. A property like that would be hotter than hell. (Especially when you're competing against Simon & Schuster, who published Four Trials.)

Yes, I do. I'm stupid

I'll take the note, but I'll doubt it inasmuch as this part of our discussion is the deal-breaker. We agree that there is a difference between news-media and book sales. Okay, good. Now, one does not have to be stupid to not recognize the distance between Rupert Murdoch and the publishing decisions at HC (the man ought to be smart enough to know to not tamper with one of his most prestigious assets, one that bears so much credibility), the idea that "publishing a sweetheart book deal because the boss wants you to is unethical and propagandistic", while proper, in this case is an unrealistic consideration barring evidence to the contrary. It is extremely unethical, and also highly unlikely. I promise you, the business decision could easily be made on the merits of business considerations.

You don't like Fox News, I get it. But I'm not going to condemn it based on your feelings and your subjective judgments. If that were the standard used, there would be no media outlets left, as somebody always hates something. Think of the vitriol Republicans have toward the NYT. I like the NYT. Do I think it's biased? Sure, I do. But I don't think it's printing lies or exploiting something or pushing propaganda. I just think it chooses and reports on stories based on an Upper East Side ethos. The same is probably true at Fox. They report from their ethos. That doesn't make them liars or any of the other names you'd like to call them, however...

There are a couple kinds of bias to consider here, and the problem is that the "liberal media conspiracy" and other criticisms of the NYT and other outlets don't make the distinction. There is a "scientific bias" that we might see in a discussion of creationism: "Creationism is not a science unless it provides a scientific hypothesis that we can test." Even a far-fetched hypothesis that must be worked toward before testing would suffice. However, many intelligent design advocates don't see the need to demonstrate the designer. There's not much to be done to overcome this "bias" until some sort of hypothesis is proposed. If I work at a university publishing house, and reject a creationist book for the scientific series I am assigned, is it a "bias against Christians", or the criterion that the book must be scientific? Lacking a scientific hypothesis, how is it anything more than theology or politics? More relevant is an "intuitive bias". This comes up when someone is reading suspect material. We see this in many of our fellow members' reactions to racist topics around here; it is counterintuitive to ignore arguable theses and documented evidence simply to stand on the "_____ is inherently inferior" argument and demand that other people defeat an insupportable thesis. Intuitively, people call bullshit, and there's not much the racists can do about that. If I submitted a book that theorized that the American continent was discovered by Mickey Mouse, would it really be an unfair bias that kept the book from being published? Something closer to reality: If I submitted a book that said, "My Constitutional rights are not equally represented under the law until yours are suspended" (a common assertion of American Christians protesting library books), wouldn't that set off some sort of intuitive alarm bell? There is, of course, blatant political bias, which magnifies both scientific and intuitive bias in the mind of the reader. A potential publisher does not need to rub his hands together and grin wickedly while laughing to himself about how he will suppress this brilliant but politically-opposed mind. Such a manuscript will simply set off all sorts of other alarms. Consider the liberal media bias: conservatism--not the GOP, but the heritage of conservatism all the way back through history--has generally sought to suppress speech. Journalism stands against such suppression. Heritage conservatism has always sought to suppress information; journalism stands against this suppression. While many journalists tend to hold liberal ideas, their editors and paymasters are more conservative. If the bosses are letting the laborers run wild, modern conservatives ought to chastise the bosses. The kind of calculation asserted of the "liberal media bias" is exactly the kind of calculation FOX News seeks to justify in its own work. (And, no, FOX is not alone; MSNBC's Joe Scarborough proudly touts the fact that his journalistic objectivity is subordinate to his politics. In fact, it was Scarborough's attitude that first tipped me off to this point.)

Thing is, if the "middle American" laborer can write, he or she ought to do so. Choosing to play safe and chase money is their own choice. Think about the "education bias conspiracy". The fact is that, given what teachers are paid, fewer conservatives go into the business. Teaching is an idealistic profession from the outset; nobody goes into schoolteaching to get rich, just as nobody becomes an investment banker in order to enlighten children and raise them to proper citizenship. It's a matter of priorities.

I don't know. Is the gallery qualified to answer? Regardless, I fail to see your point here. All media of any significance is in the business of making money

Yes, the gallery is qualified to answer; the question is a self-reporting survey. The more important point, though, is that you make part of my point for me. Yes, the media is in the business of making money.

And to get back to the point of Regnery Publishing, I've looked through their author list and catalog. I would go so far as to speculate that market, and not politics is the driving force behind the sense of alienation. These books may have questionable scholarship (I can't say, as I haven't read any), they may be poorly written (same note). But most of what I saw seemed to be very specialized; the books don't have mass appeal. For instance, Bay Buchanan on Hillary Clinton? Ye gads, who the hell wants to read that? There well could be other reasons for Regnery than political bias.

I'm glad I amuse you. This is, after all, what we're doing in our free time

Well, there is that ....

So what's the error? I'll give you the direct, since you accuse me of being a liar and engaging in "jokes."

Like I said: a pimp, not a stripper. The stripper analogy works if you're buying into a hedge fund.

(my interpretation, of course)

And that's fine. That's not the objectionable point. To consider your most recent restatement--

"A staffer for Edwards tried to purchase a PS3 from Wal-Mart."

--with the one I took the cut after--

"He criticizes Wal-Mart, then sends a campaign staffer there to purchase a game system for his kids."

--I would ask you to see that they are two different things. Your later interpretation (listed first), is closer to the "truth" on record.

One thing worth pointing out about the PS3 story is that the big controversy seemed to center around "name-dropping", which is absolutely inappropriate. Candidate, celebrity, or whomever, you don't go in and try the "Do you know who I am?" or "Do you know who I work for?" line. Wal-Mart's response was to go after Edwards (http://www.newsobserver.com/114/story/511577.html):

A staffer for John Edwards tried to buy a PlayStation 3 for the former senator's family at a Raleigh Wal-Mart on the same day Edwards was criticizing the giant retailer's treatment of its employees, the company said Thursday.
Wal-Mart said in a release from its Arkansas corporate headquarters that an unnamed staff person for Edwards, a likely presidential candidate, contacted a Wal-Mart electronics manager in Raleigh on Wednesday. The staffer was seeking to obtain the popular Sony computer game for a member of Edwards' family, the release said ....

.... "While the rest of America's working families are waiting patiently in line, Senator Edwards wants to cut to the front," Wal-Mart said in the release. (Christensen, News & Observer (http://www.newsobserver.com/114/story/511577.html))

How about him ripping off his non-profit...?

I'm looking into it, and while there may be "politics as usual" at play, I've yet to find a proper refutation of Edwards' claim that he operated within the law. Additionally, if the question of who benefits from the work of an advocacy organization is so dire, there are plenty of non-profits nationwide that ought to shut down.

... or the info I posted above?

(Note ... you've made the second page of Google under "john edwards payday loan"; however, this seems to be the highest-ranked criticism regarding payday loans.)

I'm having trouble following up on the payday loan issue. Lend a hand, please?

Beyond that, what other info? Admittedly, a couple of those points are addressed in this post, so I just want to make sure I'm not missing something.

I don't know. You seem to have spent an awful lot of time on that response, though

Well, you're trashing one of the brighter stars in the presidential race this year, and I admit I really do wonder about your criteria for scandal. Looking into these stories, I think you're stressing yourself too much over these things. To the other, I could indeed be missing something. And, to yet another, I suppose I could just call you stupid and make that the whole of the post; but, really, I don't see the point in that.

It is only if I decide that I have nothing left to learn that I will cease learning. Okay, when I'm dead, too, but that's obvious.

The difference, and pay attention because this is important, is that mainstream Democrats or liberals or whatever you want to call them get a lot more play from NY than mainstream Republicans and conservatives, who often times have to go to a big "righty" house like Regnery to get future bestsellers published. And the reason - pay attention because you should, once in a while - is that the current mainstream Republicans are ideological crackpots with extremist agendas and an unreliable connection to the real world.

And they can't write English prose very well.

It's hard to spot future bestsellers, among that stack of incompetently written screeds and polemics, and it's easy to see potential for legal trouble in the disprovable crap they dish. No doubt a few good sellers get rejected - but those haystack needles are not worth the rest. NY houses do have reputations to protect. They can't fill their catalogs with that stuff.

Nevertheless we find that even certified nutcases, like Ann Coulter, are published routinely by the major NY houses if the sales are likely - despite the problems with plagiarism, and sticky legal issues surrounding her lack of integrity and willingness to slander and lie.

Contrast Chomsky, who features guaranteed sales and a world wide market, almost needs no editing or factchecking, but could not get his political books past the Random House execs (his linguistic books have been published automatically - must be that burgeoning market, eh?)

Who knows how long it will take to absorb the mountain of text above before I can respond? In the meantime, here's another story that talks about the sort of two-faced, man of the people, fraudulent populism I'm upset by:

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/MutualFunds/EdwardsMakingHisMillionsGrow.aspx

Edwards owns stock in a company Dick Cheney used to run. Isn't that fascinating?

Sigh. I'm sorry, but I just don't see point in the article. Could you show me, or need I search the web in order to confirm the details of the latest attempt to vilify John Edwards for taking part in the American Dream? It's funny how being successful is suddenly a bad thing.

Actually, I removed that remark, because it wasn't accurate. Edwards invested heavily in Haliburton's chief competitor.

As for the meat of the text, I think it speaks for itself. Edwards has made a lot of money from a lot of activities he condemns on the campaign trail. Nobody is saying he can't profit from the American dream, but I think it's ridiculous to make money off hedge funds and criticize them or make money off sub-prime lenders (which are worse than payday lenders) and criticize them. It's a bit like all those priests who are preaching do as I say, not as I do...

Apparently, Edwards is incapable of realizing that's it's people like him who have helped create and continue to profit from the "other America" he was so fond of talking about in 2004...

Actually, I removed that remark, because it wasn't accurate. Edwards invested heavily in Haliburton's chief competitor.

Fair 'nuff. I've pulled that same boner before.

(What? It's an old joke from The Simpsons.)

In the meantime, I can find more "damaging" allegations about Edwards' campaign. To the other, though, we ought to consider one of his responses to the sub-prime lending issue:

"If you put it in the context of all those things, it's very clear where my heart is and where my commitment is," he said. (Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/10/AR2007051002277_2.html))

To the one, it seems people accept this: Edwards' numbers are rising. To the other, it also seems to explain why his critics won't let things go. Republicans, generally, are heartless.

The problem with conservatives criticizing Edwards as a hypocrite is conservative politics itself. The people don't necessarily buy the line, "He takes part in what he criticizes as bad; I think this badness is good, so vote for me."

It would be a fine thing for conservatives if Democrats met the GOP purity standard (Republicans, of course, are exempt). The result would be the disempowerment of Democrats.

Consider it this way: The real reason I should never run for president is that I'm a hypocrite. After all, I criticize the insurance industry in general, but I've worked for insurance companies and I've received benefits from insurance companies on two occasions after auto thefts, and that doesn't even begin to consider the number of times my childhood health care was paid for by an insurance policy.

Never mind, of course, that my time working for insurance companies is what tipped me off to the general corruption of their place in society, and never mind that the law requires me to have insurance on my car (after all, who says I needed a comprehensive policy?), and certainly never mind that I was a child when my parents opted to cover me with a health insurance policy. Wait, that last isn't fair. I carried a policy for myself when I worked at the insurance company. In order to not be a hypocrite, I should have left the internal bleeding untreated (I wouldn't have been able to afford the care, otherwise), and should be dead by now.

Would that make you folks happy?

Good heavens, Countezero, I think society in general needs to get its shite together. I must be a hypocrite, then, for continuing to exist in American society.

Stop being ridiculous.

Hypocricy exists on many levels: from people who eat things they would tell their kids are bad for them, to people who fly everywhere in private jets while claiming to be eco-friendly, to people who own 8 homes and vaults full of jewels and argue for the redistribution of others' wealth but not their own. Edwards occupies the level just below the Ceausescus.

No intelligent person argues that a champions of the fight against illiteracy must themselves be illiterate, but if one is going to champion a cause based on monetary distribution, one ought to put one's money where one's rhetoric is. If not, expect to be lampooned as a phony. Today's Grudge headlines not being precisely on point, but carrying the same general message. Do not claim to be a man of the people while acting in a wholly non-populist manner when off camera. I dislike resorting to anecdotes, but when enough of them are compiled, they begin to paint a realistic picture of the wizard behind the curtain.

Additionally, your analogy does not bear weight. Previous experience working for an industry you come to recognize as corrupt is not morally equivalent to investing in and profiting from activities you rail against in a political platform. If one plans to champion industry reform, one cannot simultaneously be a financial backer of that very industry, nor worse, a profiteer off of it. That is the very paradox in thought and rhetoric that many Communist leaders engaged in, to the downfall of the system.

Edwards is a microcosm of that: a multimillionaire claiming to be a populist. He's as much a populist as Marie Antionette.

Portocall

Welcome to our happy home.

The Ceausescu line was pretty good, but only reiterates just how frightened Edwards' opponents are. When someone stoops to demanding that the rich not have a conscience, it's hard to take them seriously.

And I have yet to see the corrupt profiteer argument laid out coherently.

As a final note, please remember that illiteracy exists on many levels: there are those who simply can't read, and there are also those who have very good jobs, can read technical material, but can't figure out simple concepts. O'Reilly, Drudge, Hannity, GW Bush himself; and you'll find many of our members here suffer the same problem. Right now, the most part of the criticism I've seen against Edwards occupies a level just above an eggplant. There might be substantial issues driving the criticism, but I can't tell by comparing what they say to the information I can find.

I would ask you, though, to consider the massive indictment you're handing down. Edwards is incredibly popular among the blue collar. How hypocritical will Edwards' opponents be pitching to a crowd that favors someone a mere degree less corrupt than Ceausescu? Could it be that America the Beautiful has finally waded too deeply into the mire?

Of course, they're just union laborers, aren't they? Stupid or evil, they've gotta be one or the other, right? A cancer on America, those workers.

When we pause to consider the necessary implications of the criticism against Edwards, the United States seems to be in worse shape than even I would imagine. Ask around, and you'll find that makes for a scary picture.

Thank you for the kind words of welcome.

However, I wouldn't describe "Fear" as the primary factor dictating my opinion regarding the candidate. Perhaps "Contempt"? Especially as I am not registered to vote in the race that he's running. Though, I will admit to the fear that the US could be run by such a blatant hypocrite. It has enough problems with leadership transparency at present, without electing such a Janus.

The criticism is fairly simple and well documented. His own website lays out his quest against payday lenders based on the theory that they prey on the poor in need, and abuse their desperation with unconscionable interest rates. A proposition with which I concur. Yet he invests in, and profits from, an equivalent institution in sub-prime mortgage lending. In sum, he makes millions off of the poor he claims to champion. Therefore, if he is the Champion, I pity the championed.

I missed the segue into blue collar workers, but assuming that you are arguing that his popularity amongst the working class is an indication of his message at play, it only serves to further my point that his nominal championship of the impoverished negatively serves the needs of the impoverished. Each of the candidates is sufficiently well flushed in the wallet-region to run a campaign, but contrast Edwards with, say, John McCain whose primary investment seems to be Budweiser's corporate father. One can easily draw the point that there are other investments of capital that do not directly, significantly, and immediately negatively impact the platform of the candidate.

To turn the example, if McCain was campaigning on a MADD platform, he ought not to be invested in Anheuser-Busch. In the same way, Edwards ought not to be financially invested in Sub-prime lending if he is running on an anti-poverty, populist platform.

The next question is, does the candidate know where he's invested? One only need to ask if you think that a man who spends some people's weekly salary on a visit to a tonsorial establishment does not also consider in what areas he is financially invested.

One cannot, with credibility, champion a cause whilst increasing wealth by means that runs contrary to the stated cause.

None of the other candidates are subject to this type of criticism, not because they do not engage in investments of various types, but because they do not style themselves as populists champions of the impoverished. If the distribution, or redistribution, of money is the primary substance of one's candidacy, then that philosophy ought to be reflected in the actions of the candidate. Else, he is accurately called a "Phony".

And I have yet to see the corrupt profiteer argument laid out coherently.

It has been laid out clearly in this thread. You just refuse to accept the information that has been presented to you. Let me post something again:

"The decision that most complicates Edwards's political message, though, is his affiliation with Fortress Investments, the hedge fund where he worked in 2006. ... (hedge funds have) led, more than anything else, to the gross inequality that Edwards deplores. ... Fortress has invested in exactly the same kind of subprime-mortgage dealers that Edwards has repeatedly castigated for praying on the poor. ... When the Fortress story first surfaced ... he told (the AP) that he joined the hedge fund partly because he wanted to learn more about the way markets affected inequality. This is rather like saying you hired a stripper in order to better understand the exploitation of women." (NYT, Sunday Magazine).

Now, let me add to it:

"Mr. Edwards, who reported this year that he had assets of nearly $30 million, came up with a novel solution, creating a nonprofit organization with the stated mission of fighting poverty. The organization, the Center for Promise and Opportunity, raised $1.3 million in 2005, and — unlike a sister charity he created to raise scholarship money for poor students — the main beneficiary of the center’s fund-raising was Mr. Edwards himself, tax filings show."

The whole story is here...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/22/us/politics/22edwards.html?ex=1186804800&en=3023c7714ca594b2&ei=5070

Right. Okay.

That's it?

What more do you want? A picture of John Edwards stealing ice cream from a poor child who has been dislodged from his home by Hurrican Katrina? He ripped off his own nonprofit so he could run for president. Is that the sort of person you want to vote for? I guess it is...

It's obvious there's nothing that could dent your appreciation of Edwards. As an obvious class-warrior (I based this on many of your previous remarks here and elsewhere), you're apparently much more interested in the lip-service he pays to the "struggle" than you are the actual substance of the man, so I see little point in debating you about the issue.

He ripped off his own nonprofit so he could run for president.

I've already addressed this issue.

It's obvious there's nothing that could dent your appreciation of Edwards.

You know, they kicked Charlie Chaplin out of the country for personifying the American Dream. They could have found better reasons, I would think, but it didn't occur to them to do so. The government was operating in bad faith on that.

And the same with you. There are certain things John Edwards could do to diminish his standing in my eyes, but I'm not impressed by dishonest folks such as yourself whose hatred is based on the presumption that the rich ought not have a conscience.

That's all.

See, the thing is that the only reason his critics disapprove of John Edwards' behavior is that he's a Democrat who wants to help the poor. I find these sorts of arguments absolutely repugnant, and indicative of your own corruption. The more bad faith people put in to diminish my respect for Edwards, the less I respect the people making the argument.

It's too bad that your vision of the American president has everything to do with yourself, and nothing to do with the United States of America. When you're interested in being part of the American community instead of demanding that it be exactly what you want, let me know. None of us get exactly what we want, Countezero, and I'm pretty sure you know that. The fact that you're down to demanding perfection according to a hateful standard speaks worse of you than it ever could of the candidate.

Get over yourself.

There are certain things John Edwards could do to diminish his standing in my eyes


Please elaborate.

Please elaborate.

He could fulfill the conservatives' demands and forfeit his conscience. Participating in the system is not in itself corruption. Being successful is not in itself corrupt. Empowering corruption is corrupt. Tipping justice to protect your wealth is corrupt. Using your wealth as empowerment to bring greater justice to the people is part of what the myth of America asserts is virtuous about the American way.

What do you require of a candidate? Who would satisfy those requirements?

It is a bit of a stretch to call the NYT a conservative institution, no? So, to be fair, Edwards takes criticism on this same point from both sides of the political spectrum. It is not a "conservative" criticism.

Nor is it a criticism of his financial success. No one has, thus far, argued that is wrong to make large sums of money. It's how he made the money, and, worse, continues to do so that is objectionable. And how he makes money is exploitive of the very constituents he claims to protect.

There are many things required of a candidate, and high on the list is trustworthiness. In order to feel comfortable empowering another human being to make choices for you, you ought to at least have the comfort that they are going to act in conformity with their stated philosophy. That is the problem with hypocrisy in a candidate, they destroy your ability to trust them.

E is for Edwards, and for Estrogen.

It is a bit of a stretch to call the NYT a conservative institution, no?

It's a tremendous stretch to say that the NYT holds him in contempt, or compare him to Ceausescu.

Considering the issue is one thing. Disingenuous histrionics are quite another.

I've already addressed this issue.

And if I recall correctly, you essentially dismissed it with other examples of questionable behavior.

You know, they kicked Charlie Chaplin out of the country for personifying the American Dream. They could have found better reasons, I would think, but it didn't occur to them to do so. The government was operating in bad faith on that.

I fail to see what this has to do with anything.

And the same with you. There are certain things John Edwards could do to diminish his standing in my eyes, but I'm not impressed by dishonest folks such as yourself whose hatred is based on the presumption that the rich ought not have a conscience.

How am I dishonest? I've documented everything that I've said here and when I was wrong or misstated something, I quickly corrected it. My motive here and dislike for Edwards has nothing with hatred, either. I simply in believe in telling the truth about people (it's my job) and am dumbfounded more people haven't gotten wise to this man's obvious moral foibles. So I'm writing about it.

I take issue with your claims about my "presumption," too.

I've never posted anything about the rich not having a conscience. As a man who takes morals and ethics seriously, I think all people should have what you call a conscience. The difference between you and I is that you think Edwards has one and I think he doesn't (or if he does, he is willing to subvert it to his political goals). I have evidence on my side (posted ad nausea in this thread), you have inclinations, opinions and subjective judgments on yours.

See, the thing is that the only reason his critics disapprove of John Edwards' behavior is that he's a Democrat who wants to help the poor.

I would feel the way I do regardless of his party. I can't speak for the "critics," but I suspect the ones not working for biased news organizations would say the same thing.

I find these sorts of arguments absolutely repugnant, and indicative of your own corruption.

You have proof I am corrupt? Or is this just another one of the cheap personal shots you like to occasionally rifle across the bow whenever your temper begins to wander.

The more bad faith people put in to diminish my respect for Edwards, the less I respect the people making the argument.

You can feel however you like...

It's too bad that your vision of the American president has everything to do with yourself, and nothing to do with the United States of America. When you're interested in being part of the American community instead of demanding that it be exactly what you want, let me know. None of us get exactly what we want, Countezero, and I'm pretty sure you know that. The fact that you're down to demanding perfection according to a hateful standard speaks worse of you than it ever could of the candidate.

I'm not sure what basis you have for your esoteric rant. I have never espoused a "vision" of what I want for an American president or argued for anything approaching perfection, which obviously doesn't exist in the realm of men. All I have advocated is honesty and consistency.

As Portocall has written, this is about a candidate who says one thing and does another. He champions causes, but clearly contributes the problems behind those causes. You have said: "Participating in the system is not in itself corruption. Being successful is not in itself corrupt. Empowering corruption is corrupt. ... Using your wealth as empowerment to bring greater justice to the people is part of what the myth of America asserts is virtuous about the American way."

Again, no one is attacking the man for his participation in capitalistic system and his successes. Rather, we are attacking him for the manner of that participation. Surely, you recognize there is a moral difference between the man an honest living and a man who exploits others? Or are you so Machiavellian that you really think "using your wealth as empowerment to bring greater justice to the people" excuses ill gotten gains or hypocrisy...

As this shows, there are serious problems with the sort of sub-prime loans Mr. Edwards has made money from.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070809/D8QTQKHG0.html

And if I recall correctly, you essentially dismissed it with other examples of questionable behavior

We'll revisit this note of yours in just a moment, as well. But to reiterate my earlier answer:

I'm looking into it, and while there may be "politics as usual" at play, I've yet to find a proper refutation of Edwards' claim that he operated within the law. Additionally, if the question of who benefits from the work of an advocacy organization is so dire, there are plenty of non-profits nationwide that ought to shut down.

You continue to use the phrase "ripped off"; this implies he's done something illegal. As I've noted, there is not yet a proper refutation of the claim that Edwards operated within the law. If you insist on convicting the man, you're going to need to provide proof.

See, the nearest I can find out is that people are exploiting the question of why he wasn't handing out money hand over fist. So, to reiterate yet again, "if the question of who benefits from the work of an advocacy organization is so dire, there are plenty of non-profits nationwide that ought to shut down".

There are many non-profits that don't just hand out money, but rather spend their efforts advocating issues and solutions. If this is the question, there are many non-profits nationwide that need to be shut down. In other words, you're accusing Edwards of "ripping off" a non-profit because his non-profit doesn't fit the version that you demand.

I fail to see what this has to do with anything

The common link is bad faith.

Bad faith (Latin: mala fides) is a legal concept in which a malicious motive on the part of a party in a lawsuit undermines their case. (Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_faith))

• • •

bad faith
noun

1. Dishonesty; treachery. (AllWords.com (http://www.allwords.com/word-bad%20faith.html))

• • •

bad faith
noun

Definition:

insincerity: insincerity, especially as evidenced by actions that do not accord with somebody's stated intentions. (Encarta (http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861685746/bad_faith.html))

The U.S. probably could have nailed him for something. But one of the things they charged him with was "premature anti-fascism". They pinned an obviously untenable paternity case on him. Congress subpoenaed him three times, but never actually followed up. Chaplin was willing, but Congress was afraid of him. Instead, they waited until he went to England to premiere Limelight and refused him re-entry to the U.S. In the name of America, the government threw out due process and kicked out of the country the living personification of the American Dream.

Hope... I'm sorry but I don't want to be an Emperor - that's not my business - I don't want to rule or conquer anyone. I should like to help everyone if possible, Jew, gentile, black man, white. We all want to help one another, human beings are like that.

We all want to live by each other's happiness, not by each other's misery. We don't want to hate and despise one another. In this world there is room for everyone and the earth is rich and can provide for everyone.

The way of life can be free and beautiful.

But we have lost the way.

Greed has poisoned men's souls - has barricaded the world with hate; has goose-stepped us into misery and bloodshed .... (The Great Dictator (http://www.clown-ministry.com/index_1.php?/site/articles/text_of_charlie_chaplins_speech_from_the_great_dic tator_aka_look_up_hannah/))

The speech appealed that soldiers under fascist governments should shrug off the bonds of tyranny and deliver the people to freedom. It invokes Luke 17: "In the seventeenth chapter of Saint Luke it is written 'the kingdom of God is within man' - not one man, nor a group of men - but in all men - in you, the people."

And this was viewed as un-American.

The government acted in bad faith, just as the Bush administration acts in bad faith by constantly invoking al Qaeda while pursuing an irrelevant war in Iraq and doing nothing to bring in bin Laden. And you, although on a tremendously smaller scale, are acting in bad faith in convicting Edwards of "ripping off" a non-profit without any real proof, in indicting a man morally for taking part in society, in demanding that a rich man forfeit his conscience. It's a sick proposition, that last, designed to demand that the only people who care about the poor are not empowered to do anything about poverty.

How am I dishonest?

In applying a vicious double-standard, in convicting a man without evidence, and in acting in bad faith.

I've documented everything that I've said here and when I was wrong or misstated something, I quickly corrected it

And I thank you for correcting the obvious mistakes. But you're happy to go on trying to con people into believing that there's something there when there isn't.

From your cited New York Times magazine article, we read:

Edwards seems to find it hard to believe that anyone could think he’s less than sincere about his commitment to the poor. He is, as he never grew tired of reminding us in 2004, the son of a millworker, a man who worked his way through college and devoted his entire legal career to righting the wrongs done to powerless people. “I would argue that my life is a very consistent pattern,” he told me during our conversation in New Hampshire. “It’s true — I worked for a hedge fund. No denying that. I did. It’s also true that I’ve made a lot of money in my lifetime. So do we want somebody as president who hasn’t been successful?” He laughed. “And would it be better if I didn’t want to help people to have a chance to be as successful as I have been? I think it’s pretty clear where my heart is.”

That may be, and yet it doesn’t help when Edwards tries so hard to establish his affinity for the common man that it makes you wince. When the Fortress story first surfaced, for instance, he told Nedra Pickler of The Associated Press that he joined the hedge fund partly because he wanted to learn more about the way markets affected inequality. This is rather like saying you hired a stripper in order to better understand the exploitation of women. Another cringe-worthy example: In April, The A.P. asked the announced candidates in both parties what their dream job would be if they weren’t in politics. It was meant to be an amusing exercise. Barack Obama said he’d be an architect. Bill Richardson said he’d play center field for the Yankees. Rudolph W. Giuliani said he’d be a sports announcer. What was Edwards’s dream job — the alternate life he lay awake fantasizing about, had he not become a millionaire lawyer and politician?

“Mill supervisor.” (Edwards (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/10/magazine/10edwards-t.html?ei=5070&en=1838d2b047112234&ex=1186891200&pagewanted=print))

So, would it be better if he didn't want to help people? Would you prefer a president with no great success on his record? Would you disparage mill workers?

What's so cringe-worthy about a lawyer and politician thinking he might enjoy a life that isn't complicated by constant arguing, didn't immerse him in tragedy?

Here's a quote to consider: "“As a newspaper reporter, it’s not my job to sit in judgment of every interpretation of government."

That's Matt Bai, the author of the NYT piece. Obviously, he's failing at his job. In his allegedly non-judgmental 2004 article on John Kerry, he wrote,

I was left to imagine what was going through his head. If I admit that I drink bottled water, then he might say I’m out of touch with ordinary voters. But doesn’t demanding my own brand of water seem even more aristocratic? Then again, Evian is French – important to stay away from anything even remotely French. (Ogle (http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/recount/article/52/))

(Click Here (http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2007/07/i-like-ike-and-.html) for a blogger's response to some of Matt Bai's writing.)

In the end, you're investing a lot of faith in one writer who doesn't even live up to his own standards. I guess hypocrisy isn't an important issue unless it's accused of a rich man or a presidential candidate?

All you've documented is that someone has said something, and that you agree with it.

My motive here and dislike for Edwards has nothing with hatred, either.

If that's what you believe, fine. It's not what I see in your writing, though.

I simply in believe in telling the truth about people (it's my job) and am dumbfounded more people haven't gotten wise to this man's obvious moral foibles. So I'm writing about it.

Do you consider it truthful, then, to absolutely despise someone based on third- and fourth-hand information (at best) and the opinion of a journalist who routinely violates his own statements of principle?

One of the reasons it's only conservatives who are making a big deal out of Edwards' "moral foibles" is because the moral standard invoked is hypersensitive, grotesquely exaggerated, and rooted solely in fear and malice.

Additionally, as to your dishonesty and your job telling the truth, I do recall we had a row a while back over the Democrats voting to fund the troops. You seemed to have a problem with this. Additionally, you accused me of seeking you out despite the fact that you opened the exchange by criticizing me in response to someone else's post. (Click Here (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=67051) if you've forgotten about that one.

So, Countezero, no. Get off your moral high horse. Your duplicity is what betrays your claim that your motives have nothing to do with hatred.

Do you really wonder why I think you're dishonest? Do you really wonder why I think you're acting in bad faith? You know, I asked you why we should care about your opinion, and you refused to answer that question. (Click Here (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1496425) in case that one has slipped your mind.)

I take issue with your claims about my "presumption," too.

Your bad faith in considering these issues leads you to an hysterical indictment of John Edwards for taking part in the society and economy of the United States, and the apparent contradiction that a rich man should use his good fortune to help the poor.

As a man who takes morals and ethics seriously, I think all people should have what you call a conscience.

I would suggest that it will help your arguments if you took the issue of your own conscience seriously. If what you say happens to be true, the state of your conscience may not matter. But what you're saying is twisted, exaggerated, and histrionic.

I have evidence on my side (posted ad nausea in this thread), you have inclinations, opinions and subjective judgments on yours

An opinion article is evidence?

Additionally, you haven't demonstrated the connection between fact and effect.

I would feel the way I do regardless of his party. I can't speak for the "critics," but I suspect the ones not working for biased news organizations would say the same thing.

Um ... if I don't touch that one, it's because I'm not going to presume your list of unbiased news organizations, or unbiased journalists, critics, or otherwise.

You have proof I am corrupt? Or is this just another one of the cheap personal shots you like to occasionally rifle across the bow whenever your temper begins to wander.

Well, you have lied in the past in order to take a shot directly at me. And you are blasting Edwards, apparently because he wants to help the poor; in the meantime, you're leaving out Hillary Clinton, Rudy Giuliani, and Chris Dodd; Barack Obama's biggest contributor is a hedge fund manager. Of course, none of these people are focusing on the poor, so it's just dandy with you? (Think carefully on this one, Countezero; it reaches back after the assertion about the rich having consciences.)

Additionally, considering our earlier discussion of Rupert Murdoch and hypocrisy, why did you make Muroch an issue while starting the topic with sensationalist propaganda from one of his company's more bombastic and sleazy outlets? Especially considering Murdoch's backing Hillary Clinton, an Edwards rival? Apparently, this isn't a conflict of interest in your book?

I'm not sure what basis you have for your esoteric rant. I have never espoused a "vision" of what I want for an American president or argued for anything approaching perfection, which obviously doesn't exist in the realm of men. All I have advocated is honesty and consistency.

Don't hide behind your unwillingness to be explicit. Don't hide behind your unwillingness to make any affirmative arguments. All you do is tear after what you don't like. If you don't like the assessment of the basis of your argument, then perhaps you should put a little more effort into communicating it.

As Portocall has written, this is about a candidate who says one thing and does another. He champions causes, but clearly contributes the problems behind those causes.

See, this is where you really are missing something. Edwards has already had positive influence in relation to hedge funds.

Bedingfield said Fortress recently ended its practice of letting managing partners defer their U.S. income taxes by reinvesting profits in the offshore funds. The firm made that change when it went public late last year around the time Edwards ended his consulting arrangement.

"John Edwards believes offshore tax shelters are wrong," Bedingfield said last week. "As president, he will end them. By voluntarily going public, Fortress has ended the practice of using offshore tax shelters for deferred compensation and has committed itself to a whole set of transparency and disclosure obligations that no other hedge fund has committed itself to before." (Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/22/AR2007042201339.html))

He's already compelled one major hedge fund company to change its business practices for the better. Apparently, though, this is a bad thing. At least, according to you and Portocall.

(Notice the article was published in April. Notice that the vocal critics don't want to talk about the changes John Edwards is already bringing about in the hedge fund market. Either these critics are ill-informed or else dishonest. Notice that the GOP ignored this fact while swinging at Edwards in July (http://eee.gop.com/News/Read.aspx?ID=7081). The information's been out there, but the vociferous hatred of partisan critics has been designed specifically to shout down that reality.)

Again, no one is attacking the man for his participation in capitalistic system and his successes. Rather, we are attacking him for the manner of that participation. Surely, you recognize there is a moral difference between the man an honest living and a man who exploits others?

Yep. I also recognize someone who can effect positive change, as he has already begun to do in the hedge fund market. If you wish to continue attacking Edwards for compelling positive changes in the hedge fund market, you're going to have to come up with something a little more substantial than an opinion piece.

Or are you so Machiavellian that you really think "using your wealth as empowerment to bring greater justice to the people" excuses ill gotten gains or hypocrisy.

Your definition of hypocrisy, being unstable and selectively applied, is utterly without credibility.

As this shows, there are serious problems with the sort of sub-prime loans Mr. Edwards has made money from.

Well, what do you want? Bringing positive change takes time. He can't do everything at once.

Of course, will you complain when he brings positive change to the lending market, too?

I'm looking into it, and while there may be "politics as usual" at play, I've yet to find a proper refutation of Edwards' claim that he operated within the law. ... You continue to use the phrase "ripped off"; this implies he's done something illegal.

I use the phrase because that's what happened, crudely speaking. The center was ostensibly collecting money for poverty or poverty issues or advocacy of some kind. It was not supposed to be collecting for a presidential bid.

As I've noted, there is not yet a proper refutation of the claim that Edwards operated within the law. If you insist on convicting the man, you're going to need to provide proof.

I'm not convicting him. Nor have I ever suggested he's done anything illegal. What I have suggested — rather strongly — is that he has behaved immorally and unethically. I'm sure you're aware there are all sorts of moral and ethical violations that aren't crimes?

So, to reiterate yet again, "if the question of who benefits from the work of an advocacy organization is so dire, there are plenty of non-profits nationwide that ought to shut down".

So what you're saying is that because there are lots of other non-profits misleading people, it's OK that Edwards and his did?

There are many non-profits that don't just hand out money, but rather spend their efforts advocating issues and solutions. If this is the question, there are many non-profits nationwide that need to be shut down.

There are.

In other words, you're accusing Edwards of "ripping off" a non-profit because his non-profit doesn't fit the version that you demand.

This is amazing. You're trying to make this about me and my definitions? I didn't set the non-profit up. I didn't define it. He did. And then he used it for political purposes. Honestly, I fail to see how you follow this. The man started a non-profit concerning poverty issues, then used it to fund his pre-campaign political activities. It's not complicated.

And you, although on a tremendously smaller scale, are acting in bad faith in convicting Edwards of "ripping off" a non-profit without any real proof, in indicting a man morally for taking part in society, in demanding that a rich man forfeit his conscience. It's a sick proposition, that last, designed to demand that the only people who care about the poor are not empowered to do anything about poverty.

That's ridiculous. I have posted proof that he ripped off his non-profit. Or, if you don't like that word, misappropriated the funds he collected for it by pledging them toward something that had nothing to do with the organization or its intent.

All this other business you blabber about "indictments" and "sick propositions" is nothing more than you ingoring what I say and attempting to cast me as something I'm not because you dislike the evidence I present and the conclusions I draw. Again, for the record, I have never said a rich man should "forfeit his conscious." In fact, in my last post, I said the opposite. Nor have I said anything about participation in society. All I have argued for is honest, intergrity and truth. In other words, a man cannot profit from something and condemn it at the same time and expect to be judged moral or ethical.

In applying a vicious double-standard, in convicting a man without evidence, and in acting in bad faith.

I've posted numerous links in this thread to primary sources. You've done nothing but post bizarre anecdotes, your feelings, inclinations and subjective judgments based on the above. The evidence is on my side.

So, would it be better if he didn't want to help people? Would you prefer a president with no great success on his record? Would you disparage mill workers?

I'm not disparaging anyone, so don't try that well-worn tactic. To answer your question, I think it would be better if what Edwards said and what he did were more consistent.

That's Matt Bai, the author of the NYT piece. Obviously, he's failing at his job.

This thread isn't about Matt Bai — or Charlie Chaplin, for that matter. It's about John Edwards, his business interests and his campaign platform.

All you've documented is that someone has said something, and that you agree with it.

No, that's not true. I've documented where Edwards gets his money and what he's said about those sort of enterprises on the campaign trail. Arguing against sub-prime lenders and making money from them is an obvious contradiction.

If that's what you believe, fine. It's not what I see in your writing, though.

Which would prompt me to reiterate that what I see in your rationalizations and other various arguments is a blind devotion to symbolism over substance and a willful decision to ignore what is clearly in front of your face. I also think you've made this intensely personal, as you do all your engagements with people you don't agree with, by offering up your subjective — and hostile — opinions about me. Like another of my "favorites" on this site, whenever someone has the audacity to disagree with your self-perceived brilliance, you see it as your duty to try to destroy that person and their credibility by labeling them with crude monikers and pontificating about their personality and their motives — all of which is subjective, speculative and juvenile.

Do you consider it truthful, then, to absolutely despise someone based on third- and fourth-hand information (at best) and the opinion of a journalist who routinely violates his own statements of principle?

I've never said I despise the man, and I've cited numerous other journalists — and stories — than the one you've chosen to pick on.

Your duplicity is what betrays your claim that your motives have nothing to do with hatred. But what you're saying is twisted, exaggerated, and histrionic.

This is your standard. Whenver someone disagrees with you they are duplicitious or "hatemongers" and you dredge up your usual list of hyperbolic words to describe their beliefs and their arguments...

You know, I asked you why we should care about your opinion, and you refused to answer that question.

Because it's a foolish question. You don't have to care about my opinion. Nor do I have to care about yours...

And you are blasting Edwards, apparently because he wants to help the poor; in the meantime, you're leaving out Hillary Clinton, Rudy Giuliani, and Chris Dodd; Barack Obama's biggest contributor is a hedge fund manager. Of course, none of these people are focusing on the poor, so it's just dandy with you?

Again, I'm "blasting" Edwards for saying he wants to help the poor while taking advantage of them. So far as this issue goes, none of the others you mentioned are applicable, because even as you point out, they aren't out stumping with a platform of populism. If they were, then their financial actions would need to be examined, too.

Additionally, considering our earlier discussion of Rupert Murdoch and hypocrisy, why did you make Muroch an issue while starting the topic with sensationalist propaganda from one of his company's more bombastic and sleazy outlets? Especially considering Murdoch's backing Hillary Clinton, an Edwards rival? Apparently, this isn't a conflict of interest in your book?

I have no idea who Murdoch is backing. And yes, the New York Post isn't the world's most reliable news source, but even the Edwards people didn't deny the book deal that was the catalyst for the story. You, on the other hand, have argued that Murdoch runs and manipulates a sleazy news organizations, but at the same time, he runs a book company that is allowed to operate without his meddling hand...

He's already compelled one major hedge fund company to change its business practices for the better. Apparently, though, this is a bad thing. At least, according to you and Portocall.

This hasn't been discussed, so I fail to see how you know how either of use would react to the above information.

Either these critics are ill-informed or else dishonest. The information's been out there, but the vociferous hatred of partisan critics has been designed specifically to shout down that reality.

Yes, not finding and reading one story means someone is "ill-informed."

If you wish to continue attacking Edwards for compelling positive changes in the hedge fund market, you're going to have to come up with something a little more substantial than an opinion piece.

I've come up with several different articles. This is the first you posted. I've never attacked him for "positive changes" in the market. In fact, I would applaud him. However, I would also point out, if these changes did occur, they do not remove the fact he already profited from something he claims to abhor...

I use the phrase because that's what happened, crudely speaking. The center was ostensibly collecting money for poverty or poverty issues or advocacy of some kind. It was not supposed to be collecting for a presidential bid.

And you're God, who knows the ultimate truth, which is why whatever you presume of someone you simply don't like must necessarily be true.

Give it a rest.


I'm not convicting him. Nor have I ever suggested he's done anything illegal.

You're dishonest, Countezero. Maybe if you want to make this argument you could actually address my post instead of just insisting that reality is whatever you want me to believe it is.

What I have suggested — rather strongly — is that he has behaved immorally and unethically. I'm sure you're aware there are all sorts of moral and ethical violations that aren't crimes?

Well, maybe you could put some effort into substantiating that, instead of leaping to conclusions about someone you don't like anyway.

Oh, wait, I forgot. You say so, so it must be real.

So what you're saying is that because there are lots of other non-profits misleading people, it's OK that Edwards and his did?

No. I'm saying your hateful obsession is causing you to smear many decent advocacy non-profits in order to justify your dishonest attempt to smear Edwards.

There are.

Well have fun stormin' the castle, then. Just remember, when you're actually out there trying to shut them down, society and the law is going to require a little something more than your irrational say-so.

This is amazing. You're trying to make this about me and my definitions?

Yes. Because that's all you've brought to the discussion so far. Well, that and a heaping helping of hatred and lies.

I didn't set the non-profit up. I didn't define it. He did. And then he used it for political purposes.

Yes, he set up the non-profit. And you insist political exploitation.

Honestly, I fail to see how you follow this.

Neither you nor the press reports have given much to follow. That I don't follow you leaping into the abyss of hatred is not my problem.

The man started a non-profit concerning poverty issues, then used it to fund his pre-campaign political activities.

I'm just amazed that for all your proof, you haven't done the right thing and taken it to the authorities in order that they can arrest and prosecute the man for fraud.

It's not complicated.

It may well be a bit more complicated than you're making it. Ask a psychiatrist, and you'll find out that whatever the hell is compelling your behavior is more complicated than either of us know.

That's ridiculous. I have posted proof that he ripped off his non-profit.

Take that "proof" to the effing authorities, then. Now read the next statement very carefully: The "proof" you have shown me simply doesn't meet the standard.

Or, if you don't like that word, misappropriated the funds he collected for it by pledging them toward something that had nothing to do with the organization or its intent.

And what you are accusing him of doing is illegal. Take him down, then. Save the nation.

All this other business you blabber about "indictments" and "sick propositions" is nothing more than you ingoring what I say and attempting to cast me as something I'm not because you dislike the evidence I present and the conclusions I draw.

It's because your "evidence" is political fluff.

Again, for the record, I have never said a rich man should "forfeit his conscious." In fact, in my last post, I said the opposite. Nor have I said anything about participation in society.

That argument is common in politics. People construct arguments that depend on a certain assertion, and then point out that they've never explicitly said something. It's a dishonest way of hiding what you're actually about, and it's pretty much what you do.

All I have argued for is honest, intergrity and truth.

Then you ought to start showing some.

In other words, a man cannot profit from something and condemn it at the same time and expect to be judged moral or ethical.

In the first place, how should I take you seriously when you're lying in order to argue for honesty, integrity, and truth?

More to the point of your attempted point, participation in something is often the most efficient way to understand it and change it.

I've posted numerous links in this thread to primary sources.

Oh, quit. You've posted to newspaper reports that don't even support your conclusions. Your conclusions require a specific bias in reading the news articles. And that bias is pretty heavy.

I'm not disparaging anyone, so don't try that well-worn tactic. To answer your question, I think it would be better if what Edwards said and what he did were more consistent.

This thread isn't about Matt Bai — or Charlie Chaplin, for that matter. It's about John Edwards, his business interests and his campaign platform.

When the closest thing to a proper primary source you produce is an opinion piece that violates the author's own journalistic standard and is therefore dishonest, it doesn't have much credibility. I mean, I'm not a journalist, either, and I can understand a few things about journalistic integrity.

And part of this argument--as it pertains to Matt Bai or Charlie Chaplin--is bad faith. You are acting in bad faith, Countezero. And that only hurts your argument.

Look at your own post. You make the point that you've never suggested he's done anything illegal, and then turn around and affirm that your accusation is that he's done something illegal. When you lie, you lose credibility. To borrow a phrase, "It's not that complicated."

No, that's not true. I've documented where Edwards gets his money and what he's said about those sort of enterprises on the campaign trail. Arguing against sub-prime lenders and making money from them is an obvious contradiction.

I would presume that you're doing what many of us do, and answering the post in sequence, and therefore give you a pass on this one, except that you're not really being honest. We'll come back to this in just a few moments.

Which would prompt me to reiterate that what I see in your rationalizations and other various arguments is a blind devotion to symbolism over substance and a willful decision to ignore what is clearly in front of your face.

It's not that I'm ignoring it, but rather that I don't apply the same hypersensitive, hateful, dishonest standard you're applying.

I also think you've made this intensely personal, as you do all your engagements with people you don't agree with, by offering up your subjective — and hostile — opinions about me.

You've lied to and about me before, and you're lying in your current pursuit of Edwards. You are dishonest. That is on the record. I've even provided links and an argument detailing that assertion. If you disagree with it, then show me how I'm wrong. But a liar complaining about being called out on his lies doesn't have much to stand on.

Like another of my "favorites" on this site, whenever someone has the audacity to disagree with your self-perceived brilliance, you see it as your duty to try to destroy that person and their credibility by labeling them with crude monikers and pontificating about their personality and their motives — all of which is subjective, speculative and juvenile.

To reiterate: You've lied to and about me before, and you're lying in your current pursuit of Edwards. You are dishonest. That is on the record. I've even provided links and an argument detailing that assertion. If you disagree with it, then show me how I'm wrong. But a liar complaining about being called out on his lies doesn't have much to stand on.

I will give you another opportunity to respond to the accusation I posted in my prior post; you have not responded yet:

Additionally, you accused me of seeking you out despite the fact that you opened the exchange by criticizing me in response to someone else's post. (Click Here (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=67051) if you've forgotten about that one.)

To be more specific, so there's no question: Click Here (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1410869) for your accusation, and Click Here (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1410933) for my response.

Show me how documenting your lie is subjective.

I've never said I despise the man, and I've cited numerous other journalists — and stories — than the one you've chosen to pick on.

Again, don't hide behind what is or isn't explicit. Your smear campaign is quite tacitly clear. You're not doing this because you like the man, and you're not doing this in the pursuit of any sense of truth.

This is your standard. Whenver someone disagrees with you they are duplicitious or "hatemongers" and you dredge up your usual list of hyperbolic words to describe their beliefs and their arguments...

And you are hateful. You're lying desperately in order to smear a man. What would you call that sort of behavior? Should he thank you for your kindness? Should I praise you for your dishonesty?

Because it's a foolish question. You don't have to care about my opinion. Nor do I have to care about yours

Then why do you? I care because you're devoting much energy to lying about a man you don't like in order to smear him. There are plenty of places you could do this without me noticing, and yet you insist on bringing the campaign here. Fine. I'm going to respond. And, apparently, you care a great deal about what I say, since you're willing to insist over and over again that we're to find some nobility in your dishonesty.

Again, I'm "blasting" Edwards for saying he wants to help the poor while taking advantage of them.

And you can believe that all you want. But you've also tried to argue that, and your argument has no substance. Parroting editorials and making hyperbole out of press reports does not in any way constitute proof.

So far as this issue goes, none of the others you mentioned are applicable, because even as you point out, they aren't out stumping with a platform of populism. If they were, then their financial actions would need to be examined, too.

And there we go: The only problem is that one who invests money to make money also wants to help the poor.

Thank you for finally admitting it.

I have no idea who Murdoch is backing.

See, this is the thing: it doesn't take much effort to find these things out. Given how important you're making this out to be, I would think a little bit of research isn't too much to ask. But instead, you're rushing to rip into Edwards, and why? Every time I follow up your links, I end up asking, "That's it?" I even chased down a link you didn't provide (although it would have been tougher without the citation information you provided, just so you don't think I'm overlooking that), and found that, coincidentally, the piece wasn't all you were making it out to be.

And yes, the New York Post isn't the world's most reliable news source, but even the Edwards people didn't deny the book deal that was the catalyst for the story.

Um ... Countezero? "...(E)ven the Edwards people didn't deny the book deal that was the catalyst for the story"? Why would Edwards' people attempt to deny the obvious?

You, on the other hand, have argued that Murdoch runs and manipulates a sleazy news organizations, but at the same time, he runs a book company that is allowed to operate without his meddling hand

We have discussed HarperCollins earlier in this topic. That he would be stooping to meddle in the publishing affairs at that level is unlikely, though not impossible. And it is a far cry from Murdoch's open conversion of the New York Post into a conservative rag.

This hasn't been discussed, so I fail to see how you know how either of use would react to the above information.

That it hasn't been discussed only suggests that you're not looking. It wasn't tough to find. In fact, it came up while I was looking for the URL to the GOP's coverage of Edwards' investments. I find it highly disingenuous that this ongoing campaign against Edwards' investments starts well after we got the good news, and consistently ignores that good news.

Yes, not finding and reading one story means someone is "ill-informed."

I offered "ill-informed" because it was more merciful. I actually think this whole smear campaign is dishonest. I guess I haven't made that clear enough. Sorry 'bout that.

I've come up with several different articles. This is the first you posted. I've never attacked him for "positive changes" in the market.

I'm questioning your integrity in this, Countezero. You're the one who raised this discussion in the first place, and a little bit of research was too much to ask when you figured you could just parrot the New York (Times/Post) (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1496425). (When you confess to parroting the NYT, you seem to have been referring to the issue raised by the Post; it's not that big a deal, you're parroting either a sensationalist attack against the book deal in the Post or an opinion column in the Times, so either works for me.)

And the thing is that you attacked Edwards either before you bothered to learn about the subject, or by ignoring part of the record. Neither speaks well of your argument.

However, I would also point out, if these changes did occur, they do not remove the fact he already profited from something he claims to abhor

As history demonstrates, complaining from afar brings minimal, at best, results. Additionally, Edwards has one big thing going for him in this that you and his critics don't: his honesty. His expressed motivations in the Fortress deals are twofold: to learn about the industry and to make money. Fortress is now coming around to his way of seeing things, and that's a posit