« So Much For "Godless Communism..." | Main | "Madame Speaker, We're Hooked On Our Own Petard!" "Shut Up And Keep Hoisting!" »

Our Future Hypocrite-in-Chief?

Gosh, you just have to love John Edwards' campaign for president. Every time you think the former Senator from North Carolina can't become more hypocritical, he somehow manages to up the ante. Frankly, unless you collect Mike Gravel quotes, Sen. Edwards' candidacy is the most entertaining part of the 2008 presidential race.

We mean, come on. This is the fellow who has made concerns about poverty in the USA his signature campaign theme. And yet he inhabits a North Carolina mansion that seems to be a cross between Bill Gates' palace and David Koresh's compound. As if this weren't bad enough, the tonsorially magnificent Sen. Edwards spends more on a haircut than most people devote to a year of clothing purchases. Does it get any more delicious than this?

Truth be told, we, the crack young staff of "The Hatemonger's Quarterly," aren't as excited about Sen. Edwards' missteps as are others. National politicians, after all, tend to be a wealthy bunch, and it's foolish to say that they can't be concerned about poverty. Sure, in an election clearly hinging on foreign policy, Sen. Edwards' "Two Americas" shtick may not be such a great idea, but that's another matter altogether.

Yesterday, however, we spied a story from the Associated (with terrorists) Press about Sen. Edwards' latest political gaffe, and we couldn't help but conclude he's allowed his hypocrisy to reach epic proportions. Here's the scoop:

WASHINGTON -- Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. is fighting back against Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards and his criticism of the media empire, contending that the 2004 vice presidential nominee was paid $500,000 by one of its companies. HarperCollins, which is owned by News Corp., paid Edwards a $500,000 advance for his book, "Home: The Blueprints of Our Lives" and was given another $300,000 to pay expenses.

Edwards responded angrily to the revelation, saying he gave the advance to charity and the figure was part of a confidential agreement that News Corp. had no authority to disclose.

The figures were reported yesterday by the New York Post, which is Murdoch owned, a day after Edwards challenged his rivals to return political donations from News Corp. executives. Edwards said the Fox News Channel, owned by News Corp., has a right-wing bias and he is concerned about Murdoch's purchase this week of Dow Jones & Co., publisher of The Wall Street Journal.

Edwards's criticism was chiefly aimed at Senator Hillary Clinton, a Democratic candidate for president, who has taken more than $20,000 in donations from Murdoch and other News Corp. executives.

We know what you're thinking, dear reader: Boy, that's bad. Sen. Edwards clearly aimed at whipping up a little press for himself and distancing Hillary Clinton from the far Left. Yet he wound up looking so awful he'll need a very expensive haircut to remedy it.

After all, Sen. Edwards didn't say: "Democratic presidential hopefuls should return all News Corp. funds that aren't part of preexisting confidential agreements." That would have been a less dramatic sentiment, but it has the benefit of not making the former Senator from North Carolina look like a buffoon.

Gee: Sen. Edwards' shenanigans almost make you pine to vote for Hillary, don't they?

(Note: The crack young staff normally "weblog" over at "The Hatemonger's Quarterly," where they, in textbook John Edwards fashion, are currently browbeating others for having "weblogs.")


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/23141.

Comments (37)

Silky headed HO.... (Below threshold)
Mark:

Silky headed HO.

We know what you're thin... (Below threshold)
Brian:

We know what you're thinking, dear reader: Boy, that's bad.

No, we're thinking, "Huh?" Did Edwards take political donations from News Corp? If not, where's the hypocrisy?

Selling a book (and donating the money to charity) is not equal to "political donations". Now, if the money were spent on one of Romney's $300 makeovers, that would be a different story.

Brian, he took the money. P... (Below threshold)
C-C-G Author Profile Page:

Brian, he took the money. Period. What happened to it afterwards is irrelevant. He took the check from News Corp and cashed it.

And your spin has an air of desperation about it, just like Edwards' does.

Edwards is the gift that ju... (Below threshold)
SShiell:

Edwards is the gift that just keeps giving! Every time he opens his mouth, his foot keeps sliding in. It is a real joy to watch a professional bufoon at his best!

Brian, your comment would b... (Below threshold)
Wanderlust:

Brian, your comment would be valid *if* Silky Pony had limited his comments to the realm of political contributions. One cannot, however, call something a Devil (as it were) while benefitting from that same Devil when it is convenient.

I suspect you are smart enough to figure it out, just as much as the Breck Girl did.

p.s.: confidentiality agreements (CAs) can be quite a drama if violated, so I guarantee you that Murdoch and his team of lawyers carefully vetted a cost/benefit analysis of releasing the info (in apparent violation of a CA) vs keeping quiet and letting the Breck Girl have his political cake and eat it, too.

Silky has been trashing Fox/News Corp. for quite some time. If I were Murdoch, I'd have let him have it with both barrels, just as Murdoch did with the Harper book deal public disclosure.

Edwards responded ... (Below threshold)
marc:
Edwards responded angrily to the revelation, saying he gave the advance to charity and the figure was part of a confidential agreement that News Corp. had no authority to disclose.
OK, but he never disclosed the charity.

I lay even money it was this one, Center for Promise and Opportunity.

And well... he's a shyster, if News Corp violated a confidentiality agreement we should expect a lawsuit to be filed shortly.

Right?

Brian:

Selling a book (and donating the money to charity) is not equal to "political donations". Now, if the money were spent on one of Romney's $300 makeovers, that would be a different story.
What of the other half mil Edwards was paid Brian?

He accepted cash the same as Shillary what the payment was for is immaterial.

Edwards has made it very plain any and all things associated with News Corp is taboo, accept, when he can gain a cool half million dollars.

Gotta pay the pool man and gardener something you know.

Brian doesn't seem to under... (Below threshold)
The Listkeeper:

Brian doesn't seem to understand that the only difference between Edwards and the other candidates is the number of laundering layers involved.

If a leftist newpaper devul... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

If a leftist newpaper devulgers very secret, classified details of our war on terrorism or our military plans, the democratic candidates laud the leakers as heroes. If you devulge their secret financial dealings, you are terrible. That about shows you their priorities. "The country can go to hell but just don't pick on me." The left must be so proud.

Edwards is a lightweight who probably found out the Hillary will not use him for VP so he is having a snit. He took the money. One half million from Murdoch. Without a doubt the most of ANY candidate combined. He got caught with his and in the cookie jar. He is over. He only has the people who vote for good looking candidates only. ww

Brian, I think you're missi... (Below threshold)

Brian, I think you're missing the whole point. While Edwards is attempting to demonize News Corp., urging others to return donations, he's doing business with them. No matter what he did with the money; that point is simply irrelevant.

By the way, Brian, if it co... (Below threshold)
C-C-G Author Profile Page:

By the way, Brian, if it comes out that Hillary also donated her money to "charity," would you say that Edwards should cease attacking her?

Just more evidence that your spin is, in the words of the immortal Bard of Avon, "...is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

Two issues here. 1. Edwards... (Below threshold)

Two issues here. 1. Edwards is an extreme longshot and will not be getting the Democratic nomination. 2. I printed a critical view of Murdoch over on Wizbang Blue yesterday as well. Think about it. Should a foreign born person buy up a terrific share of the U.S. media, and editorially color it only to reflect his personal politics or views? That ashould be recognized as a reasonable danger to free expression by any reasonable person, either liberal or conservative.

What percentage of all media market ownership and opinions is acceptable then? 10% of all media ownership, 50%. 99%. Too much media control by any one person, regardless of their politics is not a healthy thing. At least a blog like this protects little individuals who sometimes hold opinions and views out of the mainstream because Murdoch hasn't bought it out yet.

Paul Hooson, you and your b... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Paul Hooson, you and your buddies are in a tizzy solely because Murdoch leans right. I have never heard a lefty demand PBS or NPR present some arguments from the right. I never see or hear the left complain to the MSM that they should tamper down their negativity to all things conservative. I did see or hear any lefty complain when democratic leaders were talking about reinstating the fairness doctrine. I did not see or hear any lefties complain about Dan Rather's indecent manipulations of the facts concerning GW's national guard service. Your attempt to get concerned now is just pathetic. Murdock moved on Dow Jones because he had permission to do so and the Bankcrofts approved the sale. Do you want to forbid anyone foreign from buying anything in this country? ww

So Edwards has taken money ... (Below threshold)
scrapiron Author Profile Page:

So Edwards has taken money from everyone but he though he had buried it deep enough in his other slime that no one would dig deep enough to find it. He should have channeled Murdock to find out if he would 'out' him. He can half clear this up by releasing the records. Anyone want to bet it didn't all go to charity? He's way to greedy for that.

Hooson's comments are remin... (Below threshold)
C-C-G Author Profile Page:

Hooson's comments are reminiscent of other claims of foreign monopolies. Just replace "Murdoch" with "Japanese" or "Jooooooooooos" and you'll see what I mean.

A very good day to you, Wil... (Below threshold)

A very good day to you, WildWillie. I don't care what the politics of Murdoch are. Too much control over opnions by a single person, and a foreign-born person as well, where the interests of this nation may not always come first, need to be questioned by anyone. What if North Korea or some other entity of concern suddenly decided that buying up American media would help their cause? There has to be some sensible limits on media control to give as many persons as possible an editorial voice despite their politics.

Hooson's comment translated... (Below threshold)
C-C-G Author Profile Page:

Hooson's comment translated: "We can't have them durned furriners buyin' up our stuff!"

One wonders what Hooson would say if the BBC or Le Monde decided it wanted to buy the NY Times.

I was thinking.....it seems... (Below threshold)
Crusader Author Profile Page:

I was thinking.....it seems to me that the two closest rivals of Hillary have been making some really bad gaffs in the last couple of weeks. I smell a rat. I'll bet that both have been paid off by the Clintons. Their gaffs are just too great to accidental.

Crusader, Occam's Razor sug... (Below threshold)

Crusader, Occam's Razor suggests that a more reasonable explanation is that Obama and Edwards are really that incompetent rather than paid off.

I find that I can nearly em... (Below threshold)
Burt:

I find that I can nearly empathize with Paul Hooson if I substitute "George Soros" and "MoveOn.ORG" into the right places in his thoughts.

Al Gore is a hypotcrit Ted ... (Below threshold)
spurwing plover:

Al Gore is a hypotcrit Ted kennedy is a hypotcrit the liberal demacrats are hypotcrits and enviromental groups are full of hypotcrits i mean JOHN EDWARDS is after all a liberal demacratic lawyer

I find that I can ... (Below threshold)
C-C-G Author Profile Page:
I find that I can nearly empathize with Paul Hooson if I substitute "George Soros" and "MoveOn.ORG" into the right places in his thoughts.

An excellent point, Burt.

John Edwards a hypocrite? <... (Below threshold)

John Edwards a hypocrite? Say it isn't so!

I don't think John Edward's... (Below threshold)

I don't think John Edward's approach is effective in challenging Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination. He should rethink his strategy.

There has to be so... (Below threshold)
There has to be some sensible limits on media control to give as many persons as possible an editorial voice despite their politics.

I concur. In the spirit of that, I suggest we shut down wizblues right now. The leftwing blogosphere has too loud of a voice.

Note, I said loud, not relevant.

Should a foreign b... (Below threshold)
Should a foreign born person buy up a terrific share of the U.S. media, and editorially color it only to reflect his personal politics or views?

Murdoch being a naturalized citizenship is not good enough for Hooson. Yet, Soros is a naturalized citizen and dumps millions upon millions of dollars into liberal political causes and that's cool.

Additionally, this is from the same side who is usually espousing amending the Constitution to allow naturalized citizens to run for President (Granholm, Arnold). Usually to allow for their latest golden boy/girl to ascend to the highest office in the land.

But, they don't like a businessman owning too much of the media because he's a fur'ner. Where are the xenophobe and racist and nativist charges?

As Murdoch told a Congressional hearing a couple of years ago, he owns about 3% of the US media market. Wow! Hegemony. Monopoly! Call in the trust busters.

Bwhahahahahahahahahahah....... (Below threshold)
Jo:

Bwhahahahahahahahahahah.....

Dumb idiotic democrats give us sooooooo much material to laugh at.

Yeeeeeehaw!

Jo, you'd almost think they... (Below threshold)
C-C-G Author Profile Page:

Jo, you'd almost think they were comedians instead of politicians, wouldn't ya?

Of course, Will Rogers once quipped, "I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts."

C-C-G, I've been a longtime... (Below threshold)

C-C-G, I've been a longtime off and on subscriber to THE WALL STREET JOURNAL or often buy it off the newstand when I see a front page feature I like. I simply like the paper just fine the way it is, both for financial news and editorial content. As a paying buyer, I'd like to see the current version continue and not possiby make wholesale changes under a new owner like Murdoch.

If George Soros was in the business of buying up the media only to reflect his views, then I would also have a problem. Too much ownership of the newsmedia by any one person regardless of their politics should be a reason to invoke antitrust rules in my view and limit their ability to corner the market on too much media. The media is a special business case since it involves both freedom of expression and freedom of opinions, in my view, and far different than Campbell's selling about 82% of canned soup in America.

Other than FOX NEWS SUNDAY, I simply find the news reporting on Murdoch's FOX to be lacking somethimg in depth compared to other cable news channels such as MSNBC and CNN which I believe to be far superior in quality. I doubt Murdoch will improve THE WALL STREET JOURNAL personally based on my perceptions of FOX, which I've made a sincere attempt to watch many times. But let's hear from some other readers who actually buy THE WALL STREET JOURNAL as I do on a fairly regular basis and see what they think about a possible sale and new ownership.

3 cheers from The Hatemonge... (Below threshold)

3 cheers from The Hatemongers Quarterly
Hip Hip, Boooo Silky Pony!
Hip Hip, dems blow!
Hip Hip, Like, they apply suction!

Hooson, since when is 3% "t... (Below threshold)
C-C-G Author Profile Page:

Hooson, since when is 3% "too much"?

Methinks thou dost protest too much.

Perhaps you think 3% non-liberal media is too much?

...cable news chan... (Below threshold)
...cable news channels such as MSNBC and CNN which I believe to be far superior in quality.

Therein lies the problem - lack of discernment.

The WSJ has been suffering financially, at least the hard copy version. Apparently the online version is doing well. There must be something that is not going right there. Thus, why they were ripe for purchase. It's going to be Murdoch's paper - he can run 100 pages of comic strips if he wants. He can let it bleed money if he wants. We know that's an acceptable business model for the NY Times.

Oh, imagine the caterwauling if Murdoch bought the NY Times. It would be worth the price of admission to watch that melt down by the left.

The WSJ journal is a fine paper, with a good reputation. It's not a freakin' national treasure.

Hooson:If Geor... (Below threshold)
marc:

Hooson:

If George Soros was in the business of buying up the media only to reflect his views, then I would also have a problem.

Nah... Soros is spending his cash buying Democrat politicians, why would he continue the cash drain on media outlets when he he already own the leash attached to them?

Hooson, you're a frickin' r... (Below threshold)
Wanderlust:

Hooson, you're a frickin' riot!

Money quote of the day (Jay Tea, are you listening?), emphasis mine:

But let's hear from some other readers who actually buy THE WALL STREET JOURNAL as I do on a fairly regular basis and see what they think about a possible sale and new ownership.

Didja hear that one, boys and girls?

Let's have that quote again:

readers who actually buy THE WALL STREET JOURNAL as I do

As he does. Gosh darnit, he's a BUYER, after all, didn't you know?

UN.BE.LIEVABLE.

So according to the distinguished Mr. Hooson, Wall Street Journal Reader Extraordinare, you can only opine on the relative merits of Murdoch and the evil News Corp. empire buying out WSJ if you are a an actual, Honest to God Buyer of the WSJ.

As is Mr. Hooson.

Funny, but that argument sounds vaguely familiar...

/chickenreader?

Paul, you said earlier that... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Paul, you said earlier that you only buy the WSJ when you see a headline you like. Well, you aren't really a bonifies buyer or subscriber. Secondly, you are only taking this position because the left doesn't want Murdoch to buy any media. Thirdly, if a foreign owner of anything in this country will have its assests frozen if we thought they are or have damaged the country. So, since you had a wreck on your bike, I shall not pick on you anymore today. Get well. Come back to fight at full strength. ww

One wonders what Hooson's r... (Below threshold)
C-C-G Author Profile Page:

One wonders what Hooson's response would be if The New York Times Company (which owns 15, yes, fifteen other papers, 9 TV stations, and 2 radio stations) were buying the WSJ instead of News Corp.

One suspects we'd hear cheering, or at the very least silence, from the left.

Since Hooson effectively hi... (Below threshold)

Since Hooson effectively hijacked the thread, here goes:

I think it's funny (okay not funny) that someone like Mr. Hooson would find it necessary to put up a critical review of Murdoch, "raising the alarm" as it were, as a "foreign born person" buying up a "terrific share" of the U.S. media.

"If George Soros was in the business of buying up the media only to reflect his views, then I would also have a problem."

Paul can't seem to muster the same level of criticism for a "foreign born person" bankrolling a significant amount of leftist thought put out on the web, bankrolling a plethora of leftist advocacy groups in the political arena from voting issues to promoting leftist politicians to abortion "rights" groups and trying to directly affect not only foreign policy but domestic policy with regards to illegal immigration and socialist movements, and engages in a significant amount of activity with the purpose of undermining the economies of other less affluent countries. Mr. George Soros, a man who pledged to raise $75 million to defeat George Bush in 2004 and personally donated a third of that himself to various leftist groups to see it done. George Soros, the man who had a hand in the McCain/Feingold Act and before the signatures were dry began to exploit its loopholes.

Mr. Hooson doesn't have a problem with that. Mr. Hooson opines about the "lack of quality" in the news he finds on FOX, when I would posit that he merely conflates "disagreement" with "quality". Maybe because there's no real "consensus" on FOX, as one will find with CNN, MSNBC, CBS, et al., and there are actually two views being presented a great deal of the time.

The difference between Murdoch and Soros is that Mr. Murdoch's economic activities are open and easily tracked. Mr. Soros' activities, on the other hand, are not so transparent unless one is willing to dig and make connections.

There are numerous leftist groups he has not only founded but those he lavishes with funding and they gleefully take his money and remain quiet about his avowed socialist tendencies and agenda they are emboldened to continue to promote.

And in the same vein of ccg's last comment at 10:10am - what if George Soros was indeed buying the WSJ? In light of his effective control of much of the leftist thought in every other realm, would there be concern? And if so, would anyone on the left write about it?

Frankly, I'm not so concerned about Mr. Murdoch's activities. I don't think there's some "inherent danger" to political speech with the preponderance of leftist media already out there - unless a resulting balancing of that speech overall toward the center is considered dangerous.

Mr. Soros is committed to overpowering every vestige of conservative thought by whatever means he can, but buying newspapers and radio stations isn't on his agenda because the majority of them already espouse his belief system.

Love it. You're conflating ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Love it. You're conflating payment received for selling a product, and political donations. And then you accuse me of spin. Smell the desperation in the air.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy