Edwards resolves key political question
Mar 22, 2007 O Mores!, Politics and Poker
Democrat John Edwards is forging ahead with his second bid for the presidency despite the sobering news that his wife, Elizabeth, is battling an incurable reappearance of cancer.. . .
Putting to rest speculation about his political future, Edwards told reporters: “The campaign goes on. The campaign goes on strongly.”
. . .
“From our perspective, there was no reason to stop,” Edwards said. “I don’t think we seriously thought about it.”
“I don’t think we seriously thought about it.” So what does this resolve? It tells us that John Edwards — whom, I will admit, I never liked politically, though of course our sympathy must go out to him and his family on a personal level — is one of two things:
Either merely an inveterate liar, or a complete moral retard. Democrats are certainly used to having one or the other of those as their candidate, but chances are there’s at least one better one in this year’s field.
One what — liar or idiot? Pick ‘em.
UPDATE: Characterizations softened — see the comments. On the other hand, excuse me while I call out what I think are cheap shots from the other side of this issue. (Yes, I think there are two sides.)
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:12 pm
Hahaha, Ron, are you honestly suggesting that Edwards (or possibly his wife’s!) decision to stay focused on the campaign precludes him from being a moral individual?
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:17 pm
I am suggesting that, as I wrote, if he did not even think seriously about withdrawing — and he is a trial lawyer, and believe me, we choose our words carefully — he cannot be, yes.
I also happen to think his decision, while entirely his own and of course his wife’s, is hard to understand unless the number one thing in your life is personal ambition. He is young, and wealthy. Yes, I think he should devote himself to his wife’s health and comfort and come back in four or eight or 12 years in order to crown his ambition.
But okay, that’s his decision. I am sure his wife, like most political wives, supported him in it. But if he did not seriously think about giving up the campaign — if he did not in fact offer to his wife to do so, beg her to “let” him do so — then, yes, he cannot be a serious, or a moral, person.
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:35 pm
I think you must fundamentally misunderstand his wife’s illness, Ron. It’s an inoperable bone cancer, but one that can be successfully treated with drugs. It’ll never go away, but its effect on her life can be minimized. It’s not like his wife has six months to live and he’s like “screw that, on with the show!”
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:38 pm
I heard the same news reports you did. From them I glean the possibility that I may be mistaken when I say, “I also happen to think his decision, while entirely his own and of course his wife’s, is hard to understand …, etc.,” as I did above. But that there was “no serious consideration” of withdrawing?
I might suggest that you are fundamentally misunderstanding the effect of being involved in a presidential campaign!
March 22nd, 2007 at 4:16 pm
I kind of suspect that he and his wife had *already* seriously considered the possibility of her disease recurring before he ever decided to pursue the presidency this time around; they’d have been very shortsighted not to. So, I interpreted his saying “I don’t think we seriously thought about it” as saying, “there was nothing new here we hadn’t already recognized was a possibility, so there was no need to rehash our plans – we’d already made the go-ahead decision.”
March 22nd, 2007 at 4:22 pm
It’s within the realm of possibility that Mrs. Edwards’s doctor told her that her treatment would not slow her down in any sense and that Elizabeth told John right off the bat that she didn’t want him to drop out of the race.
It’s also possible that this is a white lie because both recognize that acknowledging the possibility that John would drop out of the race in response to this event would have a self-fulfilling prophetic effect as donors shy away from a candidate who might not be up for running. I think that’s a forgiveable social lie on the order of “I’m happy to be here” and “I’m looking forward to running for president.”
Either way, there are plenty of reasons to criticize Edwards without seizing upon this.
March 22nd, 2007 at 4:23 pm
I agree with Ron on this one. I’m shocked by his decision.
Granted, morality is a very personal thing. But I believe this decision won’t set well with many, maybe even most, Americans.
The man doesn’t need to work another day the rest of his life. Can’t he take a few months off, slow down, let his family relax , and maybe just spend some quality time together?
And looking at it from a cold and callous, purely political perspective, it makes no sense. His chances of winning the nomination in ‘08 are extremely slim. He’s even polling behind Hillary and Obama in South Carolina, of all places. And here he’s got a perfect “excuse” to drop out, take a few years off, and come back later when the field is different.
Maybe he is just dumb.
March 22nd, 2007 at 4:28 pm
I think Jay’s right (not just about me being right). Elizabeth, I don’t see him saying that, and believe me — this message was tightly controlled. (In fact, why didn’t he say that?)
Ted, good points!
March 22nd, 2007 at 5:25 pm
Ron, I am truly surprised at your vehement reaction. It doesn’t fit the picture I had of you. In fact, it’s pretty cold, my friend.
March 22nd, 2007 at 5:42 pm
Ara, I think it is Edwards who is cold. I don’t know if you’re married or not, but — well, read what Jay wrote.
March 22nd, 2007 at 5:44 pm
He’s already proven plenty of times that he’s a characterless caricature of a trial lawyer.
I won’t pass judgment on the decision to run. His public handling of it, though, doesn’t reflect the private handling I hope I’d show were my wife in his wife’s situation–whatever the nature of the actual private handling.
March 22nd, 2007 at 5:46 pm
I have to agree with Ara, Ron. Your choice of words – which is what you are faulting Edwards for – is cold, calloused and unfeeling. If I judge you by your “trial lawyer” standard, you don’t sound too good.
Look at what you said: Either merely an inveterate liar, or a complete moral retard.
That’s a disgusting comment by any standard.
Yours,
Wince
March 22nd, 2007 at 6:39 pm
Ron, note for future reference:
On January 20, 2009, John Edwards, (born June 10, 1953), will be the same age as George W. Bush was when inaugurated — not too old, but hardly “young.”
(BTW, Tony Snow, who is only 2 years younger, takes as much care about his looks as Edwards, a handsome man to be sure.)
As for the rest, some people choose to live life despite tragedy, others cower in fear of life’s challenges. Until you’ve been through this kind of battle yourself, and lost a child to boot, you can’t possibly sit in judgment of their decision.
And if you have experienced similar adversity, you should know better.
March 22nd, 2007 at 6:40 pm
You’ve certainly used an adjective, Wince, but you haven’t demonstrated anything — such as that I am wrong. If you will make some effort at showing me and anyone else who might be reading, perhaps you will affect someone’s opinion. Maybe even mine; I’ve changed my mind online more than once this week.
But, as I said before, I think the one who is disappearing, for all practical purposes, for the next two years while pursuing what is really nothing more than an ego trip — does anyone seriously think he can win? from what I can tell, the oddsmakers’ consensus is that the odds are 10:1 against — while his wife suffers from a fatal disease is the one who fits the description. He never seriously considered not continuing his campaign! If he doesn’t mean that, well, it’s at least a political fib and one he had plenty of time to avoid making by a choice of phraseology. If he did mean that, why, how can that be defended? Didn’t even consider it?
Joe, you also make a point that is worth following up on, and which I think is a relevant factor in my retort to Wince: When public figures live out the private lives in public, they necessarily subject them to public commentary.
March 22nd, 2007 at 7:06 pm
I hope that the odds are 10:1 against Edwards, but I think they’re much better than that. He’s ahead in Iowa, and winning a plurality in Iowa pole-vaulted Kerry from worse than 10:1 against the November before the caucus to 1:3 odds-on favorite when he won it.
March 22nd, 2007 at 7:18 pm
Mark, young he is, as presidential contenders go. And hair.
I have never accepted the view that no one can express an opinion on a moral choice until he has faced the same choice himself. I don’t even understand the logic behind it. Wouldn’t that guideline make policymaking, and much of political life, impossible?
You know, I’m sorry. Your wife’s sick, you at least think about stopping your personal quest for greatness. Don’t you even think about it?
There is another possibility, too. Could Mrs. Edwards have said, “John, the best thing you can do for me is fight and win it!” That would be touching and a true expression of love. But as I said before, I think she has to say that in response to his honest and sincere statement to her that he is seriously committed to staying by her side and doing nothing else if there’s any chance that’s what she wants. And he’s saying he didn’t every have that conversation or that thought.
Or am I being too literal? Do you think perhaps he didn’t mean what he said, and is just giving rah-rah talk? Maybe it’s not a lie, just a political-not-true-thing?
March 22nd, 2007 at 7:18 pm
Ron
I don’t like Edwards. I don’t like his stances, nor how he made his money. I view people like John Edwards as the reason why doctors are fleeing states like mine because of outrageous malpractice insurance rates.
But he’s lost a son in a car accident, and now will lose his wife to cancer. I know loss, and I recently lost a loved one to cancer.
So those two paragraphs kind of negate each other.
However, I completely agree with you, Ron. He’s lying: He’s seriously considered it, and worse, he’s belittling those who struggle with cancer.
Cancer is not something that you can ignore. It’s not something that allows you to live life the same way you did the day before your diagnosis. Cancer changes everything, and everyone it touches.
John Edwards is being shallow and too cavalier with his wife’s diagnosis. If he had the balls, he would have done the honorable thing and left the race. He’s young; he can compete again in 2012. His wife won’t be there (sorry, but bone cancer is one of the nastiest kinds around) and he will be able to focus on the race then.
Not very presidential. Not at all.
March 22nd, 2007 at 7:20 pm
Okay, then. I vote with Scott.
March 22nd, 2007 at 7:21 pm
[...] But as Ron Coleman points out, he’s either lying or a moral retard. I believe he’s lying: He’s seriously considered it, and worse, he’s belittling those who struggle with cancer. [...]
March 22nd, 2007 at 8:19 pm
Ron:
Ara, I think it is Edwards who is cold. I don’t know if you’re married or not, but — well, read what Jay wrote.
I am married…and not to Jay, thank G-d. Nor are you married to either one of the Edwardses, which is my point. What do you care what their marriage agreement is? That’s between them. Perhaps it isn’t what you or I would want from our respective spouses but, gosh, is that any fault of the Edwardses? We’re not married to them! Lighten up, dude.
March 22nd, 2007 at 8:21 pm
“Lighten up dude!” — the first refuge of a comments-section scoundrel!
Much less a married one!
March 22nd, 2007 at 8:32 pm
It’s fascinating to me how people will so easily pass judgment, and in the most despicable way, on the personal decisions of others who they know next to nothing about. “Moral retard,” indeed. Look in the mirror.
March 22nd, 2007 at 8:40 pm
Yes, passing judgments on others’ personal pain is a terrible thing, isn’t it?
Utopia
Utopia
Utopia
Utopia
I didn’t even have to go back a month to find the Utopia in your mirror, brother.
March 22nd, 2007 at 8:41 pm
Have you considered (no, I doubt you will even after reading this) that John is staying on the campaign trail because that’s what will make Elizabeth happy, and her happiness is part and parcel of her therapy?
Dork.
March 22nd, 2007 at 8:44 pm
Mark, have you considered reading?
I do not think it enhances your argument to call me by the name I was given at birth, by the way.
March 22nd, 2007 at 8:53 pm
That’s the point that most of you seem to be missing. Read what Ron wrote a little more carefully. He’s not criticizing the decision (at least, not in his post — he does criticize it in the comments, and I think he goes too far there). He’s criticizing the idea that they never even thought about stopping the campaign. That’s simply not believable. Mr. Edwards didn’t say, “We struggled mightily with the decision, but decided we had to remain true to our convictions.” He didn’t even say, “We talked it over, and decided the American people are more important than our problems. He didn’t even say, “We discussed all our options, and we decided to keep going.” He’s saying they never thought about it. Never. That is out and out unbelievable.
Now I wouldn’t call that a lie. I would call it putting a brave face on in the face of a bad situation. But that still doesn’t make Mr. Edwards’s statement true. Unless they’re robots, here is the truth: they thought about a million and one things that might have to change in their lives, including the campaign; and then they decided that they weren’t going to let the disease stop the campaign.
March 22nd, 2007 at 8:53 pm
Ron,
Let’s say you’re right — do you really want to call him out on this issue? Sheesh. It’s not like he’s even the front runner.
March 22nd, 2007 at 8:59 pm
DK, if I were a competing presidential candidate, or even someone whose opinion mattered, your question would be a very good one. But I’m neither. I’m a guy with an opinion, like everyone else in this bar. So I don’t even think this rises to the level of “calling him out,” frankly.
See I can’t stand it when yet another politician lets yet another thing come out of his mouth that can’t remotely be true. I know you don’t like casual falsehood either. Why do politicians have to lie every single time they open their mouths?
I also happen to find the decision itself shocking, from the perspective of a family guy. But that’s not my point, and it’s not one I would make in a blog post.
That, and the ambition. To me, Edwards has just always been about the ambition. Now, that’s true of most presidential candidates, but he rubs me in a way that Hillary Clinton and others do not. He just seems so phony. And here was a chance for him to show that some things are bigger than ambition. And he did not do it.
March 22nd, 2007 at 9:27 pm
Ron,
I also happen to find the decision itself shocking, from the perspective of a family guy. But that’s not my point, and it’s not one I would make in a blog post.
when you call him a moral retard, aren’t you making that point? I guess this thread has spent a lot of time and a lot of invective coming to the conclusion that edwards is a politician who didn’t parse his press release quite carefully enough.
March 22nd, 2007 at 9:31 pm
No, he would be a moral retard if the didn’t consider it.
So your defense of him, Zach, is that he misspoke?
March 22nd, 2007 at 9:37 pm
I stand by absolutely everything you quoted, Ron, along with every damn word on my site. The right-wing crapweasels I write about deserve way more than the pathetic amount of dung I’m able to throw at them. Connie du Toit, for one, has used the ghost of her dead gay brother to justify all the anti-gay hatred she’s spewed over the years.
To even try to compare those people to the Edwardses, and my comments to yours, is an insult. But hey, keep it up. Knock yourself out. Maybe Newt Gingrich will serve his latest wife divorce papers while she’s in the hospital bed next to Elizabeth Edwards. That’ll be a hoot, huh?
March 22nd, 2007 at 9:42 pm
Oh, and how come the comments are turned off on your reprinted post at Dean’s World, Ron? Can’t take the heat even from Dean’s crowd?
March 22nd, 2007 at 9:53 pm
No, Thomas, I just wanted the discussion to take place here.
Your previous post speaks for itself.
March 22nd, 2007 at 10:00 pm
Thomas More, 8:32 PM
Thomas More, 9:37 PM
That’s got to be a record time for making a complete mockery of oneself.
March 22nd, 2007 at 10:13 pm
By the way, is it okay to laud the Edwardses and analyze what a great political score their news conference was, but not to criticize the news conference on a political basis? Just axing.
March 22nd, 2007 at 11:28 pm
What an incredibly thin item to grasp upon to be able to rationalize your refusal to give any credit whatsoever to the Edwards family for what and how they decided to handle this.
Coleman, who is smarter than a family that has already gone through a presidential campaign:
Coleman, who has more integrity than any other trial lawyer because the Edwards family’s decision to carry on is inexplicable…
Read “young” (same age as “W” was 2 yrs out from the election) to mean “cute,” which as we know really means “faggot,” and you know exactly where Coleman is coming from. And lets get it straight, since you should know better and I refuse to accept the GOP frame — Personal Injury attorneys are “ambulance chasers.” All lawyers worthy of the name do the occasional trial — but more than that settle, and know when to admit to being an ass.
Coleman, who is more than willing to read anything into the unstated thought processes of people with for whom he has absolutely no compassion nor common ground, insists that this was neither a mutual decision, or that John was deferring to Elizabeth’s desire and what would make her most happy, goes the misogynist way instead:
And, when this is pointed out to him, simply refers to the foregoing statement.
That’s not argument! That’s contradiction!!!!
Coleman, so desparate for the “gotcha” moment, cannot resist displaying his true motivation to kick someone when they are down who they’ve hated without reason before, and continue to flounder for such a rationale even where none exists:
Coleman is going to lecture me about how to be a proper concern troll.
Feh.
Had the Edwards family decided otherwise, Coleman’s unspoken, unblogged, but deeply ingrained reaction would have been: “Good Riddance”
(Cross-posted, to add to his conversation)
March 22nd, 2007 at 11:33 pm
Huh?
It’s good to know what the other guy “would have said.” You can win 95% of arguments that way. Amazingly you found the other 5%!
March 23rd, 2007 at 12:28 am
It’s good to know what the other guy “would have said.” You can win 95% of arguments that way. Amazingly you found the other 5%!
Seems you do that pretty well yourself, Pal. Or is that crystal ball you have that reaches into the mind of John Edwards starting to crack?
March 23rd, 2007 at 12:59 am
Here, let me take a less adversarial approach since for some mysterious reason my last comment didn’t show up.
David Quo, former deputy director of the White House’s faith-based initiatives project, a brain cancer patient speaks at Beliefnet.
Mr. Coleman, you can’t imagine what was going on in Mr. Edwards’ head any more than you believe I can speak on what is inside your heart.
March 23rd, 2007 at 8:30 am
About his decision:
If this was George Washington and the new nation really needed him, but Martha was terminally ill, I could see such a decision. But since that is very very far from the case here, Edwards’ decision to continue campaigning full-throttle can only be due to not-so-great considerations such as vanity, lust for power, etc. His whole pose as the tribune of the people has worn thin.
The Edwards family is well-fixed financially, and nothing but his own ego is preventing him from ending or at least curtailing this campaign to spend more precious time with his wife. I haven’t seen much about the curtailing option, but where is it written that candidates in 2007 really need to jet around the continent 24/7? Yet that seems to be what he plans to do, despite his family crisis. I hope we don’t also see him misusing his wife now as a campaign tool.
About his explanation:
Lame but unsurprising. It’s hard to get really worked up anymore when politicians do their customary thing.
March 23rd, 2007 at 8:54 am
Ron,
my defense of Edwards isn’t that he misspoke but that his press release was poorly written. Edwards has to deal with political realities, as Ted pointed out in comment #6. That he chose a statement overfilled with bravado is understandable given his likely state of mind at the moment (dean’s recent link on the subject provides more convincing exposition of this point than i could). i guess what i’m saying is that you’re seizing this statement to make some deep point about Edwards’ character (and offering a false dichotomy to boot!), when really it’s probably more indicative of the fact that Edwards is a human being.
March 23rd, 2007 at 9:22 am
Numerous cancer survivors (among them David Quo, former deputy director of the White House’s faith-based initiatives project, and Coke Roberts of ABC) have weighed in during the last 24 hours and have said the same thing (paraphrasing): “The last thing you want to do is let the disease define you. You cannot, will not, withdraw or wind down.”
Works for me.
But there is a larger point I want to make here:
Passing judgement on a candidate (or elected official) because of some aspect of his marriage is wrong. That goes for Rudy Giuliani (who Ron likes) just as much as it goes for John Edwards. And it applies even when a candidate presents himself as a paragon of virtue the same as it does when he presents himself as a sinner.
We’re not electing “The Husband of the United States of America.” We are electing the President of the United States who swears an oath to do one thing above all others: to preserve protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. He swears no other oath: nothing about the family, nothing about marriage, nothing about protecting the people.
Granted, it is important to evaluate whether a person can be trusted to tell the truth. We want to know: how likely is it that he really will, you know, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution? If he is elected and then fails to adhere to his oath, we can’t do anything about it for another four years. So we have to get a pretty good idea as to whether or not he can be trusted.
But parsing that trust by passing judgement on the quality of his family life is wrong.
After all, we all live in glass houses, don’t we?
March 23rd, 2007 at 9:56 am
Ara, how can it be posited that the personal life of someone who is asking to become President of the United States — a position of phenomenal power and responsibility — is off limits? What more profound insights into character can be gleaned than those that come from how a man or woman deals with the most important relationships in his life?
This is, of course, the Monica Lewinsky issue all over again.
This does not mean that pat or simplistic deductions should be made from a candidate’s personal life. But should information about, let us say — and these have nothing to do with the John Edwards — abuse, infidelity, loyalty, not be part of the reckoning of the person? I don’t seriously see how they couldn’t be.
For that reason I acknowledge Giuliani’s deficiencies on this score, and still think he’s the best man now in the race, but I don’t think his domestic life is at all off limits. I am not convinced that Bill Clinton’s peccadilloes actually had any material effect on his performance as President, though it’s hard to say Kennedy’s didn’t. But I want to be the one to make that judgment — not, as in JFK’s time, to have the press make it for me.
March 23rd, 2007 at 10:09 am
“We are electing the President of the United States who swears an oath to do one thing”
If the President-elect swears to do A (the presidential duties) but has habitually violated promises or oaths to do B, C. D… (important actions in public or private life), what is the oath worth?
March 23rd, 2007 at 10:13 am
Mr. Adams! Mr. Adams!
You’re missing my whole point! It is in fact solely what John Edwards said, not what is in his heart, that is the subject of what I wrote. (I wish I’d written it less harshly, on reflection. I will be better.) And I don’t understand how he could have said it.
I am sure his heart is broken over these developments. I don’t need telepathy to know that.
March 23rd, 2007 at 10:31 am
Unfortuneately Ron, your comments don’t meet your own ‘trial lawyer’ standard. If you said what you said, you would lose half the jury, if only because you used harsh words to describe someone who is having a rough go. And this is at least as public a forum as a trial, if not as public as a press conference.
That aside, your simplistic false choice between liar or loser shows little thought too. If for example, Elizabeth Edwards’s fondest dream is to be First Lady, and she and John had often daydreamed aloud with each other about how wonderful it would be, I can easily see how she and John could have not seriously considered his dropping out. In fact this could easily have pushed the timetable up, not back.
Or, since this is a relapse, they might not have seriously considered it this time because they had already seriosuly considered it before.
Either way, Edwards would be neither liar nor loser.
I thought of these examples within seconds or minutes of reading your comments. They aren’t difficult concepts for me, and if you failed to think of them, perhaps more practice giving people the benefit of the doubt would help. I know I need more practice, particularly with some folks. Or perhaps my thinking is more twisted than I thought.
Yours,
Wince
March 23rd, 2007 at 10:43 am
What more profound insights into character can be gleaned than those that come from how a man or woman deals with the most important relationships in his life?
That works if we’re voting for the next rabbi of my congregation. But beyond that, not so much.
C’mon, put yourself in the other guy’s shoes: How would you feel if you lost a chance at a job because of some aspect of your marriage relations that your prospective boss frowned upon?
Yes, yes, I understand: you, Ron, are not running for public office. But, like I said, we’re electing a President, not a Husband, or a Father.
So how about this: instead of arguing that even politicians should be accorded the same zone of privacy that any other occupation is, let’s (instead) agree that I won’t talk about Rudy Giuliani’s private life if you don’t talk about John Edwards’, mkay?
This is, of course, the Monica Lewinsky issue all over again.
Sigh. You’re making this really hard.
should information about…abuse, infidelity, loyalty, not be part of the reckoning of the person? I don’t seriously see how they couldn’t be…I acknowledge Giuliani’s deficiencies on this score, and still think he’s the best man now in the race…
Wow. Just…wow. That is a really, really, really dark view of the current crop of candidates, especially in light of everything you’ve said up to this point.
Ron, I don’t know you well enough to know if you are being serious here. Are you?
I am not convinced that Bill Clinton’s peccadilloes actually had any material effect on his performance as President, though it’s hard to say Kennedy’s didn’t.
Granted, it’s an interesting question, but a minor one, don’t you think? After all, Clinton was impeached for perjury, not [].
I want to be the one to make that judgment — not, as in JFK’s time, to have the press make it for me.
Or not, as in Clinton’s time, to have the press make THAT judgement for me.
Bob Miller:
If the President-elect swears to do A (the presidential duties) but has habitually violated promises or oaths to do B, C. D… (important actions in public or private life), what is the oath worth?
I believe you’re overthinking this, my friend. It’s much simpler than that: If the President-elect swears to do A (the presidential duties) but then habitually violates that oath, what is that oath (or that President) really worth?
I mean, at that point, who cares if Father Knows Best?
March 23rd, 2007 at 11:22 am
Ara, it doesn’t matter how I’d feel. This is not about empathy, it’s about choosing the right person for the job.
I don’t understand your “dark view” comment. I thought you’d find what you quoted me saying about Giuliani enlightened, actually.
As to Father Knows Best — I care!
March 23rd, 2007 at 11:30 am
You’re missing my whole point! It is in fact solely what John Edwards said, not what is in his heart, that is the subject of what I wrote.
When you accuse someone of lying, what is in his heart is crucial. You don’t even know what question he was asked, how it was phrased, or how he heard it!
Yours,
Wince
March 23rd, 2007 at 11:39 am
it’s about choosing the right person for the job.
With all due respect, unless you are looking for a job as a rabbi what do your marriage relations have to do with it?
March 23rd, 2007 at 11:44 am
Ara, if you ask that you can’t have read my previous comments, or Bob Miller, or you just disagree with them and are too polite to say so. If you don’t believe character matters, and that character is revealed in both the personal and professional spheres, we disagree.
Wince, he may not be lying. He may really have never considered quitting the race. That would throw me for a loop and would not enhance my view of the man, as I have said.
March 23rd, 2007 at 12:08 pm
When I aim to prove someone is an alcoholic, child abusing, wife beater, I label them as such — then prove my case. No problem really.
Much trickier to negotiate with opposing counsel, especially one you suspect is not acting in good faith or with a closed mind — and is convinced my client is the cretin.
When I am convinced that oppo counsel represents a philandering two-timer with a superiority complex and played fast-and-loose with the family checkbook, while my client has born the brunt of much family tragedy in and out of the marriage, yet perseveres admirably — sure, my instincts are to get my back up and come out swinging to defend the righteous. Not so much when my client’s flaws are more obvious.
By the time push comes to shove, I usually have to mellow my approach to get anywhere because that kind of thing ONLY works at trial — and most cases require me to reach a settlement well before such an expensive proposition.
But in the long run, I much prefer the more sympathetic clientele (even though they can afford to pay much less, usually) than the SOB — and I’ve only been threatened with contempt once or twice — and won both cases when I got a little more passionate that necessary.
So you can just keep Giuliani and the mindset it takes to defend someone like that — especially whey you still are fighting mad at Clinton for some reason (I’d get a headache with that sort of cognitive dissonance).
I’ll stick with the Edwards family, thank you. I’d rather stick with the good guys than have to explain why my guy (or girl) isn’t as bad as s/he seems.
Give me someone of substance and integrity, a family man whose 30 year commitment to his marriage would only be questioned by the most desperate, and whose only real baggage is he grooms too well. You cannot attack his family or his proposals unless you are adopting the Rovian tactic of attacking a strength, because detailed proposals by your candidate are conspicuously absent, as is Giuliani’s prize as Husband and Father of the Year.
No Ron, in retrospect, I don’t think you should have been so harsh on my “morally retarded” candidate.
Apology accepted.
March 23rd, 2007 at 12:18 pm
If you don’t believe character matters, and that character is revealed in both the personal and professional spheres, we disagree.
If history has shown us anything, it is that there are plenty of character clues in the public sphere for us to judge any man.
In other words, we don’t need to claw around in the private sphere to judge a public man.
March 23rd, 2007 at 12:36 pm
Being an inveterate liar, at least in this day and age, is a requirement in politics. And I’m being neither snarky nor cynical in saying that.
Politicians lie because our politicial system is arranged in such a way as that honesty is frequently disincentivized.
So Edwards is a liar. Big deal.
And I don’t think anyone here is fit to judge if he’s a “moral retard” or not. At least not in this case.
March 23rd, 2007 at 12:41 pm
Our system today is based on a kind of social compact:
The politicians agree to lie.
The citizens agree to be lied to.
March 23rd, 2007 at 1:33 pm
Wince, he may not be lying. He may really have never considered quitting the race. That would throw me for a loop and would not enhance my view of the man, as I have said.
Again, what’s in his heart and hers matters! In both the scenarios I mentioned there were no significant moral failings. (The one remaining question is: Did they consider the kids? But that’s a good argument for never running for public office or being a good trial lawyer, and we need both experienced politicians and good trial lawyers. Hmmm.)
You pulled the trigger too quickly and to no good end. That sort of rhetoric just poisons the well of political converse – and yes, it seems to be the rule, rather than the exception.
But then again, cars didn’t use to have pollution controls, so maybe there is hope.
Yours,
Wince
March 23rd, 2007 at 2:25 pm
Thomas More,
Given your writing style, you should be cheering Ron for telling it like it is.
Instead you are criticizing the enemy for firing a bullet as you load your fifth 250 round clip.
Yours,
Wince
March 23rd, 2007 at 2:30 pm
And read what Alex said here.
Yours,
Wince
March 23rd, 2007 at 2:38 pm
We are all responsible for what we do and say — both John Edwards and me. But today’s media — including this media — certainly make it easier to shoot fast.
I stand by my judgment on what he did say, but I could have used less colorful characterization, and wish I had. But we live and die by our quick QWERTY work.
March 23rd, 2007 at 3:10 pm
I stand by my judgment on what he did say, but I could have used less colorful characterization, and wish I had.
Thank you. It has been clear for some time that you regret your harshness. I do tend to belabor a point, don’t I? Well, Dean has his Islamophobia windmill, and I tilt at mine: To get people to stop painting their opponents as if they were Satan.
Yours,
Wince
March 23rd, 2007 at 3:12 pm
Hm, yes. And once we achieve that, why, we can work on regarding our own little selves as paragons of virtue, I suppose…
Have a great weekend!
March 23rd, 2007 at 4:59 pm
Hm, yes. And once we achieve that, why, we can work on regarding our own little selves as paragons of virtue, I suppose…
Oh, no! One of the best ways to stop painting our opponents as if they were Satan is to recognize how utterly flawed we are!
Plus, I struggle constantly with this irony – how can I criticize the overly critical without being overly critical myself?
Yours,
Wince
March 23rd, 2007 at 5:04 pm
Wince, you could be a disciple of Novardhok with that attitude. But I don’t recommend it for our puny contemporary souls!
March 23rd, 2007 at 8:30 pm
Ron, we may have to rename your blog “Likelihood of Contusion.”
Heh.
March 24th, 2007 at 8:05 pm
Hit me again!
March 26th, 2007 at 1:21 pm
Great link about Novardhok! Thanks so much!
Yours,
Wince
August 11th, 2008 at 8:23 am
[...] was last March when I wrote: John Edwards — whom, I will admit, I never liked politically, though of course our sympathy must [...]