Michelle Malkin » John Edwards: Silly, silly pony

John Edwards: Silly, silly pony

By Michelle Malkin • August 3, 2007 09:14 AM

Johnny’s Rupert Murdoch-funded book. Photoshoppers, have at it.

Yep: John Edwards was for taking Murdoch’s money before he was against it.

What else is there to say? Bwahahahaha:

John Edwards, who yesterday demanded Democratic candidates return any campaign donations from Rupert Murdoch and News Corp., himself earned at least $800,000 for a book published by one of the media mogul’s companies.

The Edwards campaign said the multimillionaire trial lawyer would not return the hefty payout from Murdoch for the book titled “Home: The Blueprints of Our Lives.“

The campaign didn’t respond to a question from The Post about whether it was hypocritical for Edwards to take money from News Corp. while calling for other candidates not to.

In addition to a $500,000 advance from HarperCollins, which is owned by News Corp., Edwards also was cut a check for $300,000 for expenses.

Haircuts?

More dirty Fox News money:

The Edwards campaign said it would return less than $1,000 in donations from three Fox employees.

Oh, dear.

***

Meanwhile, at Fox News Haters Central, King Kos declares: “We are the center.” The center of what? Sure: The center of the nutroots universe.

The RNC has posted a new ad ridiculing the YearlyKos circus:

Posted in: John Edwards

Regular View

comments (31)

trackbacks (14)

See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

Trackback URL

Comments

#112219

On August 3rd, 2007 at 9:24 am, OldGuy53 said:

Foot in mouth disease.
This guy really does think he’s above it all, don’t he?
#112220

On August 3rd, 2007 at 9:25 am, Snooper said:

Breaking News?

It seems the Republicans just did their own version of a walk-out.

It seems they may cause the government to shut down and THAT is a GOOD thing!
#112224

On August 3rd, 2007 at 9:33 am, swj719AWG said:

The Lovely MM writes:

Edwards also was cut a check for $300,000 for expenses.

Haircuts?

Yes, haircuts.

Both of them.
#112225

On August 3rd, 2007 at 9:34 am, swj719AWG said:

Son of a…

That’s it. Any time I use a formatting button, I’m hitting preview first.
#112226

On August 3rd, 2007 at 9:35 am, gayle said:

Well, Edwards is two-faced.

He needs to pack up and stay in his mansion.

I am sick of seeing him on TV as are most citizens in NC.

He is an embarassment to this state.

Bet Jesse Helms just shudders.

I miss that man. Boy! Could we use him NOW.
#112227

On August 3rd, 2007 at 9:36 am, taylork said:

I know this is off topic but I find it quite interesting. The telmundo reporter who slept with the L.A. mayor has been suspended for two months for violating the networks conflict of interest policy. The “ethics columnist” who writes for the NYT and donates to the dems, violating the Times’ conflict of interest policy? Nothing happens to him.

That’s right folks, Telemundo is officially more credible than the NYT, but then again, we already knew that.
#112229

On August 3rd, 2007 at 9:40 am, Rusty said:

Taylor, you’re comparing apples and oranges. I for one think it’s outrageous that publications are asking their reporters to refrain from donating to candidates. Whether the journalist is giving money or not, that bias is still there. And an American citizen has a right to support their chosen candidates.

But sleeping with someone you’re covering is a close, intimate, personal relationship that makes it impossible to have any sense of objectivity. Both Telemundo and the NYT did the right thing.
#112230

On August 3rd, 2007 at 9:41 am, taylork said:

Gayle, at least he’s not your senator anymore.
#112231

On August 3rd, 2007 at 9:43 am, gregorystephens said:

On August 3rd, 2007 at 9:35 am, gayle said:
Well, Edwards is two-faced.

Does that mean that he has two heads as well? What will that cost him in haircuts?
#112232

On August 3rd, 2007 at 9:44 am, taylork said:

If by doing the right thing, you mean NOTHING, then sure they did the right thing.
#112234

On August 3rd, 2007 at 9:46 am, taylork said:

…besides, there’s s hugh difference between a TV critic who gives money and a freakin ethicist. He should be fired for being a lousy ethicist if he can’t see the problem with what he did.
#112240

On August 3rd, 2007 at 9:54 am, Rusty said:

I don’t see the problem with what he did. He donated to the candidates he supported. Journalists are American citizens too. Why should they have less a say than you or me?

In the much more eloquent words of Powerline’s Paul Mirengoff:

Some MSM outlets, including the New York Times, have responded to this longstanding phenomenon by barring reporters and editors (or in some cases all writers) from making these sorts of contributions. This strikes me as the worst of all possible worlds. First, journalists should be free to make political contributions as they fit. Second, a ban does not reduce the ideological bent reflected by the contributions; it merely removes some of the evidence.
#112241

On August 3rd, 2007 at 9:59 am, taylork said:

and one more response on this and I’ll stop hijacking this thread (Sorry MM). The NYT already has its objectivity in question by a gigantic segment of the population. To be caught red-handed doing something that only serves to confirm the critics, espcially when readership is declining (in part due to its lack of objectivity) and then to not be punished (with the expection of the please don’t do that again statement) is ridiculous. The NYT is essentially saying that violating its conflict of interest policy is no big deal, which is absolutely amazing (but not suprising in the least).
#112249

On August 3rd, 2007 at 10:12 am, englishqueen01 said:

Kind of reminds me of the reports of John Edwards decrying Wal-Mart but then trying to get a video game system for his son…at Wal-Mart.

Hypocrisy, unethical behavior, and double speak is fine when you’re a Democrat.
#112251

On August 3rd, 2007 at 10:15 am, Brian72 said:

The liberal news media want to continue to favor liberal politics and influence the gullible, while denying conservatives one way to prove how liberal the media is.

They are banning donations because those donations have to be disclosed publicly, and the media bigwigs know that in-kind contributions, like the TANG-fake documents-story, are far more valuable to Democrats than any little thousand dollar check. The charade of objectivity must be preserved, in order to steer the public away from conservatism.

If the media were wide open about their biases like talk radio is, they would have more credibility. They instead pretend that news is a DNC psychological operation, hiding behind their “professional standards” while manipulating anyone who will fall for it. Not me. Never.
#112252

On August 3rd, 2007 at 10:18 am, Mr_Conservative_Cat said:

So, Johnny Edwards, pretty-boy involved in a love affair with his own mirror-alter-ego , ambulance-chasing injury lawyer, failed senator and now D-list political celebrity is keeping the money he made from the very organization, more or less, that he led the charge against so that he might never have to face a tough question from the press.

Ya know, some people are just born to be loved to be hated.

And speaking of hating, KOS! – Certainly they think they’re the center – they have every weak-kneed Democrat Presidential candidate – the same ones terrified to debate on Fox news, the most widely seen cable News outfit in the world (time to speak up about that, repubs!) – worshiping at the alter of their acid slime. Ooooh, how these angry haters must be salivating at the thought of getting the like of Hillary within talon’s reach so they can watch her twist in the wind about voting for the war before she complained against it, all so the press won’t cover it.

Politics have been sick in decades past, but nothing – nothing – compares to this. Too bad the Dems are afraid to debate on the network Edwards hates so the whole country could get a whiff of this well-coiffed septic tank.
#112254

On August 3rd, 2007 at 10:22 am, Brian72 said:

Edwards should be re-named “The Phony Pony”. With all his poverty experience, he was able to rake in $800,000 from a salvage company that found sunken treasure in the Atlantic. Right in the middle of his hedge fund controversy, the treasure was found by the divers and made headlines. Then it came out that Edwards invested in that salvage firm, and got a big payout. Mr. Poverty just can’t dodge the gold coins flying at him like sawdust in Papa’s old sawmill.
#112259

On August 3rd, 2007 at 10:28 am, geminicontender said:

When will the Pony break his leg?
#112262

On August 3rd, 2007 at 10:30 am, jrlingreenbay said:

These stories keep coming out like this…the Pony is going to be a gelding real quick.
#112272

On August 3rd, 2007 at 10:39 am, 29Victor said:

Two faces.

One for each America.
#112282

On August 3rd, 2007 at 10:45 am, Rusty said:

29Victor,

ZING!
#112286

On August 3rd, 2007 at 10:49 am, EdDantes said:

These stories keep coming out like this…the Pony is going to be a gelding real quick.

Or perhaps a unicorn?
#112289

On August 3rd, 2007 at 10:51 am, The Raging Republican said:

It would all be sooooooo laughable if not for the fact that this loon is actually being put out there by the DNC as a legitimate candidate; not to mention that millions of people will actually vote for him.
#112290

On August 3rd, 2007 at 10:51 am, jrlingreenbay said:

EdDantes – Unicorns are mythical creatures… so, yes…it could be a comparison because this guy is ‘unreal’…

I like the gelding comparison – since he’s so fond of getting snipped.
#112307

On August 3rd, 2007 at 11:09 am, Ignatius Reilly said:

$800k (500+300)…isn’t this fraud or something? Isn’t this transparently a campaign contribution? I don’t know much about publishing but this sounds to me like a preposterous investment in a project of this kind. Excluding the remote possibility that he becomes president, nobody will buy this book. Isn’t this a little like what cost Jim Wright his job as Speaker of the House?
#112366

On August 3rd, 2007 at 12:21 pm, jferg49 said:

why do we act suprised…AGAIN, Edwards is a slimy lawyer and was so slimy he couldn’t get re-elected…that he’s actually a serious candidate for the Dems only re-enforces my low opinion of that party and their “followers”. Since when is Murdoch’s money no good? Edwards is s silly little man who made money with junk science and stupid jurors. He’s not worth the time.
#112412

On August 3rd, 2007 at 1:02 pm, Brian72 said:

Talking up poverty in America while bathing in gold deblooms and hedge fund dividend checks, at Casa De Edwardian. What a phony pony.
#112426

On August 3rd, 2007 at 1:22 pm, gayle said:

Maybe we can saddle him up and ride ‘em into the sunset.

Sounds like a plan.
#112435

On August 3rd, 2007 at 1:34 pm, AlohaGuy said:

Good for a laugh on a Friday. Hypocrites are always fun, but earnest hypocrites even more so. I think he looks in the mirror and really believes…
Don’t have Photoshop handy on this computer, but shouldn’t his book be called “Gigantic Home: The Carbon Footprint of our Lives”?
#112569

On August 3rd, 2007 at 7:23 pm, hadsil said:

Is he willing to nuke FOX news? Would he invade the CW network to reach them?
#112792

On August 4th, 2007 at 9:44 pm, blacktygrrrr said:

I did not know it was possible, but John Edwards is too sleazy for John Kerry and Bob Shrum.

http://blacktygrrrr.wordpress.com/2007/05/31/kerry-edwards-revisited-the-scam-the-scum-the-scrum-and-the-shrum/

A new low is always possible. Keep hope(less) alive!

eric http://www.blacktygrrrr.wordpress.com