Pribek

According Andrew Young, a former John Edwards aide, the former Senator/Presidential candidate talked big game to his mistress, Rielle Hunter. From the NY Times…

Mr. Young says that he assisted the affair by setting up private meetings between Mr. Edwards and Ms. Hunter. He wrote that Mr. Edwards once calmed an anxious Ms. Hunter by promising her that after his wife died, he would marry her in a rooftop ceremony in New York with an appearance by the Dave Matthews Band.

How cute is that!!!???

It’s bad enough to promise to commit after the wife dies but, how bout…”Honey, I know Dave Matthews. We go way back. I can get him on the phone. Trust me, the DMB will be there.”

Can you picture it…a sunny afternoon in New York, the roof of a swanky Park Avenue building and the band playing “Ants Marching” as the lovely couple marches down the aisle?

Yesterday afternoon, before heading to the gig, I had the opportunity to view a little television. I caught the disappointing final couple innings of the Cards/Cubs game and then I made a quick run through the news channels, CNN, MSNBC, and Fox. All three of them were wall to wall on this John Edwards extramarital affair business.

Edwards, had an affair with former staffer, Rielle Hunter, was photographed by the National Enquirer after having some kind meeting with her a couple of weeks ago and then yesterday, Edwards issued a statement admitting to the affair. Until the statement, Edwards had publicly denied any affair.

So, I was watching the wonks on the three news networks and each channel had at least a couple of folks discussing Edwards statement and offering commentary and analysis. None of them showed or read the complete statement, by the way, they were focusing on excerpts. That right there is problematic because, the actual statement is the news. The actual statement should be the focus, show us that and let us interpret it.

But, in reality, these statements aren’t for us, the public. The statements that public figures make when they screw up are designed for the press to interpret.

I was flipping through the news channels and they were all making note of recent politicians’ various infidelities. The pundits on each separate network were all discussing some version of this question; What makes these guys think that they can get away with this stuff? That was the discussion, what made John Edwards or Spitzer or Craig think they would get away with it? Not, why did they do it? Why did they think they could get away with it?

So, you have a guy that gets a case of the wandering dink. Obviously, he has a character flaw, right?

What is the character flaw? The character flaw is that the guy can’t control his lust. He acts on his lust. The character flaw is not that he thinks he can get away with it.

So, this morning I made it a point to find Edwards’ actual statement. Here is the entire thing.

STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN EDWARDS

August 8, 2008

Chapel Hill, North Carolina

In 2006, I made a serious error in judgment and conducted myself in a way that was disloyal to my family and to my core beliefs. I recognized my mistake and I told my wife that I had a liaison with another woman, and I asked for her forgiveness. Although I was honest in every painful detail with my family, I did not tell the public. When a supermarket tabloid told a version of the story, I used the fact that the story contained many falsities to deny it. But being 99% honest is no longer enough.

I was and am ashamed of my conduct and choices, and I had hoped that it would never become public. With my family, I took responsibility for my actions in 2006 and today I take full responsibility publicly. But that misconduct took place for a short period in 2006. It ended then. I am and have been willing to take any test necessary to establish the fact that I am not the father of any baby, and I am truly hopeful that a test will be done so this fact can be definitively established. I only know that the apparent father has said publicly that he is the father of the baby. I also have not been engaged in any activity of any description that requested, agreed to or supported payments of any kind to the woman or to the apparent father of the baby.

It is inadequate to say to the people who believed in me that I am sorry, as it is inadequate to say to the people who love me that I am sorry. In the course of several campaigns, I started to believe that I was special and became increasingly egocentric and narcissistic. If you want to beat me up – feel free. You cannot beat me up more than I have already beaten up myself. I have been stripped bare and will now work with everything I have to help my family and others who need my help.

I have given a complete interview on this matter and having done so, will have nothing more to say.

First off, that “statement” is not so long and involved that we the people can’t digest or understand it.
But, that “statement” is not meant for us. It is written directly to the press. It’s really a press release.

The core issue is; Edwards, who was running for the highest office, a married man with a family, acted upon his lust. That’s never really addressed. He made an “error in judgment”. Then he goes on to slam The Enquirer, without naming them which is direct pandering to the mainstream press. Then, he says has taken “responsibility” and that it only happened for a little while. Also, he wants to make it clear that he isn’t responsible for any baby. Then he gets to the heart of the matter as far as the press is concerned, he announces why, he thought he could get away with it.

I started to believe that I was special and became increasingly egocentric and narcissistic.

He gave the pack of cur dogs the rotted meat that they crave and they pounced. That’s why Edwards thought he could get away with it, he’s an egocentric narcissist. And after all, it takes somebody with an ego, a touch of narcissism to be a politician, right? They all have that, right? Edwards ego and narcissism just got out of control and he thought he get away with it, that’s all.

Is the implication supposed to be that, now that we know why he thought he could get away with an extramarital affair, he is in the process of rehabilitation?

It’s complete nonsense. It’s fantasy.

Here is what matters. John Edwards was an entrusted civil servant. If he had an extramarital affair and he decides that he doesn’t ever want to be an entrusted civil servant anymore, fine. We’ll leave it at that.
If, on the other hand, John Edwards wants to one day again be an entrusted civil servant then, the fact that he did act on his lust and why he did so are relevant. But, why he thought he could get away with it, is not.

Warm and windy today in the Ozarks.

By the way, the Branson traffic was a breeze yesterday, no problems, no delays. I didn’t get many comments on my questions about gas usage but, I did get several e-mails from people who didn’t want to leave public comments and I have talked to a lot of folks. Most people say they are driving less; some are defiantly driving as much as always. As for people that take vacations, none say they will stay home but some say they are traveling closer to home than planned.

My theory was that I think that we are driving less and that the law of supply and demand is not working or to quote my friend OutEasy “we are getting hosed”. After my little informal survey I am not convinced that we are driving that much less. At least not enough for the supply/demand law to work in our favor. It will be interesting to see how it is around these parts this weekend because; Memorial Day is always a madhouse here. For some interesting reading/viewing look at OutEasy’s well done piece “Two Bucks”.

Last week I wrote a piece about the wreck of the Merchant Royal and the company that found it, Odyssey Marine Research. One thing I talked about was that Odyssey is a publicly traded company and I think that is interesting because the treasure hunting business is pretty high risk. Anyway, the treasure so far from the Merchant Royal is estimated at 500 million dollars and the stock is soaring. So, a lot of people are wondering; Who are the investors? This is from a column by Brett Arends.

The ship, laden with gold and silver, was found at the bottom of the Atlantic by a little-known exploration company, Florida-based Odyssey Marine Research

Biggest shareholder: New York-based Fortress Investments, a private equity and hedge fund manager. Senior adviser and major investor: John Edwards.

Edwards’ personal financial disclosures show he’s an investor in the exclusive Drawbridge Global Macro Fund, which owns the 9.9% stake in OMR.

Ten percent of $500 million. After costs, of course.

John Edwards, huh, who would have thought. He’s been in the news a lot lately. This one is from the San Francisco Chronicle.

Democrat John Edwards has eloquently established his credentials as an advocate for the poor with a presidential campaign focused on the devastating effects of poverty in America. But the former North Carolina senator’s populist drive has hit a series of troubling land mines: a pair of $400 haircuts, a $500,000 paycheck from a hedge fund, and now a $55,000 payday for a speech on poverty to students at UC Davis.

It seems like they are throwing Edwards to the wolves on the basis that he is too rich to talk about poor people. At least that is the vibe. That notion, of course is rubbish, he has as much right to talk about the issue as the next guy. His bank account does not undermine his authority.

As a matter of fact, I admire Edwards for investing in Odyssey. I think that was a ballsy move and it has paid off. A $400 haircut? I have absolutely no problem with that. But, $55,000 for a speech on poverty? In principle that’s O.K. too but; it isn’t smart. Politics is a land where “appearance” rules. If something looks funny they will tear you apart. Taking the money for the speech on poor people shows incredibly bad judgment. How could Edwards have such fantastic judgment when it comes to investment and drop the ball on the speech? My guess would be that he might not have good people around him. You know people that handle things or “handlers”. I would be willing to say that it’s possible that Edwards didn’t know how much or even if he was getting paid for the speech. At the very least, I’m pretty sure that Edwards didn’t negotiate the deal himself. But you have to have the right people around you in that game.

If $55,00 for a speech on poor people gets your goat, this next one is really going to irk you. This is from the New York Post and it’s about celebrities like Paris Hilton, Britney Spears and Lindsey Lohan getting “appearance fees” for showing up at nightclubs.

“Vegas has changed the way we work with celebrities in general,” says a club insider. “The clubs there have such big budgets, they can afford to spend $250,000 on a celebrity, and they will easily make it back.

250 Grand and they will easily make it back. They’re charging too much for those drinks.

It’s a funny old world isn’t it? A rich guy gets paid to talk about poor people and debutantes (trying to be kind here but I don’t really know a tag for that batch) getting a quarter mil to show up and drink. I guess we are out of touch here in fly over country.