John Edwards

Two Good Obama Articles - Calling AIPAC and Malcolm Hoenlein

1. from MereRhetoric Obama Shill Tells Jews To Get Over Their "Obama Paranoia"

2. WSJonline Original: Obama's Magic
found at:
FreeRepublic

Here we have two nicely done articles each displaying the Amra D'shikra nature of the Obama campaign. The first article from MereRhetoric is the most recent installment of the Obama team's disinformation campaign intended to mislead Jews from their concern's that Obama has surrounded himself with not so Jew friendly associates and advisors. Omri Ceren deserves a yasher koach for this piece and it's wealth of evidential links. (see also Advanced Guilt by Association - Barack Obama and
Barack Obama - Myths, Facts and Obfuscating). Ceren points out {amongst other things} that Obama "surrogate" former Michigan Democrat Congressman David Bonior is "the biggest supporter of the anti-Israel Arab lobby in Congress". Note the article in the NY Sun from December 2006, that both the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations and AIPAC expressed concern and wonderment why John Edwards would choose Bonior to manage his Presidential campaign. I wonder if the same concern about Bonior running the Edwards campaign also translates into concern that Bonior has endorsed and is working directly for Obama? Consider this a call to AIPAC and Malcolm Hoenlein to explain/justify/clarify their position on the Obama campaign engaging Bonior.

Concerning the second article from the WSJ online Obama's Magic which I originally found on Free Republic, the writer, Kimberely A. Strassel writes a witty column how the magician Obama can propose everything needed for economic collapse and re-distribution of wealth and not get called out for being the socialist that he is. I will refrain from additional comment because I encourage the reader to check out her writing first hand and any additional comments might still the thunder. The Obama economic plan is a disaster.
 

With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility: Fred Baron and John Edwards

Politics is supposed to be about the will of the people expressed by their vote and their activism which then shapes both the political parties and the ranks of elected officials. Would that it were that simple. Reality deals with the fact that there will always be those who are more influential than others in that process. Whether via connections or cash, some folks are better positioned to push a Party or a candidate one way or the other. The question is, of course, what to do when one person carries so much weight and influence that he can, by himself, influence or actually alter the course of politics in a state or a region.

This is not a philosophical or rhetorical question. It is happening across the country. People like George Soros spend billions to influence political discussions and the political process to effectively disenfranchise "regular" voters by manipulating what is seen and heard to the point where "reality" becomes what he wants it to be. People like Tim Gill and other wealthy individuals in Colorado have poured personal millions into state and local races, fundamentally altering the makeup of the state's political delegations in ways that don't necessarily fit with the makeup of the electorate there. It seems to be happening again. This time in Texas and the man behind the money is Fred Baron.

Baron is the man with the money behind the relocation and support of Rielle Hunter, John Edwards' mistress, and her child. Texas Watchdog reports Baron says he moved both Rielle Hunter and Andrew Young, the man who says he is the father of Hunter's child, on his own dime and for his own reasons without input or contact with Edwards or the campaign.

The reason for Baron shelling out money for the relocation? Young and Hunter were being dogged by tabloid reporters chasing rumors of the affair and pregnancy, according to the initial interview.

“I made a decision on my own, without talking to Edwards or anybody, to try to help them move to a community to try to get away from those folks,” Baron told the [Dallas Morning News]. He said he used his own money –not campaign funds – but did not disclose how much he provided. Both Hunter, who now lives in Santa Barbara, Calif., and Young worked under Baron for the campaign.

Critics say this raises all kinds of questions.

“John Edwards’ affair on his cancer-stricken wife and Fred Baron’s apparent attempt to silence Edwards’ mistress by spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on her reeks of the arrogance of two multimillionaire plaintiffs attorneys trying to buy the White House,” said Anthony Holm, an Austin-based GOP political consultant and creator of GivetheMoneyBack.com.

Indeed, Baron initially described the help as a payout from his own pocket. That turned into a “loan” in a later New York Times interview. Some news reports put Hunter’s monthly maintenance fees at $15,000 per month. Baron denied the amount is that much but has not disclosed how much it is.

Interesting that such a connected and savvy political operator would choose relocation as the solution to being dogged by reporters as opposed to "Let's hold a press conference and clear this thing up once and for all!" But, hey, it's his money. Still one has to wonder why he chose this particular avenue.

Shelling out hundreds of thousands of dollars to move "people of interest" around the world isn't Baron's first move in the politcal game of "Show me the money!" Texas Watchdog also reports Baron, his wife and his law firm are behind almost $7 million dollars in donations over the last few years to candidates and causes that are decidedly on the Left side of the political spectrum. So much so, Texas Watchdog can also report

It’s difficult to overstate Baron’s importance to Democrats in Texas and to those in Washington. In addition to serving as John Edwards’ 2004 and 2008 presidential campaign finance chairman, he’s thrown jaw-dropping sums of money into other political races.

He’s credited with helping the Democrats take over the U.S. Senate two years ago, as well as transforming Dallas County government to a Democratic-controlled body, wresting it away from the GOP.

“I credit Fred and Fred’s energy with helping get the state Democratic Party back on the road to revival,” said Ken Molberg, a senior member of the state Democratic executive committee and a former Dallas County party chairman. “It’s something he did not have to do and, most certainly in my view, he did it based on his own belief system that they needed to be a viable state party.”

Texas Watchdog has even compiled a helpful listing of Baron's contributions which is posted online so you can see for yourself how much of Baron's money and other funds he controls were used to influence the political process and when it happened.

I'm all for a person being able to use what is his to influence the poltical debate. I have no problems with the reality that since some folks have more than others, they'll also have more influence. But, as has been noted in a recent blockbuster movie, with great power comes great responsibility. If Fred Baron wants to play in the deep end of the pool, then he should expect some scrutiny of both his actions and the results of those actions.

Just here is where the process breaks down. It is one thing for Baron and men like him to rebuild or to carry a political party on their shoulders in a state or nationally. It is another thing entirely for that man to use his funds to so manipulate politics that it changes the fortunes and outcomes of the electorate and the state or country. As Nashville radio talk show host Michael DelGiorno has noted, had the Edwards affair and the predictable fallout from it been a public matter earlier in the election cycle, Hillary Clinton would probably have been the Democratic nominee for President. Fred Baron, also "... based on his own belief system ...", played a key role in preventing that from happening.

In so doing, one man not only disenfranchised the work and votes of millions of his fellow Democrats who supported Clinton, he altered the landscape of the entire Presidential race for the rest of the country as well. That sort of power should only rest in the hands of a candidate since the candidate himself must live or die with the results of what he does. Baron's efforts meant John Edwards didn't have to answer to the electorate for what he did. It also meant Democratic voters didn't get a fair choice at the ballot box this year. That Baron, or anyone else, would choose to personally corrupt political events is a blight on what should be a process all voters can later say was untainted, especially when their candidate loses.

Republicans, too, must learn from this trampling of the everyday man by those who through personal hubris would be kingmakers. They must purpose now to resist the temptation. And temptation it is. The stakes are high and the issues are important. No one questions that. But what does it say about the solutions a person or a party brings to the discussion if the only way those solutions can make it into the debate is improper. The Democrats have no monopoly on the tactic of the end justifying the means. Should the Right adopt those tactics because they've shown themselves to be effective at times, they also willingly adopt the moral bankruptcy of which it is evidence.

May we be delivered and kept from the Fred Barons of the world, regardless of their affiliations.

Blue Collar Muse

The Gatsby candidates?

In thinking about things this weekend, one thing that occurred to me to how frequently we are exposed to "self-made" politicians. These folks emerge out of whole cloth, perfectly pitched to the zeitgeist of the election year they are seeking votes in, and offer the public the alluring prospect of starting over after a period of political dislillusionment.

It's all very appealing, but there's a certain suspension of reality required to fully buy into all this. Why, exactly, is the "new boss" not gonna be "same as the old boss"? 

This weekend we were served up the spectacle of John Edwards, who may have been a better lawyer than Bill Clinton but has proven not to be a better liar or a better husband. He argues now he is the victim of his own narcissism, and the thought hit me. Here is a Jay Gatsby.

Jay Gatsby was a fictional character whom we are seeing a lot of in real life. He showed up as the perfectly attired host of massive parties at his Long Island mansion, but no one seemed to know how he bought the mansion or what he did before becoming the premier socialite of the region.  And it didn;t seem to bother his legions of new found "friends" . Gatsby got by through guile and charm until he crossed someone who could ruthlessly engineer his demise.

Nick's modest cottage is next-door to an enormous mansion owned by the mysterious Jay Gatsby. Gatsby is extremely wealthy, and no one seems to know much about the source of his wealth although rumors abound. What he is known for is hosting outrageously luxurious parties, where hundreds of people show up each weekend. Although many of the guests are uninvited, Nick soon receives a rather formal request from one of Gatsby's butlers and finds himself embroiled in the party scene, although he claims to despise mindless entertainment.

At the party, Nick finds that none of the guests know much about their host. Hardly any of them have even met Gatsby

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Gatsby

As an attorney, I'm sure it was a huge rush to go from trying to pry money out of juries to riding Lear Jets around the country. And this changes a lot of people. But I  can at least piece Edwards's professional life---if not his attraction to weird biological clock ringing women--together. It's the flashy ambulance chaser on steroids.

There's an even bigger Jay Gatsby than John Edwards.  Much as  the debonaire millionaire arrived in West Egg almost as an apparition, we are treated to Obamamania without any real idea who the real Obama is. 

We are starting to slowly get a sense...maybe. Here's a man raised by grandparents because his mom was too busy doing her own thing. Someone who professes to understand America despite spending virtually none of his childhood and adolescence within the first 48 states admitted to the Union. 

Much as the fictional Gatsby is taken under the wing of a member of the establishment, Obama goes through the Ivy League , and then emerges in a large city where it appears he was the clean cut front man for a bunch of sharp operators.  He renounces the idea of being a suburban working commuter as too mundane, seeking some higher form of existence, something with more flash and glamour than his neighbors, toiling away in the bond business.

Indeed, Obama seems more at ease in foreign capitals than blue collar American towns.

Much as Gatsby's millions seem concocted from thin air, so is Obama's political rise. An obscure local officeholder catapults to the U.S. Senate after both his primary opponent and general election opponent have nasty divorce records unsealed which implode their campaign. What are the odds this happens accidently? Who or what wired this outcome?

Barack Obama wants to run America, but there's something that doesn't ring true, no matter how many ratings points he places behind TV ads praising "Kansas values".  Perhaps the legion of old friends---Wright, Ayres, Rezcko-- thrown under the bus belies this effort. One wonders what sorts of strange agents that Obama still befriends that just haven;t gotten into the soup yet.

At the end of Fitzgerald's masterpiece we learn about Jimmy Gatz, an ambitious farm boy whose true passion was the largely unrequited love of a beautiful woman. So, what is the real truth behind Barack Obama?   

I fear it will not be quite so simple, or quite so understandable. But the story may end just as badly and we may have no choice then to be part of the plot.     

The next Democratic Party ticket?

john-edwards_9.jpg Eliot_Spitzer.jpg

EDWARDS-SPITZER  '12

We've gotten the deceit out of the way already

 

John Edwards concedes to National Enquirer, Mickey Kaus

Regarding the news that John Edwards has confirmed the National Enquirer story about an affair with Rielle Hunter, some observations...

  • The Leftosphere will studiously ignore their previous ridicule of the people who covered that story.
  • Ultimately, the story isn't really a political point.  It's disappointing, it's sad, it's tragic.  And after John Edwards acknowledges lying about the National Enquirer claims, it should be private.
  • Nevertheless, there will be a great deal of noise in the blogosphere about this for a few days.  The story is not about Edwards having an affair, but about the fact that, despite the outraged protestations from critics, the National Enquirer and Mickey Kaus were right all along.
  • Mickey Kaus is going to be insufferable.

 

Don't Commit Web Suicide

Promoted. There's nothing that annoys me more as online political professional than politicians who refuse to continue the conversation with supporters after the campaign. Many of the former Republicans have hundreds of thousands of supporters they could mobilize for John McCain... or even keep themselves relevant and build a base for future runs or their activities in Congress. And yet most just don't. Only Huckabee is doing this well on the Republican side. -Patrick

As Hillary Clinton preps to concede that Barack Obama has the delegates to secure the nomination, I wonder about the future of her online presence.  Will her website continue to project her political activity -- positions, whereabouts, and calls to action?

Or, will she commit web suicide like so many viable major federal candidates before her?

You may ask why we should care about Clinton's online presence.  We should care because once she's a loser, she will join the cast of dozens of Republicans who lost in '06, and that will lose in '08, and we should learn from her mistakes.

Syndicate content