Home / JohnEdwards
Showing posts with label JohnEdwards. Show all posts
Showing posts with label JohnEdwards. Show all posts
John Edwards doesn't understand why he is being treated differently than JFK and Clinton

John Edwards doesn't understand why he is being treated differently than JFK and Clinton

Edwards is right that there is something of a double standard. After all, Edwards was the Democrats VP candidate in 2004. Does this mean that Dems would have also turned on Clinton if he had not been president at the time? From the Washington Post:
“He knows he made mistakes,” Bergenfield says on the eve of Edwards’s trial, which is set to begin Thursday with jury selection. “But John thinks that the treatment of him is so unflinchingly horrible and that what he did is not so different from what others did — JFK, Clinton, the whole rogues’ gallery. We’ve had this conversation about his situation, and I remember he did compare it to Clinton. He said, ‘I did a horrendous thing, but I don’t know why I’m getting such an unforgiving treatment when you think of what other people have done.’ ” . . .
Are there really no limits to campaign donations?

Are there really no limits to campaign donations?

For those who think that there is a limit of $2,300 that you can make in campaign donations to a federal candidate, you might be mistaken. There is an article in the WSJ today about the wealthy heiress who gave money to Edwards' campaign. If I am reading this correctly, I don't understand what limits the amount of money an individual is able to give to a political campaign. In this case, the wealthy heiress apparently tied the gifts that she was giving to Edward's campaign to specific spending made by the campaign.

"From now on," she added, "all haircuts, etc., that are necessary to the campaign—please send the bills to me.… It is a way to help our friend without government restrictions."


How can it be a gift if it is designated to be used in specific campaign activities? If this is accurate, then there are effectively no limits on direct campaign contributions as long as one declares it to be a "gift" and pays the relevant taxes.
NY Daily News: "John Edwards' ex-mistress, Rielle Hunter, targeted by Elizabeth Edwards in blog comments"

NY Daily News: "John Edwards' ex-mistress, Rielle Hunter, targeted by Elizabeth Edwards in blog comments"

One can understand why Ms. Edwards would do this.

Former presidential candidate John Edwards is said to be ready to admit that he fathered a love child. But Hades may have a skating rink before his wife, Elizabeth, signs off on such a confession.

As a grand jury in North Carolina considers whether Edwards misused campaign funds to cover up the scandal, Elizabeth still can't abide his former mistress, Rielle Hunter.

Word is Elizabeth vehemently opposed the plan, now in place, for Hunter and daughter Quinn to move from New Jersey to Wilmington, N.C., where the Edwardses have a beach house.

For months now, Elizabeth, who is said to be talking to a divorce lawyer, also has been sniping at Hunter - painting her as a blackmailing gold digger - in blog comments where she uses the pseudonym "Cherubim," according to a source who knows Elizabeth.

Though "Cherubim" has recently described herself as an African-American woman, the source insists, "It's Elizabeth. She's used 'cherubim' as a password. Look at the gravestone of their son Wade: It's an angel holding a boy."

"Cherubim" has also heaped scorn on estranged Edwards aide Andrew Young, who is working on a book in which he's due to reveal that Edwards and wealthy supporters paid him to claim that he fathered Quinn. . . .
Some holes are appearing in John Edwards story

Some holes are appearing in John Edwards story

Fox News and ABC have raised similar problems with Edwards' claims. Fox News is pretty blunt:

But discrepancies between his story and the unraveling timeline of events raise more questions about whether Edwards' attempts to come clean are in fact just more lies and half-truths. . . .


If it was a Republican who behaved this way, there would be a major media feeding frenzy.

John Edwards on infidelity:

Couric: Harry Truman said, "A man not honorable in his marital relations is not usually honorable in any other." Some people don't feel comfortable supporting a candidate who has not remained faithful to his or her spouse. Can you understand their position?

Edwards: Of course. I mean, for a lot of Americans, including the family that I grew up with ... it's fundamental to how you judge people and human character: Whether you keep your word, whether you keep what is your ultimate word, which is that you love your spouse, and you'll stay with them.

Couric: Do you think ... what about people who use that as a way to evaluate a candidate? In other words, there have been a number of fine presidents according to some analysts ...

Edwards: Right.

Couric: ... who have certainly not been sort of exhibited the greatest moral character ...

Edwards: Right.

Couric: ... when it comes to infidelity ...

Edwards: Right.

Couric: I guess is what I'm getting at.

Edwards: Yes.

Couric: So how important do you think it is in the grand scheme of things?

Edwards: I think the most important qualities in a president in today's world are trustworthiness, sincerity, honesty, strength of leadership. And certainly that goes to a part of that. It's not the whole thing. But it goes to a part of it.
Senator John Edwards asks for 2 Year Ban on all New Drug Ads

Senator John Edwards asks for 2 Year Ban on all New Drug Ads

CONCORD, N.H. (AP) - Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards says prescription drug companies should have to wait two years to begin advertising their new products to consumers. . . . .


Heck, why should customers know about a new drug for the first two years that it is out? If these new drugs are beneficial (presumably why the FDA approved them), what is the loss in poorer health that results from not letting people learn about these drugs? Many years ago there used to be bans on all sorts of advertising such as for optometrists. There have been studies that showed that when advertising was allowed the prices for that type of care went down substantially.

If ads are so misleading, why allow them to be advertised when they have been out for 2 years and one day?

Well, in some sense all this might not really matter very much since the price regulations that the Democrats want to impose on drugs will mean that very few new drugs will be being made.
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)