August 3, 2007: Hypocritonissimo

Is Edwards the biggest phony who has ever run for President? Well, that's saying a lot but.... maybe he is. The hair... the twenty-eight thousand square foot friend of the poor house, and now - the revelation that John-o received 800 grand from Murdoch for a book when the candidate has been making holier than thou swipes at Rupert and Fox News, refusing to appear on the channel, etc..

We need a new, more extreme version of the word hypocrite for Edwards. Hypocritonissimo?

But beneath the kidding around is a more serious point. People like Edwards are more than just fakes - they are actually dangerous. By parading around like a popinjay for the poor, he actually hurts them, making a mockery of genuine of problems. Everything is about Edwards and his glory. It's not about anything else.

Comments

Comments require registration through TypeKey. Abusive remarks may be deleted. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of Roger Simon.

John Edwards. Al Gore. Elmer Gantry.

Fits?

Posted by: LarryD at August 3, 2007 9:55 AM

You're right about the danger posed by people like Edwards. They're trying to prove the proposition that there is no longer, in today's world, any need whatsoever to connect words to deeds.

Once that's proven (and other prominent pols are working diligently at it, too), it's gonna be a wild ride indeed in the halls of governance.

Posted by: Buddy Larsen at August 3, 2007 10:40 AM

Proof positive that we get the government we deserve; i.e., that the bulk of the electorate neither takes the time nor has the critical analytical skills to properly gauge the worth of candidates.

That frauds like Murtha, Edwards, Obama, Pelosi, Ted Stevens, Mitch McConnell and most of the rest of Congress can actually be in government is a travesty.

I'm with Robert Heinlein: let's just let the troops vote.

Posted by: stumbley at August 3, 2007 11:10 AM

Roger, you just wrote this five days ago:

A post on Politico reminded me of why I find John Edwards one of the most shallow politicians of our era. And not just because of the hair. Or even the 28,000 square foot house when he yammers on about the two Americas.

Write about something new, like Clinton's cleavage.

Posted by: CTRepublican at August 3, 2007 11:37 AM

Why have sympathy for the poor, who time and again hand themselves over to the tender ministrations of the likes of Edwards?

Posted by: ricpic at August 3, 2007 11:48 AM

Anybody who really wants to help the poor would be turning themselves inside out to create opportunity for them--opportunity as opposed to dependence on the government.

Look at Kudlow today, and note this para:

Once again, the education gap figured prominently in the unemployment statistics. If you’re armed with a bachelor’s degree or higher, your jobless rate stands at 2.1 percent. But if you didn’t graduate from high school, your average unemployment rockets up to 7.1 percent.

Now ask yourself, of the two broad philosophies represented by the two political parties, which one advocates achievement & responsibility, and which one advocates, uh, something less rigorous?

Posted by: Buddy Larsen at August 3, 2007 12:11 PM

This sounds an awful lot like the book deal that got the Democrab from Texas in so much trouble.

Can't remember his name (Coelho?) but he was getting illegal campaign contributions disguised as book sales, no?

Posted by: AlanC at August 3, 2007 12:13 PM

Amen Buddy

Isn't hairalissimo Edwards practicing what the Clintonistas called the politics of personal destruction?

Why does he maliciously massacre Murdock's name?

Here is a self made man employing hundreds of thousands of people around the globe (never mind the two americas)

Aside from the hairdresser, how many poor people has Edwards employed?

Murdock has done more for the poor with one strand of his hair than Edwards has with all of his.

Posted by: Lem at August 3, 2007 12:26 PM

CTR, I disagree --I think it is important to analyze a candidate's gestalt message. Of course, maybe cleavage too fits into that.

Posted by: Buddy Larsen at August 3, 2007 12:32 PM

AlanC --Jim Wright is who you're thinking of. Coelho got busted on some other count --i forget what.

Posted by: Buddy Larsen at August 3, 2007 12:35 PM

Thanks Buddy your Wright. ;^)

So many Democrats, so many crimes, hard to keep them straight.

Posted by: AlanC at August 3, 2007 12:43 PM

that's a big 10-4 !

Posted by: Buddy Larsen at August 3, 2007 12:57 PM

>I'm with Robert Heinlein: let's just let the troops vote.

In that case -- January 20, 2009

"I Ronald Paul do . . . "

Posted by: Blue State Conservative at August 3, 2007 3:08 PM

I'm with Robert Heinlein: let's just let the troops vote.
You should read Heinlein. He's much better than his critics have portrayed him to you.
Or perhaps you misread Starship Troopers all by yourself.

Posted by: Stephen_M at August 3, 2007 3:29 PM

What's the big deal here? It's only 800 grand, after all...Edwards probably doesn't even remember getting the check.

Posted by: Jeffersonian at August 3, 2007 3:37 PM

Stumblay and Stephen_M, Heinlein did *not* let the troops vote in Starship Troopers. To vote you had to be a veteran *and* no longer in the military. You could also not hold public office until you were out of the military.

He didn't want just the troops to vote, he didn't want anyone to vote (especially to spend public dollars) or hold office *until* he/she had proven (by serving wherever the military needed them) that they put society's needs above their own.

I like the idea (but then, I was a volunteer and am now a veteran).

Posted by: JorgXMcKie at August 3, 2007 3:50 PM

Yo, Jorg and Stephen:

Hey, I read Heinlein just fine. Okay, let's let just the vets vote.

Feel better?

Posted by: stumbley at August 3, 2007 4:31 PM

Edwards is too spineless to admit he does things to make money. He claimed he went to work at a hedge fund in order to understand poverty. If he would just admit he went to work there to make money, I think that wouldn't even be an issue, but his weaseling around about the issue just makes him look like a phony. (perhaps I should say - just reveals him for the flyweight phony he is)

Posted by: pjw at August 3, 2007 5:02 PM

Only soldiers vote? Okay, but first shouldn't we let 'em speak?

Posted by: Buddy Larsen at August 3, 2007 5:20 PM

A rent-seeking Hypocritonissimo, at that.

Posted by: EDH at August 3, 2007 5:42 PM

john edwards is a class-baiting ambulance-chasing enemy-appeasing hypocrite.

which is why he'd make a perfect nominee for the dems.

Posted by: reliapundit - the astute blogger at August 3, 2007 6:31 PM

It's been a while, but didn't Starship Troopers allow anyone who performed public service the vote, after their term ended?

That is to say, Peace Corps (for example) volunteers would qualify.

Posted by: Casey at August 3, 2007 10:11 PM

Edwards only mistake was believing that his schtick, which worked with gullible juries and made him a rich (though still shallow) man, would translate to anything other than the tort system. Sadly, the voters of North Carolina showed him that it could lead to the US Senate.

It seems that it won't be enough to get him to the White House, but it doesn't say much about this country (and his party especially) that he can get so close.

Posted by: Pablo at August 4, 2007 6:19 AM

You know, this brings up a point that I have been ruminating about for a long time....

The Democratic Party has a longstanding, built-in, advantage in that that press remains uniformly "kind" to Democratic pols. They undergo none of the harsh scrutiny that typically confront Republican candidates. In addition, Democratic pols are allowed to shrug-off blunders and scandals that would have utterly destroyed a Republican politician. The benefits of this system are obvious, but there may very well be disadvantages that are being over-looked.

What I mean is that (because of the kid glove treatment) the Democratic Party is stuck with a LOT of dead wood in the upper reaches of its power structure. Untalented, corrupt, unappealing no-talents, like Ted Kennedy or Hillary Clinton, hang onto power forever, and there is NO way to dislodge them, because to do so would mean to give the Democratic Party a black eye-- something the press is loathe to do.

Have I made my point clear? Pretentious, sanctimonious, empty-suit, carpetbaggers like Edwards would NEVER have made it this far in the Republican Party. The press would have branded him a rich, "frat-boy," hypocrite the minute he ran for dog-catcher as a Republican. It's the Peter Principle on steroids, if you like.

Posted by: godfodder at August 4, 2007 1:23 PM

Email This Post