If y’all will recall, I experienced an unexpected, and not entirely pleasant, moment in the national spotlight back in 2007 when I wrote a column headlined, “Why I see John Edwards as a big phony.”
I caught a lot of heat about it at the time. I later had the gratification of having many people tell me I’d been right all along, even though what was learned about him later was somewhat different from what I was accusing him of. Nevertheless, all of it spoke to his general failure to be what he represented himself to be.
But even I, who first started raising questions about the guy in 2003, was slightly started to read this this morning, as Edwards’ trial started:
(CBS News) With opening arguments in the trial of former U.S. senator and presidential candidate John Edwards set to begin on on Monday, a CBS News/New York Times poll shows that public opinion of him has plummeted since he was a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2007. Now, he is now most known for cheating on his wife.
The CBS/NYT poll reveals that only 3 percent of those polled hold a favorable view of Edwards, who has been charged with misusing campaign funds. That is down from 30 percent in 2007 when he was running for the Democratic nomination, which is also the last time the question was asked among registered voters.
Since 2007, Edwards’ unfavorable ratings have risen eleven points, from 30 percent to 41 percent today. However, half of those polled are undecided or don’t have an opinion of Edwards.
Women, however, especially dislike Edwards, with just 2 percent holding a favorable view of him compared to 45 percent who view him unfavorably…
And who can blame them?
But 2 percent? It almost makes me feel sorry for the guy. Almost.
Related Posts
Consider this post to be my personal gift to Juan Caruso today. On account of John Edwards being, you know… what he is…
Well, let’s see. He cheated on his popular wife, who had terminal cancer, with a woman with a made-up name (not that that should matter, but c’mon, now–calls into question how much they could delude themselves that they were “soul mates.”) He convinces an aide to take the fall for the child that is born, even though the aide is happily 9or so we are told) married. He uses campaign funds, maybe, to hush it up. This on top of his monster house and expensive haircut while purporting to be a champion of the poor.
At least Christopher Buckley doesn’t purport to be some messianic savior….
I mean, John Edwards’ behavior makes Mark Sanford look like a good guy.
Don’t know that lawyers cheat more than nonlawyers. Statistically, we are three times as likely to be depressed and to abuse substances. We are not the least satisfied with our chosen career–I think we keep getting edged out by others, but we are usually in the bottom ten or so.
Now recent graduates have crushing levels of nondischargeable student debt, and cannot find jobs or make enough money hanging out a shingle to cover said loans….
and how many Editorial Page Editor jokes are there?
So, let me get this straight? You can have an affair while your wife is dying of cancer, have a bastard child with your mistress, break federal campaign finance laws spending almost a million dollars to cover it up, and still 2% of the people view you favorably?
Yellow Dog Democrats, I guess.
What were Idi Amin’s poll numbers?
I don’t know about the legal merits of this particular case, but I’ll be the first to say that your assessment of Edwards’ character was ultimately confirmed to be right on the mark.
What a choice we had for VP, in retrospect, in 2004! Still, I’d rather have Edwards’ legacy (and his 2% approval rating) than Cheney’s ultimate historical legacy.
@Phillip: What exactly is preferable to cheating on your dying wife, lying to everyone about it, and breaking campaign finance laws to cover up?
Just wondering.
Disgusting as John Edwards has been I’d still take him as POTUS over George W. Bush.
Phillip and Bud have just self-defined as Yaller Dawgs.
Actually, I guess it’s more complicated than that. The things that they believe put Cheney and Bush beyond the pale, worse than the worst Democrat ever, are largely things I simply disagree with them on. Which is why their assertion LOOKS like blind partisanship, but it is more than that.
A better test would probably be to move the question away from the W. era, and say, “Would you vote for Edwards over Nixon, or Reagan?”
The answer for me would be no. And I really did not like Reagan.
@Bryan, I don’t really understand your question…maybe the syntax was off. EVERYTHING is preferable to cheating on your dying wife, breaking campaign finance laws to cover up, etc. It’s appalling behavior. And Brad, I was trying to give you props. I don’t see where I’m defending Edwards anywhere. He’s getting everything he deserves, in terms of public scorn. I’m not one of the 2%.
The point about Cheney was merely just to say that it’s ironic that it took a war criminal to be able to say in retrospect that John Edwards would actually have been the lesser of two reprehensible individuals to have sought the Vice-Presidency in 2004. About the legacy issue…after all, ultimately Edwards (even if convicted and jailed) will be a tiny and pathetic footnote in the history of early 21st-century American politics, forgotten except by trivia buffs by mid-century. Cheney, on the other hand, will likely continue to be identified as a central player as having done truly significant and possibly lasting damage to the interests of the United States for decades hence.
That view of Cheney has nothing with do with partisanship, and Brad, you know it. Being a possible war criminal puts you in an entirely different category, and moves the discussion far beyond the realm of politics. I share the view of Human Rights Watch that Cheney should be subject to criminal investigation. Cheney himself fears this, and this is one reason why he canceled a recent trip to Canada. The recent revelations coming from the courageous government in Poland only confirm that we should be fulfilling our obligations under the Geneva Conventions to investigate and prosecute these cases.
Worse than the worst Democrat ever? Likely not: if I believed in hell, I would hope that LBJ is rotting there right now.
Thanks for the props, and note that I corrected myself and said something more substantial was at work than partisanship.
But LBJ rotting in hell — really? The father of the Civil Rights Act and The Great Society? Just because you disagree with him (I’m supposing) and many, many others about Vietnam?
I don’t know how many Editorial jokes are in Kathryn’s last post but the whole thing made me smile.
I thought the Kennedys laid the groundwork for the Civil Rights Act and LBJ went along reluctantly. Also the Great Society.
Hey, hey, LBJ how many kids did you kill today?
I’m not one of the 2% either. John Edwards disrespected his wife. That we all agree on. But as a secondary issue he disrespected his party also.
But at the end of the day I believe Edwards would have done some good for the country. He may have lied about many things but George W. lied us into a disasterous war. It just doesn’t get any more heinous than that.
As for Cheney, I’ll just press the “like” button on what Phillip said.
Nixon vs. Edwards. We have Watergate vs. the whole cheating on wife thing. Seems like the scandals largely cancel out so I’d have to go with policy. Winner by a head – Edwards.
Reagan vs. Edwards. Again we have a major scandal that was never given the full vetting that it deserved. Trading arms for hostage to a terrorist nation then using the proceeds to fund and illegal war? Why on earth was that scandal not a bigger deal? Again I’d have to vote for Edwards.
I would probably pick Dole or Bush Sr. over Edwards. Both seem like honorable men at least. McCain in 2000 also. McCain in 2008, not so much.
I’m not a big fan of LBJ but I’ll defend him on the civil rights stuff. As a southerner he played a critical roll in getting the necessary legislation passed. Not sure he could have accomplished that had he been reluctant as Kathryn says.
@ bud – you would probably vote for Joe Stalin over any late 20th century Republican, if given the opportunity.
Well at least Joe Stalin was a Republican. He earns points for that.
Seriously my current opinion on the GOP is fairly new. At one time it seemed that the GOP was a fairly conservative, yet reasonable outfit that offered challenging alternatives to the Democratic Party. And some of those positions were sensible, for example, their opposition to affirmative action. They also made some good points regarding the labor unions back when they were powerful. Today that opposition is misguided given the weak position of the unions, but at one time they did seem to weild too much power and the result was lost productivity.
What has happened in the last 10-12 years or so is simply an astonishing push to create a favored, elitist class in this country with a concentration of wealth not seen since before WW I. We are also seeing a push to reverse the positive trend of readily available birth control and even a return to the communist witch hunts of the 1950s. Indeed a choice between Stalin and many Republicans today would not be any real choice at all. That’s how radical the GOP has become.
Should be Joe Stalin was NOT a Republican.
Ummm, Stalin was kind of a paranoid Hitler – didn’t he cause the death of even more millions than Hitler? Cheney wouldn’t have eve risen above valet in either regime.
Let’s just focus on the fact that when one party, either party, has developed a preponderence of power in this country things tend to quickly go off the rails. That’s what we are seeing here.
Bud, I think you (as a Democrat) would be better off advocating for reasonable, sensible solutions that benefit the entire country and all it’s citizens. As long as Democrats continue to willingly throw thenmselves under the radical Republican dogma bus, the majority of the citizenry is not going to have the balanced platform that they would most prefer to have. Neither “Party” seems to get that these days.