 |
|||
|
“30 Rock” star Alec Baldwin contemplates a run for Mayor of New York City. [The Daily] Another [U.S. Rep.] “Weiner Sexter” emerges. [Las Vegas Sun] When the oldest profession meets the second oldest profession: porn stars running for office. [MSNBC] A warm sports story worth reading about: Texas Rangers draft paralyzed outfielder Johnathan Taylor. [NBC Sports] This week, The Recovering Politician published three pieces in which contributing RPs Jeff Smith, Artur Davis, and I weighed in on the John Edwards investigation and trial. If you missed them, here they are: Jonathan Miller: I Was Never a John Edwards Fan, But I’m Rooting for Him Now Artur Davis: Former Federal Prosecutor Terms Edwards Investigation “Misguided” Jeff Smith: Your Tax Dollars at Work, Prosecuting (and Potentially Incarcerating) John Edwards These articles certainly touched a nerve. I received several dozen emails from our readers, each giving their own take on the controversy. Below I run a sample of the readers’ letters. Since I did not ask explicitly for permission, I am not using the authors’ names. However, if I used your email, and you would like to be identified, please let me know. And of course, as always, we encourage you to comment below. Is what John Edwards's campaign did against the law? That's the question, right? It's not about the character of John Edwards, or at least shound't be. And as for the poor first-time candidate worried about taking it on the chin because he copped a few free haircuts or some used clothes, wouldn't he want to know one way or the other whether it's okay before he takes a gift? The commentary I have seen, like that cited on your blog, doesn't say one way or the other whether what happened here is or isn't (or should or shouldn't be) against the law, but rather (i) leave the poor guy alone and (ii) what's the big deal? History is full of powerful people who left the stage in shame and then still had to suffer being investigated, sued, and/or prosecuted. It's a risk that goes with being a public person with something to hide. In Edwards' case, these were large donations (not free haircuts), and if whether they should have been disclosed because they served a political purpose is an open question, then let's get the answer. Doing so would hopefully shed some light on what is obviously a murky area, and may help deter some future shenanigans. Someone will always be ready to push the envelope. If the edge is not well defined, or worse, the signal is sent that we won't pursue cases of apparent wrongdoing that are near the edge, we open the door to even worse behaviour in the future.
We made it through Wednesday! Hurrah! We’ve been so snowed under with responses to this week’s commentary on John Edwards’ investigation and potential trial that we’ve decided to print some tomorrow. Tune in at 8:30 am to read a wide variety of opinions, and we hope you will join the fray in the comments section. Look forward to seeing you tomorrow. The Politics of Laughter The U.K.’s version of America’s Next Top Model allowed fans to vote on their website for who they want to see as contests during the next season. All I have to say in regards to the person holding down the #1 spot in fan voting is “Go, Roland, go!” [next.uk] Logical Thinking [comic] Nice try, bro. [.gif] So that’s how it works! I guess you really do learn something new every day! [picture] Success is apparently relative. [picture] In Key Largo, Florida, three pilot whales may be stranded on the shore but they’re not alone. [NY Times] The economy may be on its way back up, but couponing lives on as a not only practical, but also a hip option for consumers. [Time] Remember Elizabeth Smart? She took her life back, and is now serving as a missionary and children’s advocate. [Newsweek] Here’s a little something to pep up your day. Even though The Script has been on the music scene for awhile, this song never fails to make your day better. [YouTube] Today marks the 43rd anniversary of one of the most touching eulogies in American history: Senator Ted Kennedy’s poignant speech at the funeral of his fallen older brother, Robert F. Kennedy. I shared my thoughts upon the anniversary of RFK’s eulogy to Martin Luther King a few months earlier — which I believe is the greatest speech of my lifetime. But today, I will let the late Senator Edward Kennedy’s words speak for themselves:
I started watching the NBA in earnest back in 2004, when the Detroit Pistons defeated the Los Angeles Lakers in one of the most classic NBA Finals in history. That year, Shaq and Kobe were joined by Karl Malone and Gary Peyton in hopes that the two aging stars could vault them back to finals glory. It almost worked, but they ran into the tough defense of the Larry Brown coached Pistons. In stark contrast to the hodgepodge Lakers, the Pistons had a solid core of a team–Chauncey Billups, Rip Hamilton, Tayshaun Price, Ben Wallace, and Rasheed Wallace. That Pistons team was fun. They were hard working, defensive minded, and represented all that was good about basketball. I remember many people reveling in the failure of the hot shot Lakers and enjoying the success of the plucky Pistons. This year’s NBA Finals feature the Miami Heat, who remind me quite a bit of both teams from the 2004 NBA Finals. As any hoop-head will tell you, this Miami team features LeBron James, Dwyane Wade, and Chris Bosh; three men who came together in the offseason and acted quite foolishly, claiming they would win multiple titles with the three of them at the helm. Like the 04 Lakers, the Heat stumbled a bit in the regular season, and many wondered if these players coming together was a mistake. When the playoffs started in both 2004 and this year, the teams really kicked in. In the run up to the Finals, the Heat lost all of three games–one in each playoff series. The 04 Lakers, likewise, only lost five games before the Finals. Both the 2004 Lakers and the 2011 Heat have a lot in common–superstars, playoff mastery, and most importantly, general disdain from the populace. Indeed, many people hate the Heat. Maybe for the way in which LeBron James left the Cavaliers, perhaps because of “The Decision” or the introductory press conference, or maybe just because fans do not approve of a consolidation of talent. For whatever reason, people don’t like this Heat team. However, all the reasons I fell in love with the 2004 Pistons are present with this Miami Heat team. The Pistons had great defense and great chemistry. The Heat have both of those–LeBron James and Udonis Haslem have really stepped their defense up in the Finals, and this team really seems to enjoy playing together.  The Other Guys. While it may be in vogue for people to root against the Heat, for whatever reason, I don’t. I think too often our culture builds stars up, just to tear them back down. I reject that. This Heat team is full of great players, and I wish them success. However, the other side has their share of great stories also–Dirk Nowitzki playing for a title, Jason Kidd being in contention for a ring again, after so many near misses. Whoever you choose to support, the Finals have been great entertainment. I can’t wait for Game 5. You really should tune in.
On its face, this routine—the Republican-controlled House passes a measure designed to annoy the White House, and the White House responds with annoyance—is not particularly unusual these days. In this case, though, the back-story is much more interesting. The original impetus came not from Republicans, but from liberal activist Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), whose resolution calling on President Obama to withdraw troops from Libya within two weeks and accept other restrictions forced Boehner’s hand. The House rejected Kucinich’s more forceful resolution, but just as many Democrats joined in supporting H.Res 292, many Republicans, especially Tea Party icons Ron Paul (R-TX) and Michelle Bachman (R-MI), voted for it, and Boehner himself realized that the House needed to put together some sort of resolution.
The permanent emergency of the Cold War, with troops stationed overseas, intermittent crises requiring fast action, and Congress members unwilling to appear weak on national security, all tipped the balance very far in favor of the President. Added to this was the President’s ultimate control over the nation’s nuclear forces (what Garry Wills has called his “Bomb Power”), which made both Congress and the concept of declaring war appear essentially irrelevant. Encouraged by a broad bipartisan consensus in favor of containment, the US Empire grew exponentially after 1945, and with it an increasingly imperial presidency. Read the rest of… French radio and television anchors are no longer allowed to say “Facebook and Twitter” on-air during their broadcasts. Is the United States next? Nah… [Time] YouTube still rules the online video universe, but a startup company from Chicago is trying to carve a place for itself in social media. [NY Times] A writer at Good Magazine responds to an age-old question in journalism: If a reporter sees someone in trouble, should they remain impartial or try to get involved? [Good Magazine] Girl power! What Jill Abramson’s appointment as executive editor of the New York Times, the first female in the position, could mean for women in journalism: [Poynter] CBS is taking its Weinergate coverage to the next level: tracking down the man who does the congressman’s laundry. [NY Magazine]
If John Edwards goes to prison, then many other politicians should join him, according to the Department of Justice’s logic.
I have a friend, for instance, who during his first campaign unintentionally did almost exactly what Edwards did. After my friend’s first campaign event, the host pulled him aside and said, “Great job! But, can I be candid with you?”
“Sure.” Sure, he said, wondering if his rhetoric had been too strong for some in the room.
“OK. Please don’t be angry,” she said. “But people think you look like a kid, not somebody who could be in Congress. Your suit’s too big. Your shirt is threadbare, your slacks look like rags, and your shoes are scuffed. Basically, you like a boy in your dad’s hand-me-downs. Oh, and you really need a haircut. Your hair looks like a hornet’s nest. You‘ve gotta go see my girl Melissa, she can help you.”
My friend went to Melissa for the duration of the campaign, and her handiwork was by all accounts a huge improvement. Melissa refused to charge him, no matter how vehemently he tried to pay her.
A few weeks later my friend ran into his high school tennis coach, who also commented on his suit. “You can’t go around looking like that,” said the coach, and gave my friend several stylish suits and blazers that he hadn’t worn in years, with instructions on where to get them altered.
Little did my friend know that he had his own Bunny Mellon and Fred Baron, on a slightly smaller scale. And like John Edwards, he neglected to report these gifts on his FEC filings. (FEC rules state that any gift to a federal candidate that is meant to influence an election and which has not been given routinely prior to the benefactor’s candidacy must be reported.) But if Lanny Breuer, the Assistant AG who is prosecuting John Edwards, has anything to say about it, there will be a precedent set for candidates, even those like my friend – neophytes who know precious little about the intricacies of federal campaign finance law. Any failure to report such gifts would merit a felony charge and, potentially, prison time. ***
Let’s lay out a few pertinent facts about the Edwards case. A centenarian billionaire gave almost a million bucks to help him hide his pregnant mistress while he ran for president. Edwards failed to inform his campaign treasurer about these gifts. Who was hurt here – other than Elizabeth Edwards? We can agree that John Edwards make a mistake by succumbing to the “charms” of a bleach-blonde New Age party-girl who approached him (“You’re so hot”) at a NYC hotel bar one evening. And he compounded this initial mistake with many more along the way. By carrying on an affair as his wife’s cancer progressed, he was appallingly self-indulgent and callous. By running for president while concealing it, he became one of the highest-stakes gamblers in history, literally risking the nation’s well-being on a Houdini-like escape from this tangled web. But that doesn’t mean the government should have spent two years and millions of dollars to prosecute him. The crux of the case is that Edwards failed to report the “gifts” as campaign contributions. However, no Bunny-money ever touched any of John Edwards’s campaign or personal accounts. Prosecutors don’t even allege that it did. And apparently Ms. Mellon even paid gift taxes on the money. So should Edwards really be prosecuted and potentially incarcerated for misleading his campaign staff about the fact that a billionaire kept his mistress living in style? Is there anyone in the country who doesn’t think John Edwards is a world-class heel? Probably not. Would you like to help pay the millions of dollars for his prosecution and possible incarceration? I didn’t think so. *** As regular readers know, I lied to federal agents about my knowledge of a postcard that was mailed out by an independent group during my 2004 congressional campaign. With my knowledge, one of my aides had given publicly available information about my opponent’s legislative attendance record to the independent operator, a fact that my aides and I hid from investigators. The wire worn by one of my best friends for two months in 2009 revealed my awareness of the plan to send the mailer, along with the fact that I frequently use four-letter words. Read the rest of… |
| ||
| Copyright © 2024 The Recovering Politician - All Rights Reserved | |||
