Sunday, January 27, 2008

Bill Buckley says Edwards is a phony

At RealClearPolitics. com Bill Buckley begins :

I heard a plainspoken, sophisticated man of affairs, with a background of public service, make a statement not to be confused with a stump speech. It was for that reason all the more arresting. "The thing I regret most about the political scene," he said, "is that, as a Republican, I won't have an opportunity to vote against John Edwards in the primary." I gushed with the pride of tribal fidelity, as if running into a Christian in the middle of a desert.

Is my friend's hostility to Edwards entirely ideological? No. It is also, like mine, personal.

I just don't like his cultivated appeal to the bleachers, combined with the carefully trimmed hairdo. And maybe, most of all, the carefully maintained Southern accent, which you can hear him practicing before his lucrative appearances before the juries who listened to him and believed that they were listening to a brother, a good old Southerner, with all the right instincts for justice. …
Buckley notes the sorts of things John Edwards says to explain why voters should support him and wonders how people stand it:
[According to the “environmentalist” with a 30, 000 sq. ft. house,] "(Bush) comes from a world where wealth is largely inherited, not earned. That is not the world I come from. ... The difference between George Bush and John Edwards is, while he honors and respects only wealth, I honor and respect hard work. I honor and respect responsibility. I believe in opportunity. He's about building barriers and closing doors; I'm about exactly the opposite. I want to knock barriers down. I want to open doors."

I mean, can you stand it? That is political rhetoric of the kind we got a generation ago from the fire-breathing populists, as also from conniving communists and dogmatic socialists. …

John Edwards, who has about 20 percent of the Democratic delegates within his reach, certainly seems to believe that politicians who want to succeed should clothe themselves in populist formulations. But young politicians seeking success might wonder at the dangers of being too obvious about changing one's positions on public policies.

The New York Times, in its seigneurial manner, judges Edwards to have gone a little too far. In its Jan. 25 editorial, the Times appreciates his "fiery oratory," but goes on to regret that "we cannot support his candidacy. The former senator from North Carolina has repudiated so many of his earlier positions, so many of his Senate votes, that we're not sure where he stands."

Where he stands is in the long line of critics of America who believe they can prosper politically by edging the American ethos over to left-welfarism. It's reassuring that Mr. Edwards, for all his pitch and fire against American success, should himself be prepared to join the ranks of the failed political class.
Buckley’s entire column is here.

I can’t think of anything John Edwards won’t stoop to to hustle votes.
Remember when he announced how proud he was that his young son Jack was telling playground friends they shouldn’t wear sneakers their parents bought them at Wal-Mart?

It’s good to hear Buckley believes Edwards will soon “join the ranks of the failed political class,” but the 20% of delegates Edwards may get could very well be a powerful bargaining chip heading toward the Dems national convention in Denver.

John Edwards brokering a Democratic convention won’t be a good thing for the Dems or the country.


Anonymous said...

John Edwards IS the definition of Empty Suit.

Anonymous said...

I don't think Edwards campaign is going anywhere. Coming in third place in your birth state can't be good. How did this guy get to be a VP candidate?

Debrah said...

Read some posts from this place if you want to know the types of people who are taken in by the oily Edwards.

Strange, that.

Tarheel Hawkeye said...

Debrah: One can only stand in stunned silence upon reading such drivel. Where are there people so ignorant, so naive, so gullible that they would willingly follow and support the likes of Edwards? I can only conclude they must be recent liberal arts graduates of one of the diploma mills that used to be colleges and universities.

JWM said...

Dear Ronmet,

I think Edwards is the kind of politition who hurts a democracy.

For example, his insisting he was "lied to" by President Bush about Saddam having WMDs.

Bush may have been wrong about WMD but the Russian, Chinese, Israeli, French, British intelligence agencies all said Saddam had them.

Even Hans Blix believed it.

When Edwards peddled that "I was lied to" line he showed himself as someone who'd hurt his own country to help his election chances.

To Anon @ 12:10,

In a day or two I plan to post on where I think Edwards campaign is going and also how he got to be a VP candidate.

Thank you both for commenting.


To Debrah,

I've deleted two of your comments.

If you're going to get into things like Ruth Sheehan's husband stutters and Elizabeth Edwards needs to get herself to a fat farm, please find another blog at which to comment.

There are plenty out there.


JWM said...

To Tarheel Hawkeye,

I didn't mean to ignore you.

Are comments were posted about the same time.

Americans are being weakened as defenders of our rights and this country because so many of our schools. colleges and universities fail to educate students in our history and their rights and responsibilities.


Debrah said...

TO John @ 5:13 PM--


If you do not see how very relevant the personal habits of those who try to inhabit the political stage and, consequently, run this country are, then you are overlooking reality.

Obesity is one of the leading health problems in this country--completely avoidable with personal responsibility and a little willpower.

Sheehan's and her husband are as much victims as Mike Nifong.

One thing you might learn before you leave this earth is that if you want to involve yourself in controversial subjects like politics, you can't play the choirboy game selectively.

How dare you take such a tone.

I do hope you have the decency not to erase this reply to you.

Again, how dare you!

Anonymous said...

Thanks, John.

Anonymous said...


Love her or hate her, Debrah writes better than 80 percent of others who comment, including you, anonymous 7:10.
In fact, many went to D-I-W because of her. I among them.
Your jealousy is showing.

Anonymous said...

Gee, Anon @ 7:51 - - -

Are you saying you're leaving JinC and going to D-I-W?

Are you so upset with JinC that you won't be coming back?


But, hey, we all respect your decision.

What's more, we understand the appeal of D-I-W to Debrah and you.

Good Luck.

Duke '75

Anonymous said...


You're being deliberately silly.
My comment was to bring facts to the childishness.
JinC is a fine blog, but let's face it, no blog can compare to the consistent work that Johnson brought to the table.
In my opinion, and I'm not alone, the synergy between Johnson and Debrah made D-I-W exciting.
There is no reason to dislike JinC just because I admire the work of others.

wayne fontes said...

I wonder if Churchill could have stood up Debrah's litmus test? I'm thinking an obese alcoholic who smoked might not have been able to slide past Debrah the gatekeeper.

I do hope you work on your "tone" John. One wouldn't want to upset Debrah.

How dare you?

Anonymous said...

Ummmm. One thing's sure. When Debrah is the topic, people come out of the woodwork to weigh in.

Anonymous said...

Hi anon @ 8:42,

So "When Debrah is the topic, people come out of the woodwork to weigh in."

That's fine.

Besides DIW, what other blogs does Debrah comment at?

Where can commenters "weigh in" in support of Debrah's remarks?

There must be lots of blogs where people like Debrah and you can make and read comments about the physical characteristics and appearances of people who stutter or have breast cancer.

Don't let the rest of us at JinC stop you and Debrah from going to those places.

Happy trails!

Anonymous said...


No one wishes Mrs. Edwards anything but good health. She certainly has access to the best of care in the world thanks to all those innocent doctors who were lied about by John Edwards and driven out of business.
Which is where they made all their money.
It has been the opinion of a great many people that the way the Edwards have played up their son's death and now her condition is tacky and unseemly.
My wife is a breast cancer survivor and I wish anyone with a disease good health, but don't try to use it to get votes.
You can't say enough about how low those two are in my book.
Debrah told the truth. Your trying to make her sound like Ann Coulter.

Anonymous said...

Anon 9:07,

"No one wishes Mrs. Edwards anything but good health."

If you had stopped there -- OK.

But you went on - - -

"She certainly has access to the best of care in the world thanks to all those innocent doctors who were lied about by John Edwards and driven out of business.

Which is where they made all their money.

It has been the opinion of a great many people that the way the Edwards have played up their son's death and now her condition is tacky and unseemly."

Nice the way you worked in Edwards son's death in an auto accident.

I wanted to vomit.

But "No one wishes Mrs. Edwards anything but good health."

Sure, and Dick Brodhead and Mike Nifong were only trying to get at the truth.

Anonymous said...

&%$#! John and Elizabeth Edwards!
They are losers who just need to drop out of the race. They don't have a chance.

You guys can stop arguing anytime now. Commenter 10:35 really thinks anyone gives a hoot about those two phonies.


Anonymous said...

10:35pm--Hey, bud. I think you were trying to respond to 9:26, not 9:07.

Try to keep up. Oh well, what else can you expect but "ditzy" from a John Edwards defender?

Anonymous said...

Did Elizabeth Edwards care about how it affected Lynn Cheney when she ran her big mouth about Mary Cheney being gay?

She said she felt sorry that Mrs. Cheney couldn't openly acknowledge her daughter being a lesbian and made all kinds of phony comments about motherhood.

It is the height of real scum to comment like that about the relationship between another mother and her daughter and try to use it for political gain.

Just the way John Edwards brought up Mary Cheney being gay in a gratuitous way during the VP debates in '04.

Both of the Edwards are nasty and deserve any factual comment anyone chooses to mention.

Yea, Elizabeth Edwards needs a whole lot of work.

Anonymous said...

John - Sorry to see the mean and unnecessary personal attacks against both bloggers and candidates.

Anonymous said...

9:36 am
What is this place, a church?
I frankly have been embarrassed for the author of this blog because of the need to keep a "preacher's clause" throughout.
Go run a forum for preachers!
You bring up politics and don't allow free discussion.
No wonder there have always been so few commenters here. Thanks for running off one of the best ones.

P.S. I don't see some of the uncalled for comments about Mangum being a prostitute and comparing John Edwards to a prostitute on another post as being very nice, but no one said anything about that bs. You have a few commenters who have helped the author of this blog look pretty simple.

lynp said...

No - it is not a church but a debate. Personal attacks have no place in the exchange of ideas. We can disagree without insults - in fact, insults weaken the argument. I disagree with "running off one of the best ones". But "to each his own said the old maid, as she kissed the cow."

Anonymous said...


I agree and think that a combination of things is going on.
For most of the lacrosse case I followed the various blogs. D-I-W was the go-to blog and the poster being attacked here was quite popular there as well as quite prolific.
The attacks I believe are more because of ignorance. Some people do not keep up enough to know about the Edwards.

Bob Schrum made it clear in one of his books that John Kerry was shocked by the Edwards' dishonesty and artificiality. For someone like Kerry, that's saying something. He made clear that they have used the death of their son for political points.

Here's Kerry's recollection: One day just after Kerry picked him for VP Edwards pulled him aside and started talking in an emotional whisper. He told Kerry that what he was about to tell him he had never discussed before because it was too hard.
He proceeded to talk about his son's death and then went into all kinds of personal things. Kerry was so taken back that he felt very uncomfortable. Why?

Because Edwards had told him the same story a few years earlier.

For commenter 10:35 I can only say--read and learn more before attacking someone. The Edwards have used this topic out in the public like a cheap suit. No one else has.

Kerry made this public to show how phony and deceptive Edwards is. He had obviously told the same story so many times that he forgot he already put on the show for Kerry once before.

And we aren't supposed to tell the truth about these people? Their own fellow Democrats sure have. Too bad some people are ignorant of the facts.

JWM said...


The comment threads are not for commenters to attack each others intelligence, character, etc.

Thus a string of deletions here.


Anonymous said...


I suggest the comments by "lynp" add very little to any debate but what you say you want to avoid.
I also suggest you read some other blogs for the behavior and kind of "debate" this person brings.
Do you honestly go for such tripe as the 11:02 comment?

Anonymous said...

That is a good reason for people to post as anonymous. Sorry, you can not see the humour.

Anonymous said...


Sorry, I don't live on a farm.
And the irony of poor putrified "lynp" calling for no attacks at the same time posting such crap is why this moderating shows only those who agree with the author get by with this lowgrade stuff.
I don't need to talk further on the quality of this commenter.