Friday, August 8, 2008

How can you tell when John Edwards is lying?

See if his lips are moving, of course. And of course there is that textbook slick-liar look in his eyes every time he talks. Besides the temporary satisfactions of schadenfreude, the other benefits of the Edwards implosion are that we will never have to endure this shyster as President, Vice-President, or Attorney General.

The bad parts are that doctors and businesses in North Carolina will have to endure his ambulance chasing ways. But it is a small price to pay. Maybe President McCain will do the American people a favor and appoint him ambassador to Zimbabwe.

It was hard to find someone more loathsome in the Democratic presidential field this year than John Edwards. In fact, it was impossible. Even an oddball like Mike Gravel at least provided entertainment value.

Pathological liar? Watch this clip of Edwards being interviewed by Katie Couric in 2007 on the subject of marital fidelity, watch his eyes, and be amazed at how many lefties actually thought this guy was the best in the field.


Pogie said...

I'm not sure that you should gloat too much about "lefties" who supported Edwards, given that your party, with its self-appointed sense of morality, *nominated* someone knowing he had cheated on his wife.

Dave Rye said...

Don't be so sure about your "never have to endure this shyster..." line. Democrats like guys who admit cheating on their wives, just so they can show how non-judgmental they are and/or to show their contempt for traditional values. If the guy would also acknowledge having done some dope, so much the better.

Anonymous said...

Poor guy...just got so caught up in himself that his vows to his wife with God as witness became meaningless. But why continue with the charade? Pulling back from public office seeking when he confessed to his wife and family would surely have made sense? Now Elizabeth still gets to die of cancer and the whole world gets to know that while she is suffering, he is screwing a slut. What a group of classy people.

Montana Headlines said...

Pogie -- John McCain has never portrayed himself as a saint, so your words really don't fit him. Unlike John Edwards, with his divisive, sanctimonious, and hypocritical (look at his house) "two Americas" rhetoric. Not to mention what he had to say about marital infidelity (did you actually watch the Couric interview clip?)

You are of course referring to the throwaway NYT article done some time ago when there was a lot of innuendo but no facts. The National Enquirer has photos, and the mistress's family is asking for paternity testing (should be worth a lot -- have you seen John Edwards's "little cabin" in North Carolina, which takes up much of the real estate in one of his two Americas?)

Dave Rye -- you are wrong for two reasons. First, Bill Clinton had more political talent in his little finger than John Edwards can muster by throwing his entire body into the effort, so to speak. Second, Democrats absolutely love bashing men who cheat on their wives -- just ask Larry Craig and David Vitter, or Walter Mondale supporters going after Gary Hart. No non-judgmentalism to be found there.

It is sheer partisanship when Democrats defend a philanderer, and since John Edwards has proven himself to be as politically hapless as his is phony, nobody on the Dem side is going to be going to the barricades for him.

Anonymous -- you are right. The one true thing that John Edwards said in this escapade is that he got caught up in narcissism. Unfortunately, just because someone admits to narcissism doesn't neutralize the correct perception that Edwards narcissism is of breathtaking proportions that make him unfit for any position of real responsibility.

Pogie said...

John McCain is certainly an adulterer. He cheated on his first wife, the one who waited for him while he was imprisoned in a Vietnamese prison.

That's family values.

Are you sure McCain hasn't presented himself as some kind of expert on the sanctity of marriage? Certainly his position on gay marriage implies he feels he has the ability to evaluate the morality of marriage and commitment, doesn't it?

Montana Headlines said...

You're right that John McCain acted like a pig toward his wife when he returned from Vietnam. He has been blessed throughout his political career that his first wife (who must be a saint) continues to admire him and wish him no ill.

That story got heavy internal circulation within the Republican party during the 2000 election, and was a significant reason why George Bush won the South Carolina primary, putting a fork in the McCain campaign. It remains a reason why so many in the GOP ranks don't like McCain. It was reportedly a reason why the Reagans excluded the McCains from their circle of friends, but that is rumor.

But on the other hand, when 30+ years of water are under the bridge and you are facing a choice between John McCain and someone with no experience and a perfect far-left voting record -- there comes a point where bygones have to be bygones. There is a lot to forgive in John McCain, but we Republicans are forgiving people, right?

Pogie said...

Move those goal posts much? Either "immoral behavior" matters or it doesn't. I just love the convenient morality of the modern conservative movement.

Adultery? Terrible, unforgivable sin--unless one of ours does it.

Government spending? Wasteful, wrong, unfair to the American public--unless we control Congress.

Nation-building? Dangerous, wrong, misguided, unless George W. Bush does it.

Overly powerful federal government? Unconstitutional, dangerous, a threat to civil liberties, unless we do it.

Montana Headlines said...

Relax, Pogie. And pay attention when you are reading MH before firing away with random cliches.

Where in my original post did I mention or condemn adultery? My post makes it pretty clear that I loathed John Edwards and thought he was a untrustworthy snake in the grass before any questions of sexual misconduct were even raised.

I'm glad that the career of John Edwards is over, but the reasons have nothing to do with whether he cheated on his wife.

Nor do I defend John McCain's treatment of his first wife -- for me it is a mark against him to be sure, but FDR, Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Clinton all fooled around on their wives and the country somehow survived in spite of it. John Edwards would have been a disaster of a President, but not because he couldn't keep his zipper up.

And with regard to your other things, you obviously haven't read much MH. Our opposition to the Iraq War and other foreign interventions has been consistent, our contempt for big-government Republican spenders has been clear (Tom Coburn is the favorite MH Senator, remember?) and MH has opposed RealID and much of the Patriot Act where we feel it infringes on the rights of U.S. citizens.

So lob those cliche-ridden bombs all you want, but do it somewhere else. Thinking that you can do a random anti-neo-con carpet-bombing directed at anyone who happens to be on the right is just plain intellectually lazy.

Anonymous said...

Hope this isn't too late here, but saw it discussed on another site, and it raised an interesting point. Has John Edwards committed fraud?

The question was raised on Huffington Post, ironically, by former Edwards supporters who had done volunteer work and maxed out on their contributions to him. They felt that Edwards had suckered them into continuing to give money to them when he was hiding information that he had to know would make it impossible for him to be elected president.

I doubt that Edwards has violated any criminals laws. And these critics seem to be talking about civil remedies.

Some think Edwards should liquidate his fortune so he can return their donations.

That's another element that makes the Edwards situation a lot different from McCain's.