Friday’s political round-up

August 3, 2007

Today’s installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn’t generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers:

* John Edwards thinks he’s found a weak point in Hillary Clinton’s armor: Fox News. “Edwards criticized [Clinton] for taking more than $20,000 in donations from News Corp. officials, arguing that the company’s Fox News Channel has a right-wing bias and Democrats should avoid the company…. ‘The time has come for Democrats to stop pretending to be friends with the very people who demonize the Democratic Party,’ Edwards said in a statement.” News Corp. responded by noting that Edwards’ publisher, HarperCollins, paid Edwards for his 2006 book. Edwards responded to that by noting he donated the book payments to charity.

* In light of the Minnesota bridge tragedy, Democratic Senate candidates Al Franken and Mike Ciresi both suspended all campaign activities. The Republican National Committee, however, is continuing with its summer meeting in Minneapolis.

* I’m still paying almost no attention to national polls on the presidential primaries, but state polls in early primary states are at least mildly interesting. The latest WaPo/ABC poll out of Iowa shows the top three Dems in what is effectively a three-way tie: Obama 27%, Clinton 26%, and Edwards 26%.

* In case it was unclear why former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee’s presidential campaign is struggling to break through, the far-right Club for Growth makes it clear with a new ad in Iowa. It accuses Huckabee for raising “sales taxes, gas taxes, grocery taxes, even higher taxes on nursing home beds.”

* There’s been a bizarre, over-the-top fight lately between Huckabee and Sam Brownback, both of whom believe they deserve support from the GOP’s religious right base. The details are kind of irrelevant — neither is gaining any real traction — but yesterday it crossed into the silly threshold when the Huckabee campaign relied on Baptists for Brownback, a parody website, to launch its latest attack.

Snazzy new look. I like it.

  • …Edwards criticized [Clinton] for taking more than $20,000 in donations from News Corp. officials…

    Boo… hiss… boo…

    Clinton should return the $20K and tell Foecks News to shove it up Roger Ailes’ fat ass. Or is she running a “Fair and Balanced” campaign?

  • Hey, take every cent from the Faux Group – less they have to spend attacking Ds!

    It accuses Huckabee for raising “sales taxes, gas taxes,. . .

    Yeah, raising those sales and gas taxes for things like, oh, bridge repair – that’s just an awful idea. Lets see how much “growth” the economy sustains when all of the roads and rails are impassable. Nutjobs.

  • In light of the Minnesota tragedy and reading the Club for Greed’s whining that Huckabee raised a few taxes, I wonder how these nitwits in the Club for Greed believe that you can get something for nothing. Bridges don’t build or maintain themselves for free (even one built from Lego or Lincoln logs.) Infrastructure costs mega bucks.

  • I’m on John Edwards’ email list. The following is an excerpt from yesterday’s letter, on the subject of Murdoch buying the WSJ:

    “This has got to stop. It is time for Democrats to stop pretending to be friends with the very people who demonize the Democratic Party and call it “news.”

    “That’s why today, John Edwards is challenging every Democratic presidential candidate to refuse contributions from News Corp executives, and return any they’ve already taken—beginning with contributions from Rupert Murdoch.”

    My immediate reaction was: “Wow – he’s going after Hillary in a big way.” I think that this attack is entirely valid, and will hurt her badly with the Democratic base. She’s very vulnerable here. She hardly needs the $20,000, but if she gives it back now, she will look even more foolish.

  • The slapfight between Brownback and Huckabee is pathetic.

    On one hand, it’s nice to see the Republicans in such disarray. I hope that everyone is paying attention and will remember this period next November.

    But on the other I just know, deep in my heart, that whoever wins the Democratic nomination will be constantly questioned in the media on their credibility and, for many of them, whether or not they have the experience while the Republican gets a pass. I don’t know if it’s just cynicism, but I think I’m going to stop watching news altogether in 2008.

    I’ve never been one of those people who rage against the “MSM” or that sort of thing, but I think I might be becoming one.

  • Brownshirt v. Huckster

    Who wants the dispensationalist vote the worst? C’mon, who’s gonna give the Fundies that Rapture fix that they need? Who can recite Ezekiel from memory without so much as taking a breath? Which macho man is going to get the Crusades-machine fired up? Who’s gonna torture those Muslim idolaters the most? Who’ll have the itchiest finger on that nuke button?

    You know, traditional Christian values.

  • News Corp. responded by noting that Edwards’ publisher, HarperCollins, paid Edwards for his 2006 book.

    Maybe a typo or not; you’ll want to rephrase. The point is, HarperCollins is a NewsCorp joint. And though being paid for a job (and then donating the proceeds) isn’t the same as accepting a campaign contribution, the point is that Edwards said he would never take a cent from Rupert Murdoch. He probably should’ve said he’d never keep a cent from Murdoch.

  • John Edwards, who, after leaving the Senate, worked for Fortress Investment Group LLC, a primary owner of offshore, tax-sheltered hedge funds, is telling Hillary to give the money back. Well, John, since you railed against these tax shelters in your 2004 campaign, and since this kind of work involves people who “demonize” working class taxpayers on a daily basis, perhaps you should return some of the money you received from these people and tell them that it’s because they didn’t pass the Democratic Workers Coalition Purity Test.

  • Of course the Club for Growth will demonstrate their steely self-reliance by not demanding a government handout – a la the S&L collapse – when their mortgage backed securities begin to truly tank. I look forward with anticipated pride to them refusing to make the argument that taxpayer dollars should be used to clean up the mess for the good of the economy. “There are winners and losers in a free market economy. We made a bad bet and we’ll take our losses,” they will say.

    Yeah, right. The same Democrats who voted for the Bankruptcy Reform Act are now waiting for CfG’s call.

  • Hmm. Looks like the courts have said the FBI went too far when it raided Jefferson’s Congressional offices. I’m sure Mike Savage will tell us the judges were afraid the Democrats would do unto them what they did to Roberts.

  • Drudge has a huge headline right now screaming “EDWARDS TOOK $800K IN MURDOCH MONEY!” along with the obligatory unflattering picture. The story link takes you to… yes, the New York Post. Fair and balanced!

    It’s all about Edwards’ book published by a News Corp. subsidiary in 2006. I have to agree, John has some ‘splainin’ to do.

  • I think that Edwards should explain why he chose to make money by writing a book rather than by collecting bribes like any normal politician.

  • Looks like the shallow ambulance-chasing pretty boy is starting to hemorrhage pretty badly in the polls. Even Iowa, where he’s lived for the past year, and his natal state of South Carolina, now look like they’re going for Chillary or B. Hussein Obama.

    And his campaign spokesman says he won’t account for the “charities” the Silk Pony gave his book earnings to. Hmmmm…….

    Of course, to what charities did he give the half-mil he earned pushing sub-prime mortgages to poor people? While he was “studying poverty.”

    This guy is setting records for more than just hair-and-makeup excesses!!!

    What’s next, a war on cancer?

  • Edwards criticized [Clinton] for taking more than $20,000 in donations from News Corp. officials,

    “Pecunia non olet” said old Vespasian when criticised for imposing a tax on cloacas.

  • RE: John Edwards,

    The problem with the so-called “thinking” going on here, is that Edwards is indeed a hypocrite. He was cut a $300,000 check for expenses that does not figure into the supposed gift; though asked, he has not supplied proof that he donated the money; and even if he ultimately shows that he did, he still would have reaped substantial tax benefits from the donation to various 501(c) (3) organizations.

    Give it a rest! The guy is a complete phony.

    As noted in the New York Post:

    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.
    Edwards claimed $333,334 in royalties from last year’s release of the book, according to media accounts. The campaign said last night that those funds were part of the advance.

    He says he gave that amount to charity, which would also provide tax benefits for Edwards. “We’re more than happy to give even more of Murdoch’s money to Habitat for Humanity and other good causes,” spokesman Eric Schultz told The Post yesterday.

    He declined to show proof, however, that Edwards had donated the $500,000 advance or $300,000 expense checks to charity.

    • Comments are closed.