John Edwards Indicted On Using Campaign Funds To Pay Mistress

It's official: Edwards indicted of using campaign cash to pay mistress. This louse used campaign funds from his run for the President to hush up his extra-marital affair with Rielle Hunter and with whom he fathered a child. The lies piled up and he couldn't sweet-talk his way out of the mess of his own creation. Things really began to unravel when his aid Andrew Young began talking:

In December 2007, the group began traveling by private jets to luxury hotels on a cross-country game of hide and seek. It was all financed by wealthy Edwards campaign operative Fred Baron, and it was all with Edwards' approval, Young said.

"Maybe he didn't know exactly where we were, but he knew about the money, he knew about the methodology and he knew about the sources," Young said in an interview with ABC News.

Young and his wife have estimated that it cost Edwards' benefactors $1 million in cash, private jets and hotel rooms to cover up the affair and Hunter's pregnancy.

If he were to agree to a deal today, Edwards will not be required to serve any time in prison -- but the former high-flying trial attorney he will almost surely lose one thing he holds very dear.

Edwards has stated that he hopes to move back into legal work once this case is behind him. However, in North Carolina, if he pleads guilty or no contest to a criminal offense, he must go before the State Bar -- putting his license to practice law on the line.

It's laughable that Edwards could claim that he didn't know that the money was being used to pay for the silence of those who knew or had reason to know about the affair.

Had he agreed to a plea deal, he would have likely faced lesser charges, but which would have put his law license up for scrutiny before the North Carolina bar. However, now that this is likely to go to trial and Edwards loses, it's going to be a far worse situation. I suspect that his license to practice in NC would have been suspended, not revoked, if he had gone and taken the plea deal. Now, all bets are off as to what will happen. A conviction on these charges would likely result in the NC Bar moving to disbar him.

And he's going to deserve everything that comes his way.

Indictment Expected In Edwards Campaign Finance Violations Case

The loathsome John Edwards will get his comeuppance as prosecutors are expected to indict the former Democratic presidential candidate over the misuse of campaign funds to cover up an affair with his mistress, Rielle Hunter, all while his wife Elizabeth was suffering a relapse of cancer that ultimately took her life.

The U.S. Department of Justice has given the thumb's up for prosecution of the ex-presidential candidate for allegedly violating campaign law while attempting to cover up his affair with mistress and baby mama Rielle Hunter.

Sources close to the investigation told ABC News that the government is gearing up to indict the former North Carolina senator, though a plea deal could be reached to avoid a lengthy, expensive and highly publicized trial.

Edwards, 57, a former golden boy of the Democratic Party, has been the subject of a two-year investigation into whether his political donors gave more than $1 million to Hunter, his campaign videographer, to hide the affair as he pursued a bid for the Oval Office.

The cash was allegedly paid by two key Edwards donors, Rachel "Bunny" Mellon and the politician's finance chairman, Fred Baron, who died in 2008.

Baron admitted to funneling the cash shortly before his death, but insisted Edwards had no idea of the back-door deal to hide Hunter from the press.

Edwards will surely try to cop a deal with prosecutors to avoid further public humiliation.

Edwards Admits Obvious: Rielle Hunter's Kid Is His

The national media ignored the affair between then presidential candidate John Edwards and Rielle Hunter until it was all too obvious and the National Enquirer scooped everyone with photo proof. Now, more than two years later, he admits that Rielle Hunter's daughter is his.

"I am Quinn's father. I will do everything in my power to provide her with the love and support she deserves,” Edwards, a former senator from North Carolina and John Kerry's 2004 running mate, said in the written statement. “It was wrong for me ever to deny she was my daughter and hopefully one day, when she understands, she will forgive me.”

The admission provides a sensational coda to one of the most lurid sideshows of the 2008 presidential campaign — the disclosure by the National Enquirer that Edwards had an affair while his wife, Elizabeth, battled cancer.

Edwards consultant Harrison Hickman describes the former senator's relationship with his daughter in on-camera interview: “He talks about her being a beautiful child and a happy child. … Like any father, he talks about how it makes him feel when he’s around Quinn, which is very happy. … I think he’s very proud of this child."

Edwards always cared more about his own appearance and the possibility of being president.

UPDATE:
To that end, it looks like Edwards has surfaced in Haiti of all places. It's all part of rehabilitating his image. Sorry, but I don't buy it. He's using the Haiti relief efforts to rehabilitate his image; the suffering of the Haitian people is merely a prop.

Feds Probing John Edwards Campaign Contributions

This really should come as no surprise. There were signs that John Edwards was being less than truthful about his relationship with Rielle Hunter and how she came to be paid off. Now, federal investigators are wondering whether Edwards used campaign funds from his failed Presidential bid to pay off Hunter.

They're sifting through the records, and Edwards says that the investigators wont find any improprieties. Given how often Edwards has lied to the public, and to his wife Elizabeth, about his affair, I don't think anyone should take anything he says seriously. It will be difficult to pick apart the financial trail, particularly because nonprofits aren't subject to the same disclosure rules as corporations, but if I were Edwards, I wouldn't be going to bank on exoneration just yet.

There's also speculation that Elizabeth knew that John was using campaign funds to keep Rielle quiet.

That's bad news for the Edwards clan. Then again, so is gaming the so-called campaign finance laws that have investigators so suspicious:

Laws prohibit candidates from spending campaign money on personal expenses they would have incurred had they not been running for office. But nonprofits created to support a candidate or his message have different requirements.

The Alliance for a New America, the group that received Mellon's millions, was kept at arm's length from Edwards, a requirement of campaign finance law. Nonprofits known as 527 groups primarily pay for media messages that closely align with a candidate's stance.

The alliance was launched by Nick Baldick, Edwards' campaign manager in 2004. At least one donor, San Francisco attorney Jim Finberg, said he was advised the money would pay for ads in Iowa supporting universal health care. He knew the group was linked to Edwards; by law, however, Edwards couldn't be involved in the group's activities.

According to Federal Election Commission filings, the alliance in 2008 paid $3.3 million in “political consulting” costs to a limited liability corporation called AFNA. That LLC was registered in Virginia in 2004 and dissolved in 2008. Efforts to reach anyone associated with the company failed. Baldick could not be reached.

Edwards partly funded his unofficial launch into the Democratic primary race with funds from a different nonprofit he started in 2005.

The Center for Promise and Opportunity, a nonprofit organization allowed to shield donors' identity but still make political expenditures, paid for much of Edwards' early groundwork in New Hampshire and Iowa.

The organization's statement of purpose, filed with its tax disclosures, never mentioned Edwards, even though Edwards was the center's honorary chairman, according to 2006 media reports.

“They play this charade. Refrain from saying they are a candidate, so they don't have to follow the rules,” said Paul Ryan of the Campaign Legal Center, a nonpartisan group. “They're gaming the system. If they play carefully enough, they can avoid running afoul of the law.”

In 2006, Edwards traveled the nation, walking picket lines and talking to crowds about poverty and his regret in voting to fund the war in Iraq, travel paid for by the Center for Promise and Opportunity.

The center also paid for Edwards' trips abroad, where he met with foreign leaders and visited developing nations plagued by squalor. Rielle Hunter was at his side filming.

UPDATE:
Hot Air also notices the investigations.

Follow the Money: L'Affair Edwards Continues

The Edwards affair may work great in the tabloids and generate a few hits here at A Blog For All, to say nothing of the media spiking the story until it was impossible to ignore when John Edwards admitted to the affair with Rielle Hunter, but we're getting to a real interesting quandry for the Edwards camp.

Who was giving the money to Rielle Hunter and did it violate campaign finance rules? Well, it looks like Fred Baron has his deep pockets involved:

The review found that Mr. Edwards’s political action committee went to unusual lengths to make a final $14,000 payment to Ms. Hunter’s film company months after its contract with the committee had ended. The payment was issued while the committee was short on cash and could pay its bills only after receiving thousands of dollars from Mr. Edwards’s presidential campaign and donations from four people, including Mr. Baron’s wife.

If you had donated to the Edwards campaign, do you think your money should have gone to paying off Hunter when there were other campaign expenses that were more important? Why go to the lengths that the Edwards campaign did to make sure Hunter was paid? Was it a quid-pro-quo to keep Hunter from talking to the press about her affair with Edwards?

The Times may have been the first major paper to run with this story, but the blogosphere was asking this question days ago. They're no closer to answering the key questions than the bloggers were, and haven't exactly advanced the story.

This problem may have started with Edwards' affair, but it doesn't end there. Fred Baron is now working for the Obama campaign. He's already given the maximum amount of $2,300 to the Obama campaign and is working as a bundler.

The Lies Continue

So, what version of events in L'affair Edwards are we up to? Number 2? Well, no one is buying this version either because the time line doesn't work either.

John Edwards said that he broke off his relationship with Rielle Hunter in 2006, but the National Enquirer says that's a load of nonsense. They note that the two renewed their affair even John told Elizabeth about the initial affair.

So, what's the proof? Well, that's not entirely clear, but there are time line issues that Edwards still can't quite account for:

But the National Enquirer is reporting today that Edwards restarted the affair after coming clean to Elizabeth, and that Hunter, now 44, got pregnant shortly afterward.

Meanwhile, Hunter's sister said yesterday that the mistress' 6-month-old love child unmistakably "looks like John Edwards. She's got his eyes and jaw line and lips.

"The most shocking thing was watching him on TV [last week] giving these half truths, these half-baked answers. I wish for everyone involved that he'd have come clean," Hunter's sis, Roxanne Druck, told "Entertainment Tonight."

Despite recent denials in an ABC News interview, Edwards knows he's the father of Hunter's daughter, Frances Quinn, the Enquirer is reporting.

Sources have also told the weekly paper Edwards and Hunter orchestrated her public rebuffing of his offer of a paternity test.

Well, given how Rielle's family was demanding that Edwards take a paternity test and Elizabeth said nothing about a paternity test to exonerate her husband, it certainly does seem odd that Rielle herself would say that she doesn't want a paternity test.

Collusion between Rielle and John does make sense. She's getting $15,000 a month from Edwards top money man, Fred Baron (who incidentally must be the best friend a guy could ever hope to have for throwing around serious money to keep things under the radar for as long as he had). That too would explain her sudden silence on the paternity issue. She wants the money to keep coming, and making demands on paternity could jeopardize the cashflow.

UPDATE:
The National Enquirer reports that Edwards and Hunter met at the Beverly Hilton not once, but three times this year. How did the Enquirer confirm this? Records? Dumpster diving? Someone at the hotel giving them the details? Inquiring minds want to know.

And Edwards' lies and ongoing deception isn't winning him any friends either.

Small Lies and Big Lies, Part 2

The Edwards affair saga continues to get 24/7 media coverage now that everyone is openly talking about it following ABC News confirming what the National Enquirer had been reporting for months.

John Edwards apparently lied about when he started having his affair with Rielle Hunter, which once again throws off his carefully crafted timeline. Friends of Rielle say that the affair started well before the Edwards campaign hired her. I still don't get how Elizabeth can stand to be in the same room with him, but she's busy crafting lies of her own.

USA Today says that we deserve the 100% truth and they don't accept Edwards' current spin on his affair with Hunter.

As lies and half truths tend to do, Edwards' words, and these circumstances, beg follow-up questions too numerous to list here.

Edwards had dismissed the Enquirer stories as "tabloid trash," but his denials ended Friday, when he issued his mea culpa in an interview with ABC News and a written statement. It was timed — coincidentally, we're sure — to coincide with the opening of the Beijing Olympics. Edwards said that he told his wife, Elizabeth, about what he says was a brief affair in 2006, and that the timing of the pregnancy meant he was not the father. Yet Elizabeth, who is battling an incurable form of cancer, was apparently unaware of Edwards' recent visit to Hunter, an incident detailed in the Enquirer. The latest twist — that Hunter won't submit the child to a paternity test — won't help put this story to rest. Maury Povich's show couldn't top this.

Politicians having affairs and thinking they are untouchable is nothing new, of course. A sinners gallery includes former presidents John Kennedy and Bill Clinton, Louisiana congressman Bob Livingston, presidential candidate Gary Hart, former New York governor Eliot Spitzer. To name just a few.

Yet Edwards' transgression — indeed, his excuse — would test the patience of his most ardent supporter: I did it, but only while my wife's cancer was in remission. This suggests that the one-time rising star of the Democratic Party has not yet made contact with human reality and believes he can dissemble his way out of this, à la Bill Clinton.

The decent option is to tell the public the whole truth, without lawyerly equivocations. Then he has the difficult task of healing his family. He should recall his own wisdom in 1999, when with great clarity he described Clinton's affair as "breathtaking" for its "remarkable disrespect … for the moral dimensions of leadership, for his friends, for his wife, for his precious daughter."

That's what makes Edwards seem so smarmy here. It's not that he had an affair - lots of politicians have done that. Presidents have had them.

It's the circumstances behind the affair and what he claims happened that has his lies tied into knots. He wants people to believe that he had an affair, but only while Elizabeth's cancer was in remission. The moment it came back, he broke things off with Rielle.

Once again, it makes no sense why he would claim that he broke it off, admitted the affair to Elizabeth, and then had to slink into the Beverly Hilton on apparently two occasions to see Rielle and ostensibly her (their?) baby.

The moment he admits that he was continuing his affair with Rielle while Elizabeth's cancer was no longer in remission will destroy every last scintilla of respect anyone has for the guy and would make him radioactive politically. There are some places that even politicians wont go.

That's why he's pushing this meme that he broke off the affair specifically before Elizabeth's cancer came back. He wants to maintain the possibility of salvaging a political future. What I don't get is why Elizabeth would go along with this. Her statement on John's affair doesn't push for him to get a paternity test to clear his name.

It's a most curious omission from her defense of her husband, which when taken with the fact that Rielle's lawyer refused to state that the reason she wouldn't call for a paternity test was because she knew the father to be Edwards' former staffer, Andrew Young.

And if you think that the media coverage of the Edwards affair wasn't news or didn't have an effect on the Democratic party nomination process, know that if the media had done its due diligence and discovered that Edwards was cheating on his wife when her cancer returned, it would have killed his campaign, and given Hillary a serious boost to the point that we'd be talking not about Obama's ascendancy, but about Hillary's historic nomination.

Small Lies and Big Lies

It wasn't entirely surprising that the story of John Edwards admission of an affair with Rielle Hunter broke on a Friday night. It's part of a long history of Friday night news dumps where bad stories are leaked on a Friday to avoid major news coverage. That strategy doesn't exactly work out as planned, and it didn't work out here, partially because ABC News made it public earlier than Edwards had hoped. In fact, Edwards was pissed that ABC News ran the story as early in the day on Friday as they did.

I called it on Friday that this was purposefully leaked on Friday, particularly as news of war in Georgia and South Ossetia broke out along with the Olympics opening ceremony would serve to bury the story somewhat. Still, Edwards wanted the story to break even later on Friday because the media managed to start a feeding frenzy in time for the evening news. He wanted to manage every aspect of the story, even as the National Enquirer had let everyone know the basics months ago.

The media is still coming to grips with its stunning failure to pursue the story.

Yesterday, I reported that Rielle's sister was demanding that Edwards come forward and take a paternity test yesterday. Rielle isn't too keen on that, but I think there's a strategy behind this. It puts additional pressure on Edwards to admit fatherhood and keeps the story alive as suspicions swirl about what exactly Edwards had been doing behind Elizabeth's back all these months.

Huffington Post also puts a dent into the Edwards timeline of when and where he first met Rielle. Well, if Edwards is making the big lies, the small lies are easy. And Elizabeth's actions are also being questioned by those on the left.

I suspect that the media will take a much closer look at Edwards' travel itineraries and compare them with those of Hunter to see if there were other rendezvous. Watch for more dumpster diving as well.

Deceiver has a few questions, including what happened to Rielle's website. Far more interesting is the money trail - why was Edwards paying Rielle in 2007 even though she was out of his employ in 2006.

Overlawyered has a more important question of Fred Baron, whose money appears to have been spread a cone of silence. Did he violate federal campaign finance laws? And why has no one asked Edwards why he would have met Rielle in the dead of night at the Beverly Hilton if he sought to keep this story quiet. There are far more laid back and secluded places to meet.

Edwards Affair Redux

Now, the media wants you to believe that it was difficult for the media to prove that John Edwards had an affair with Rielle Hunter. Right. How difficult was it to send reporters to track down Edwards at the Beverly Hilton? That's what the National Enquirer did.

The Los Angeles Times sent an intern to do reporting on the story.

It's further amazing that once the dam burst yesterday after Edwards admitted to the affair that the nation's reporters all of a sudden found their voice collectively and began reporting the story as though they'd been all over it from day one.

The only folks who can claim that they've been following the story with any sense of urgency from the outset were Mickey Kaus, the National Enquirer, and some bloggers including DBKP.

Yet, even though Edwards admits to the affair, he claims that he did not father the baby. That makes sense given the revulsion that would ripple throughout the nation if we learned that he was off having sexual encounters with his mistress just weeks after his wife Elizabeth learned that her cancer had returned. The timeline makes it clear that if the baby is indeed his, it would mean that he had sex with Hunter just days after learning his wife's cancer had returned.

DBKP parses Edwards' official statement and notes that it is full of weasel words and that he attempts to trash the one media outlet that got most of the facts right from the outset, the Enquirer. Indeed, ABC News notes that the Enquirer got 95-96% of the story right. Since the Enquirer claims that Edwards is the baby's father, perhaps it might help if either ABC News or the Enquirer could pursue that angle further, though it would require that Edwards take a paternity test. Anthony Young already claims that he's the father, but there is no evidence to substantiate his claims.

Note also that Edwards now claims that he's being honest, when he was claiming that he was honest in 2007 when he denied ever having an affair with Hunter - and that comes at a time after John told Elizabeth about the affair. She knew about the affair at that point, but still stood by. Will she stand by now, even after learning that Edwards may have continued seeing Hunter even after her cancer returned?

So, what does Elizabeth do? She apparently penned a piece on Daily Kos. I find it curious that she's concerned about the steady stream of reporters and news helicopters over their home. Maybe that might have something to do with the fact that John was the VP candidate in 2004, and had ambitions to be President in 2008 but was likely to settle for a post in an Obama administration?

John has spoken in a long on-camera interview I hope you watch. Admitting one’s mistakes is a hard thing for anyone to do, and I am proud of the courage John showed by his honesty in the face of shame. The toll on our family of news helicopters over our house and reporters in our driveway is yet unknown. But now the truth is out, and the repair work that began in 2006 will continue. I ask that the public, who expressed concern about the harm John’s conduct has done to us, think also about the real harm that the present voyeurism does and give me and my family the privacy we need at this time.

She's rallying behind her husband, which is her prerogative. If she truly means that her family needs time to heal, then John's political career should be toast. Ed Morrissey wonders if that will actually be the case.

I think his career is over because it goes to character and fitness to lead. Can anyone ever trust anything he says? While we need politicians to lie and prevaricate, the appearance of lying and prevarication tends to turn people off. Just ask Gary Hart.

It appears that neither Edwards will attend the convention in Denver. That's for the best for all concerned, especially the Edwards family.

I do feel sorry for her and her kids. She trusted him, and he burned her - first in 2006 after admitting to the affair, and again now. If he indeed fathered Rielle's child, then that burning sensation is more like a bonfire.

Others blogging: Macranger has no sympathy for Elizabeth and calls her a liar.

Paul at Powerline weighs in and comments on human frailties and notes that he will post no further on the subject. I agree that Edwards is a phony and his abilities to manipulate a jury (and the public) are astonishing, but he could feel remorse as well. However, mitigating that is the fact that he's indeed lied about his relationship with Rielle to his wife, and it appears that he never broke it off with Rielle.

The Moderate Voice notes the suffering of the family. Indeed.

See memeorandum for the feeding frenzy.

UPDATE:
Doug Ross has put together a handy dandy timeline of events, complete with noting that John received a father of the year award and renewed his vows with Elizabeth even as he was in the midst of his affair with Rielle.

UPDATE:
Edwards truly has a problem because he's pissed off Rielle's family, which is now demanding he take a paternity test. Whoa nelly!

Which of These Is Not Like The Other

One item managed to make its way on to the front pages of the Washington Post only to be completely debunked within minutes by a blogger.

The premise of that story was that a major political figure was benefiting from some unusual donors and that there was some kind of pattern developing. Too bad that Amanda Carpenter decided to do her own research, and checked the names in the article against the Open Secrets campaign databases. The names didn't come up, which shows that there's nothing there there.

The other item continues to percolate as tabloid fodder courtesy of the National Enquirer, which has sourced the story, corroborated the story from outside sources, and even claims photographic evidence of marital infidelity.

One story relates to Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee for President. The other story relates to John Edwards (D), a former candidate for President and running mate to John Kerry in 2004.

If you haven't guessed by now, but the first story is about McCain, while the second is about Edwards.

A front page retraction by the WaPo is absolutely necessary on the McCain story because the entire premise of the story was bogus. The fact checkers and the gate keepers failed. Again.

The fact is that the Washington Post screwed up royally in running its latest smear piece on Sen. John McCain and for all the wrong reasons. Bias and a rush to judgment replaced fact checking and verification of key details. If the WaPo had actually checked the names against the various campaign databases, this story would never have run because it fell apart under even basic scrutiny.

It's not the first time either that a major media outlet sought to run with a story along these lines. The New York Times did the same exact thing, and it was just as thinly sourced.

Meanwhile, the big media outlets are pretty much ignoring the Edwards story as though it's somehow beneath them or isn't newsworthy. Apparently, it's far easier to run a bogus story about a Republican presidential candidate on the front page of the Washington Post than it is to get reporters to look into the question of John Edwards marital infidelities even as his presence at the DNC convention in Denver depends on how he responds to the questions. Heck, some are still floating his name out there as Obama's vice presidential choice.

Note too that in the article assessing various vice presidential candidates, there isn't a single mention of Edwards' current tabloid woes. Funny how that works.

UPDATE 8/7/2008:
Soccer Dad notes that Mosk (the reporter in the WaPo story) has tried this game in Maryland.

Edwards Love Child Photos?

The National Enquirer has been saying that they've had the goods on John Edwards for some time now.

Well, they've released a photo showing Edwards holding a baby, who they claim is Edwards' love child with Rielle Hunter. As the Enquirer notes, the location can be confirmed as the Beverly Hilton hotel based on the drapes in the background of the photo and further confirms the Enquirer's story about their encounter with Edwards that ended when Edwards ducked into a men's room to avoid further questions about why he was at the hotel.

The photo also appears to show that the baby has a Caucasian complexion, which tends to undermine the claims by the Edwards flack Andrew Young that the baby is his.

Will the Los Angeles Times now deem the story newsworthy? Or, will they, like other big media outlets, continue to embargo the story because they've decided that it isn't worth our time to read about Edwards conduct and marital infidelities?

My thoughts and prayers go out to Elizabeth Edwards and her children. She's done nothing but support Edwards at every turn, even as she was experiencing a recurrence of cancer. May she take John for every last penny.

HT: Gateway Pundit.

UPDATE:
So far there's nothing from the Los Angeles Times, which previously determined that the paper would say nothing on the subject of Edwards' trip to the Beverly Hilton. The News and Observer has nothing either.

However, bloggers are reporting on this, and it further underscores the fact that the public can and will continue to rely more on alternative news sources because they have had it with the media elites who determine what stories should fly and which ones get buried.

Outside the Beltway and DBKP also weighs in.

UPDATE:
Apologies to Andrew Young. Confused the Young involved in this case, with the Andrew Young who was a former Mayor of Atlanta and civil rights leader (ht: anonymous emailer). The Andrew Young involved here is a former member of Edwards' presidential campaign efforts.

UPDATE:
Hot Air wonders whether the Enquirer cooked up the photo to sex up their already confirmed reporting that Edwards was at the Beverly Hilton. Specifically, how exactly did they get the camera in the room with Edwards and the baby?

Gotcha!

I guess the Los Angeles Times will have to report on this story after all. Their self imposed blackout on the news that John Edwards might have had a love child with a mistress was blacked out by the Times editorial board.

Now, a criminal complaint has been filed by two National Enquirer reporters against the Beverly Hills Hilton over their treatment while trying to question John Edwards over his affair and relationship with Rielle Hunter.

NATIONAL ENQUIRER reporters Alan Butterfield and Alexander Hitchen filed a criminal complaint with the Beverly Hills Police Department on Thursday, July 24, charging that hotel security acted unlawfully while the reporters were trying to question the former senator.

Edwards now could be contacted by police to give an eyewitness account of what occurred.

Hotel security tried to stop the reporters from questioning Edwards in the basement of the hotel at approximately 2:40 a.m. Tuesday, July 22 after Edwards came off an elevator and appeared to be attempting to leave the hotel unseen.

The National Enquirer has pursued this story even though no one else in the media thought that there was anything there. An incurious media ignored this story, and one would have to wonder whether they would have done so if the politician involved was a Republican.

There is one person I feel sorry for in this whole mess - Elizabeth Edwards - the better half of that family relationship. And I've always felt that she was the more qualified of the two to run for President.

UPDATE:
FoxNews does what the Los Angeles Times refused to do - hunt down whether Edwards was present at the hotel at the time the Enquirer says he was.

Edwards Exits

John Edwards is going to quit his latest attempt to run for President. He simply failed to gather any traction, and I often felt like his wife Elizabeth was the more viable candidate among the two of them because she did a far better job of outlining his positions than he did.

I'm not sorry to see him go. He lacked the experience and leadership capabilities that a President should have. He did have great hair though.

The Florida Primary and the End of the Road for Rudy

There's a couple of ways to look at the results so far. Mike Huckabee is toast - and I don't see anyone going to him for advice. Ditto Ron Paul, although he's hanging around like a roach after the nuclear holocaust.

It is a two-person race for the GOP as Mitt Romney and John McCain are pretty close in the tally, but McCain has a small but sizable lead at the moment. Even if he wins, he'd still be behind Romney in the overall number of delegates because the Florida GOP got docked for jumping ahead on the primary order.

Rudy Giuliani is toast. The writing has been on the wall for the past several weeks as pretty much everyone has written him off and voters have looked elsewhere as the media pounded on his campaign (or lack thereof).

For Rudy, it's all a matter of what his intentions are going forward. Does he want to be VP or AG in someone else's backyard and what does he bring to the table for the other candidates?

I know some think that McCain and Rudy are chummy, but I just don't see that. Rudy and McCain are far too strong personalities to mesh very well, and McCain would bristle at the idea that Rudy is around, even if he's given the VP slot.

A better choice for Rudy would be to throw support behind Mitt. They are a better fit ideologically and on the judges. They're both similar on social policy and the best fit would be Rudy going for AG.

From a geographic perspective, Rudy would benefit Mitt because of the NYC area ties, but even that has its limits (see FL). Fred Thompson might be a better fit for Mitt as VP if only b/c he's from the South and that would be prudent to take up a geographic bloc.

I'm pretty disappointed with Rudy's run. I thought the possibility of leaving the early races to stake it on FL was sound if only because everyone else would beat up on each other, but the downside was that such infighting kept your name in the paper and it gave Rudy the rep that he wasn't really fighting hard for the nomination.

Oh well.

For the Democrats, Hillary Clinton ran unopposed as John Edwards and Barack Obama both listened to the DNC and did not campaign in the state. Too bad for them, because Hillary did. And now, she's busy claiming that she'll enfranchise the voters by getting their delegates seated. How nice of her to get a cheap win.

The big winner thus far looks like it's John McCain, who's kicked Huckabee and Rudy to the curb. Hillary is a close second.

It's shaping up to be one ugly set of choices when New Jersey voters get their chance.

UPDATE:
So much for predicting this one. Time is reporting that Rudy will be endorsing McCain. We'll see how much that's worth to McCain.

Finding the Narrative

Well, Iowa's done, as are Christopher Dodd's and Joseph Biden's campaigns to become president. They threw in the towel last night after failing to gain any traction in the campaign for the Democratic party nomination.

The new narrative percolating in the media is how Mike Huckabee's win in Iowa has thrown the GOP race into disarray. Are you kidding me? Are you kidding me?

We're one state into this campaign and the pundits are already spinning furiously over what Iowa means. Huckabee threw all his eggs in this basket and he's lucky to have won here, but it likely wont translate into any momentum down the road since he simply doesn't have the money backing to sustain himself going forward. Romney and Thompson both get to fight another day, as does McCain and Paul. Rudy hasn't even gotten into the fight, and his first real test comes in Florida. It looks like Romney is in trouble given he needed a stronger showing in Iowa, but even that isn't a fatal blow to his campaign. In other words, things have gone more or less as predicted and no one has taken a commanding lead here. There was no real change for the GOP and the candidates all get to slug it out for at least another state or two. I'm not sure the public wants order in this race - and 49 other states get their chance to weigh in on who should represent the GOP in November.

On the Democrats side, things are actually in disarray. Hillary came in third, with Obama winning handily. Edwards slid into second place just ahead of Hillary. The bottom dropped out for Dodd and Biden, but I'd expect to see Gravel and Kucinich drop out as well - leaving a three person race. However, the surprise here is who's got the momentum and just how badly this leaves the Hillary campaign. Considering how many people put her as the frontrunner, I'd say this counts as disarray. Obama's surging in the polls and Edwards looks like he's got some momentum as well.

UPDATE:
ABC is cutting three of the candidates from its next debates: Republican candidate Duncan Hunter and Democrats Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel.

Pandering For Votes

Pandering for votes is a politician's staple, but this shows just how foolish John Edwards truly is. He thinks that Americans will go for his latest proposal to bring home virtually all the US troops in Iraq just before the 2008 election.

The number of troops needed or necessary in Iraq to fight al Qaeda and continue to support the Iraqi government - the key missions in Iraq at present - is determined by the military commanders in Iraq and General Petraeus has hit upon a winning strategy in defeating al Qaeda and squashing the insurgency with using additional troops and concentrating efforts to reduce the area in which the insurgents and al Qaeda operate. With more Iraqi forces stepping up, US troops can and are being reduced, but to put a purely political spin on how and when to bring those troops home, it shows critical misjudgment on foreign policy, national security, and how and when to use US force to bolster and support our allies and thwart our enemies in the Middle East.

In one of his most detailed discussions to date about how he would handle Iraq as president, Mr. Edwards staked out a position that would lead to a more rapid and complete troop withdrawal than his principal rivals, Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, who have indicated they are open to keeping American trainers and counterterrorism units in Iraq.

Elizabeth Edwards, his wife and political partner, who listened in on the interview from a seat across the aisle, intervened at the end of the session to underscore that Mr. Edwards did not intend to stop all training and was prepared to train Iraqi forces outside of the country. Mr. Edwards continued the theme while acknowledging that the benefits of such training would be limited.

Mr. Edwards’s plan, like that of many of his Democratic opponents, is at odds with the strategy developed by American military commanders, who have said the situation is still too fragile to set a timetable for such extensive troop withdrawals and a curtailment of the training effort in Iraq.

Mr. Edwards’s plan calls for immediately withdrawing 40,000 to 50,000 troops. Nearly all of the remaining American troops would be removed within 9 or 10 months. The only force that would remain would be a 3,500-to-5,000-strong contingent that would protect the American Embassy and possibly humanitarian workers.

Even his wife, Elizabeth, realized that John was going too far and tried to spin the situation for him. I've said it before, and it's worth repeating, but Elizabeth has shown herself to be the more credible of the two Edwards' running.

Will This Derail Edwards Campaign?

Where the lack of a single policy accomplishment or genuine stance on any issue will not derail the Edwards campaign, rumors of this might? How screwed up is politics when a possible love child and extramarital relationship might can a presidential campaign while the same candidate's failure to provide a single accomplishment as a politician is ignored?



If this story pans out, it will bring much woe to the Edwards family. Even if it doesn't, I feel sorry for Elizabeth Edwards, who has gone above and beyond what many in her position would do given her medical condition and the rigors of campaigning and has to deal with the mudslinging and attacks on her family.

Is Elizabeth Edwards Running For President?

You know, it's interesting that Elizabeth Edwards gets far more press than her husband. She just came out opposing the MoveOn.org ad smearing General David Petraeus. It's the right call, but is it surprising that John Edwards didn't make that statement himself? This is a pattern over the past several months.

You'd have to wonder which one of them is actually running for President the way things are going. I suspect it's intentional since Johnny boy doesn't exactly inspire a whole lot of confidence in anything more than his hair care regime. Either that, or John Edwards actually supports the MoveOn.org position vis-a-vis the claims that Gen. Petraeus was cooking the books to support the Administration's policy on Iraq.

The thing is that so many Democrats are beholden to MoveOn.org and the money and grassroots organizing that flows from that relationship. If they burn bridges with MoveOn, they may lose a significant vocal minority that holds sway among Democrats who are key during primary season - the ones who actually vote.

Walking the Walk

While we get nonsensical ravings from Elizabeth Edwards over how she'll give up buying tangerines to save the environment, or listen to Al Gore pontificate on carbon emissions as he's caught stepping off a Gulfstream IV private jet that pumps out more emissions on a single flight than most people do in a year, I'm undertaking a far more comprehensive move to go green.

I've bought a house in Radburn, New Jersey. I know what you're thinking. How is buying a house a green step?

Well, the first step is knowing where Radburn is and what makes it a pretty special community. It was one of the first planned communities in the US and it was specifically designed to minimize the need for driving cars. Indeed, the layout is conducive to walking, not driving. You could go from your house to the community pool and school without ever having to cross a street. Everything is designed to minimize the need to drive, and indeed the streets in the development are narrower than you'll find in most suburban communities because cars are not emphasized in the plan.

Cars are almost an afterthought in the community, and the area's motto is "A Town For the Motor Age." That compact design means that it emphasizes a communal feeling and you can actually walk to most basic services. Driving is not required.

We were attracted to the area because of its close proximity to New York City, while maintaining a bit of a suburban feel.

I will be able to walk to the train which is just over a quarter mile away. Previously, I had to drive two miles, park in a commuter lot, and then walk 10 minutes to the station. Not having to drive and find parking is a big improvement and will also mean I'm not driving as much - big bonus there.

As for the house itself, it has a brand new oil burner, which means that it's about as efficient as one can get for that kind of heating system.


The house needs a new roof, and I'll pick one of the lightest colors available so that it reflects back most of the sun's heat and energy instead of absorbing it - reducing energy needs during the summer. That's a decision that will last 20-30 years, so you will see an ongoing energy savings with a simple color choice. If you have to install a new roof, choosing the lightest color available is an energy saver and a no-brainer.

A new insulated garage door will also make the house airtight. Right now, there are beautiful wooden carriage doors on the house, but they're not exactly airtight and are probably original to the house. Replacing those doors with a two inch insulated door with weatherstripping will cut down on energy bills. Replacing other doors at some point will further improve the look of the house and improve our home's comfort.

Another simple and cheap solution is to install CFLs around the house. I've been using CFLs around our apartment, and we'll be using them a whole lot more in the house. I'll be putting them in as necessary. I also intend to get an energy audit by PSE&G to further improve the house. Automatic thermostats are going in and my carbon footprint will go down considerably.

I'll be checking all the plumbing fixtures and putting in low-flow shower heads - which will reduce the water consumption and hot water heating costs. A new water heater will be needed at some point, and while I've considered a tankless system, which would save a considerable amount of energy costs because you don't have to keep the tank of water warm until it's needed, I think we'll go with a high efficiency standard water heater with the 15 year warranty since they provide a good balance between efficiency and cost.

All these things, excepting the roof, are relatively cheap to do, and will save a boat load of money and reduce emissions considerably.

Can you say the same about Edwards or Gore? I doubt it. They'll continue jetting around the country and emitting COx in far greater quantities than I could do in several years. They could do us all a favor by ceasing their campaigning and pontifications - just do it for the environment.

Health Care Woes - Theirs and Ours

Apparently, there are some like John Edwards who want to go around claiming that we need nationalized health care because there is some percentage of Americans who don't have access to health care. Never mind that such statements are patently untrue - everyone has access to health care. The crux is that not everyone has health insurance, which is a separate and distinct issue no matter how much Democratic party presidential candidates like Edwards of Hillary Clinton fudge the issue. Insurance portability is an issue, but one that doesn't require government intervention or replacement by a government plan or diktat limiting consumer choice.

They'll often point to our brothers and sisters in Europe to show just how enlightened they are over dealing with health care and why we're spending so much money on health care while some aren't able to have health insurance.

There are two stories should make anyone's skin crawl over the possibility of nationalized health care delivery systems:

1) Don Surber notes the extremely disturbing story of a pregnant woman who will have her child taken away in twisted version envisioned by the likes of Philip K. Dick in Minority Report:

A pregnant woman has been told that her baby will be taken from her at birth because she is deemed capable of "emotional abuse", even though psychiatrists treating her say there is no evidence to suggest that she will harm her child in any way.

Social services' recommendation that the baby should be taken from Fran Lyon, a 22-year-old charity worker who has five A-levels and a degree in neuroscience, was based in part on a letter from a paediatrician she has never met.

Hexham children's services, part of Northumberland County Council, said the decision had been made because Miss Lyon was likely to suffer from Munchausen's Syndrome by proxy, a condition unproven by science in which a mother will make up an illness in her child, or harm it, to draw attention to herself.

Under the plan, a doctor will hand the newborn to a social worker, provided there are no medical complications. Social services' request for an emergency protection order - these are usually granted - will be heard in secret in the family court at Hexham magistrates on the same day.

From then on, anyone discussing the case, including Miss Lyon, will be deemed to be in contempt of the court.

Miss Lyon, from Hexham, who is five months pregnant, is seeking a judicial review of the decision about Molly, as she calls her baby. She described it as "barbaric and draconian", and said it was "scandalous" that social services had not accepted submissions supporting her case.

"The paediatrician has never met me," she said. "He is not a psychiatrist and cannot possibly make assertions about my current or future mental health. Yet his letter was the only one considered in the case conference on August 16 which lasted just 10 minutes."

The woman has committed no crime. Her doctors have found no such problems, and may lose her child to the NHS because some nameless faceless doctor who has never actually met her has decided she's a threat to her soon to be born child for a disease that she might not actually have.

If you think dealing with insurance companies are difficult, you haven't met a government bureaucracy that has taken upon itself the notion that it will decide what is best for someone - predicting events in the future based on dubious conclusions (and that's being charitable to the doctors who rendered such decisions).

That leads me to the next story that should make your skin crawl. The NHS wants to cut costs by dropping coverage to those don't take the advice of health professionals:

Patients who refuse to change their unhealthy lifestyles should not be treated by the NHS, the Conservatives said today.

In a bid to ease spiralling levels of obesity and other health concerns, a Tory panel said certain treatments should be denied to patients who refuse to co-operate with health professionals and live healthier lifestyles.

And those who do manage to improve their general health by losing weight and quitting smoking, for example, would receive "Health Miles" cards.

Points earned could then be used to pay for health-related products such as gym membership and fresh vegetables.

The aim is a shift in the NHS towards preventing disease and ill-health rather than having to treat it.

Actually, the idea is to cut costs - it's more expensive to treat someone who is a smoker or who is overweight, and such a plan would make the health of smokers or those who are overweight worse. Claiming that this would improve lifestyles is a more palatable way of phrasing what the plan would do.

This proposal is for the British NHS. This isn't some private insurance company that is cherry picking those individuals who are in excellent health to reap the benefits of having them pay premiums for services they are unlikely to use. They're looking to cut the most expensive people out of services, or limit their access to services because of 'the inability to comply with health professionals' directions and care.

It's one thing for an insurer to offer incentives to their customers to improve their lifestyles and promote healthier living. It's quite another to punish those who can't comply with such plans by cutting their health care services.

Yet, that's exactly what some in Britain are proposing to cover the spiraling health care costs.

That's what we have to look forward to here in the US if the likes of Edwards or Clinton are elected President and have their health care proposals made into law.

UPDATE:
Others blogging the health care stories: Blue Crab Boulevard, memeorandum, and Astute Blogger.