Category Archives: Feedback

Rick Beltram’s version, with apologies

2 Replies

Oops — I just found this in my much-neglected external e-mail account. I was sent to me a week ago by Rick Beltram, in response to this version of events by Zeke Stokes. Rick had called to ask if I’d post something in response, and I said send it to me, and he sent it, and I called it up, but I couldn’t post it right that second because I was doing about four things, and it got buried in subsequent messages almost immediately.

And my dog ate it.

Anyway, here it is:

  Brad:
  I read with great interest the letter that you posted from Zeke Stokes!
(sept.5)
  The letter although very touching and a bit humble is a complete fable.  I
first brought the concept of a complaint to the attention of the PRESS and
the REX campaign; before the end of the campaign in October 2006.  Instead
of Stokes backing down at the point; he ramped up the e-mails through the
end of the campaign.
  Although, he claims that others were doing the same thing no evidence can
support his claim; plus the fact that the Dems have had since June 2006
until  present to file an Ethics Complaint.  Nothing has ever been
submitted.
  However, my challenge to Stokes is to "undo" his guilty plea and let us
have a true Hearing.
  I was extremely disappointed in his cowardly actions.  He needs to stand
like a man and have a fair and OPEN hearing.  I can assure you and your
readers that the evidence that we submitted is so strong that if Stokes
would ever submit to a hearing; in my humble opinion, he will need to leave
any political career behind him in SC and move on!

— Rick Beltram

Don’t send me snail mail!

2 Replies

Snail_003

Being a fan of history and an instinctive traditionalist to boot, it pains me to say this. There is a certain elegance and grace to the written letter, a quality that says, "You were important enough for me to go to this much trouble," that is the exclusive domain of the handwritten letter.

But while I appreciate the compliment, I simply don’t have the time to deal withSnail_002
it. As a matter of fact, I am removed by about five degrees of separation from even being able to think about having the time to deal with it. I used to have a staff person to open the mail, deal with most of it on the front end, place in my IN box the very, very few pieces that absolutely needed my attention, and then do with it whatever I decided with it (respond, file, forward) after I glanced through it and then placed it in my OUT tray. And even then I didn’t have time to deal with it. The virtual mountains of e-mail,  the press of constant meetings, the obligation to occasionally, when I could get around to it, do a wee bit of journalism, kept me from keeping up even in that system.

Now, I don’t have any of that support, so mounds of snail mail — most of it bound for the wastebin, but some of it actually in need of my attention — pile up on my desk, until such time as some emergency causes me to plow through it in search of something, and I push aside all more urgent matters just long enough to reduce the pile in one mad surge — and I promise you, if you sent me something, I don’t spend one percent of the time you spent sending it. And this makes me feel guilty, but I don’t know what to do about it.

And then, finally, there’s the problem that increasingly, I find it very hard to read. I find it hard even to read enough to determine whether I should read further. I go to the end to see the signature, go back, try to read it again, and just can’t make it out.

I don’t know whether this is because I’ve been spoiled by type, or I’m getting older and lack the mental elasticity to intuit meaning from few clues, or what.

But if you want me to read it, type it. And as long as you’re going to type it (since "type" these days means on a word processor; RARE is the note written on typewriter, and that is usually from some clinically insane person from the other end of the country), please send it electronically. Then I might, at some point, be able to get to it. I’ll do my best, anyway.

NOTE: The illegible (to me) sample I’ve included here is from someone from out-of-state; I didn’t wish to to embarrass a regular reader or anyone identifiable.

Snail_001

A teachable moment

10 Replies

This should help anyone out there who is still confused about the standards of this blog.

Someone — actually a regular here (an anonymous regular, of course) — tried to post a comment that called the U.S. commander in Iraq "General ‘Betray Us.’" He did so without irony, and he wasn’t using it as a quotation in condemning the revolting, indefensible use of that bastardization by MoveOn.org.

Of course, the comment was not approved for publication. Nor was a gratuitous second comment from the same source that had no substance beyond a monotonously over-repeated ad hominem slap at me.

It may be that MoveOn.org did not completely place itself outside the realm of acceptable public discourse this week, but there are general indications that it did just that. It has set a new standard for "beyond the pale."

But one thing is clear — such trash rhetoric is most assuredly outside the boundaries on this blog. Those of you requiring sharper delineation of those limits might want to take note.

There might not be such a thing as "polite society" any more. But this will be a virtual version of that. Come here and argue back and forth all you like. And I urge you to have fun doing it. If I don’t find it fun, there won’t be a blog any more, because I certainly don’t have time for it otherwise. But find a more grownup way to argue other than calling those who disagree with you liars, as your default position. That won’t be accepted.

District 5: Good schools equal high property value

3 Replies

Sorry, Doug, but I have to dig back into my video to rebut something you said in a comment back here:

It was the school board member/real estate agent in the video who
talked about lake real estate (including his own) appreciating. The
appreciation has nothing to do with the quality of schools… it has to
do with the limited supply of lake property.

There’s no way for you to know this, but in editing my hour or so of video down to less than five minutes to fit it on YouTube, I left out this elaboration by Jerry Fowler:

Clearly, he believes — as do most Realtors, from what I’ve seen — that there is a direct cause-and-effect relationship between good schools and rising property values.

The Blog Summit

4 Replies

Here’s today’s contact report:

Rossdoug

First, I had breakfast with our own Doug Ross, frequent commenter on this blog. How this meeting developed is complicated. It went sort of like this — Doug filed a comment that I did NOT publish, but meant to turn it and my reply into a separate post, until Doug complained (as a guy who has the common decency and courage to use his real name — note him holding up his picture ID — and who therefore has certain rights on this blog) that his comment hadn’t been posted, and I e-mailed him with my phone number so I could explain, and he suggested coffee instead, and next thing your know, it evolved into him meeting me at my habitual morning spot, the Capital City Club. Anyway, I learned that Doug lives out in Blythewood, he works in software, and he’s a Red Sox fan. Everything else you need to know about Doug you can find out from reading his comments on the blog. Oh, one other thing — we chatted briefly about his long-ago suggestion that we have a get-together of regular commenters sometime. Maybe that would be a good way to mark my millionth page view, which I estimate we’ll hit probably sometime in the next year. What do y’all think?

Oh, one last thing — Doug said I recently ran video of someone who Doug’s family said looked a lot like him, only younger. I’m guessing that was B.J. Boling of John McCain’s S.C. staff — don’t you think?

The Clock Also Ticks

6 Replies

Regular readers know that I struggle to manage my time, and in keeping with that, whenever I file a comment, or answer an e-mail, with anything more than a "thanks for writing" or "you got that right," I try to turn it into a separate post. And so it is that I pull out my evasive response to Randy’s good-faith question:

Brad,

with the vacations on the sand, dining at the CCC and writing an article each week where do you find time to maintain a blog?

Kidding aside, what is a typical day like for you?

Lousy. In fact, not a day goes by that I don’t consider chucking the blog entirely, but I simply don’t have time for it. No sane person with even rudimentary time-management skills would ever start one.

But wait… I’m not supposed to be frank about such things. I’ve always tried to hold to the ethic that Hemingway wrote of in The Sun Also Rises:

    "Come on down-stairs and have a drink."
    "Aren’t you working?"
    "No," I said. We went down the stairs to the café on the ground floor. I had discovered that was the best way to get rid of friends. Once you had a drink all you had to say was: "Well, I’ve got to get back and get off some cables," and it was done. It is very important to discover graceful exits like that in the newspaper business, where it is such an important part of the ethics that you should never seem to be working. Anyway, we went down-stairs to the bar and had a whiskey and soda. Cohn looked at the bottles in bins around the wall. "This is a good place," he said.
    "There’s a lot of liquor," I agreed.
    "Listen, Jake," he leaned forward on the bar. "Don’t you ever get the feeling that all your life is going by and you’re not taking advantage of it? Do you realize you’ve lived nearly half the time you have to live already?"
    "Yes, every once in a while."
    "Do you know that in about thirty-five years more we’ll be dead?"
    "What the hell, Robert," I said. "What the hell."
    "I’m serious."
    "It’s one thing I don’t worry about," I said.
    "You ought to."

So I hope you’ll excuse me now, but I have to go get off some cables…

Yet another reason why we need the draft

4 Replies

A colleague just brought this to my attention:

  CONCORD, N.H. (AP) — An unflinching John McCain was told Tuesday by New Hampshire high school students he might be too old to be president and too conservative to be respected.
   McCain, the Arizona senator whose presidential bid has stumbled through the summer, countered the Concord High School students with humor.
   "Thanks for the question, you little jerk," McCain joked back to one student who asked the 71-year-old about his age. "You’re drafted."

Obama’s youth registration drive

15 Replies

Knowing of my interest in Barack Obama’s appeal to young voters, his S.C. campaign brought this to my attention:

Obama Campaign Launches
Youth Voter Registration Drive

COLUMBIA, S.C. – Beginning tomorrow, Barack Obama’s South Carolina campaign will launch a week-long effort to register 1,000 new voters on college and high school campuses across the state.
    In addition to the registration drives, the campaign will hold events in Orangeburg and Greenville next week focused on registering and organizing young people. (Details on the events will be announced next week.)
    “Barack Obama’s message about fundamentally changing our politics has energized and inspired young people,” Obama South Carolina Youth Vote Director Elizabeth Wilkins said. “Now we have to make sure they’re registered to vote and get them to the polls.”
    The campaign will have a presence on at least 40 high school, college and university campuses across the state next week, registering young people to vote. In its drive to engage and mobilize high school and college students, the campaign held a public rally at Coastal Carolina University in Conway last week where Obama attracted nearly 2,000 people.

As it happens, I’m not the only one who has been impressed by the way the freshness Obama’s message seems a natural for the idealistic young. Of course, some of those who are thus impressed are less than impartial. Moss Blachman, whose son Max I mentioned in connection with the campaign in my recent column, said he spent a day with the Obama kids and found the phenomenon rather inspiring.

And Phil Noble from down Charleston way has urged me to revisit the subject, going so far as to give me the names and/or contact info on 10 impressive young Obama supporters. I had to smile when I saw the names, because it brings up the old editorial board joke, "Who’s his daddy?" (The joke is both on us and on South Carolina. We’ve been doing this so long, and South Carolina is a sufficiently small state, that whenever somebody news breaks onto to the political scene, it seems that as often as not, we know his or her parents.) He mentioned Max (although as "Moss and Penny Blackman’s son," not by name), and our own Laurin — but we know them, right? Both reformed bloggers.

He also listed Anton Gunn, who I thought was a particularly impressive legislative candidate, and three others who had very familiar last names — such as Bakari Sellers, son of Cleveland.

So yeah, I probably will get back to the subject — or maybe I just did.

Looks like Romney’s a phony, too

17 Replies

Just kidding. Actually, I’ve never met the man — although I’ve seen him on YouTube.

But one of my readers DID see him this week, and had a disappointing experience. I just now got around to this e-mail from yesterday:

Hello Brad,

I have been a punctuated reader of your blog, and wanted to express disgust for a recent visit by Mitt Romney (and to ask the best way to go about sharing this with others). Today at a  "Ask Mitt Anything" I finally had my worst fears about the of the American presidential race verified.

After taking away the cameramen, reporters, photographers, staffers, AARP & Ed in ’08 representatives, outspoken Mormons, and political dignitaries there were only a few actual people seeking answers to genuine questions. I thought at this event, I might actually get to ask something. I positioned myself to be seen by those with microphones and was told that I would be able to ask a question next. I looked to the other microphone to see a staffer coaxing a supporter who had already rejected an offer to ask a question, finally ask something.

Another softball… "What would you do about immigration and the illegals already here?" His response, like the thirty minute one from Rudy’s last visit to Columbia was simple – build a fence and avoid addressing the difficult issue of existing illegal aliens.

Anyway, time was winding down and they only had time for one last question. Finally, I thought. Instead someone went on about a lack of spine within the Republican party. Irony…

Next I made my way to the front of the crowd to ask him myself, simply as a concerned citizen. After waiting in the hot building for about 15 minutes –  it was finally my turn. "Hello, Governor Romney, I have a question."

His response: "I’m sorry, i don’t have time, I have a more hands to shake, can we talk later?"

"Sure" I replied in amazement. I was too surprised to be adamant.

His staffer assured me, after my second rejection, that I would be able to ask my question individually as he was leaving.

I stepped aside, and waited another fifteen minutes. As the gentleman (who just assured me that I was going to be able to ask Governor Romney my question) announced to the remaining few individuals the end of the meeting I stepped up to ask my question.

"Governor Romney" I said ask he walked by and out the door smiling without making eye contact with me. "Can I ask my question now?" I inquired to his campaign rep.

"I’m sorry, you’ve gotta be quick," he responded. Then an officer stepped in to push me away.

I’m sorry too. Sorry that I wasted my lunch break to attend a live commercial for Mitt Romney. Sorry, that events like this can be labeled "town hall." Sorry, that candidates fear discussing real issues with real voters. Sorry, that someone running for president would run from an unassuming 22 year old. So much for his platform of strength.

The note was unsigned. But, whoever you are, this is one way to share it with others.

Personally, I don’t make much of this — somebody’s always going to be the questioner on deck when it’s time for the candidate to move on. And feelings are going to be hurt. But since I was unable to attend the event myself (I was out of town), I’ll pass on this correspondent’s experience.

Now — was anybody else among you there? Perhaps someone who’d like to put his name behind his viewpoint? We’re all ears.

You gotta watch these political operatives

2 Replies

So I receive a nice bit of fan mail from a nice young man named Boling, and far too late, I realize that he has subliminally forced me to watch a video about John McCain…

Hey Mr. Warthen –

What is it about British accents that make the English sound
so smart? I liked the video on her Majesty’s General Consul. Speaking of videos,
I thought you might find the new McCain video particularly interesting. Here’s
the link: http://www.johnmccain.com/courageous/

Thanks,

B.J. Boling

Communications Director (S.C.)

John McCain 2008

And next thing you know, I’m a McCainiac Zombie, shambling about muttering in a monotone, "mccain is a hero. mccain epitomizes courage…"

But then, I was doing that before I saw the video.

The evolving standard: Is this comment worth approving?

1 Reply

Lying fallow among the unapproved comments down in the engine room of the blog is an offering from someone who styles himself (or herself) "bud’s friend."

Come on — I have long been torn about whether to allow anonymous comments in this forum, and up to now have let them in, but subjected them to greater scrutiny than those from folks with the courage and integrity to put their names behind their opinions. But I’m afraid that "bud’s friend" is a bit too much to ask. What sort of credential is that — you don’t know me, but I’m a friend of this other guy you don’t know. That wouldn’t get you in to a speakeasy. It’s not going to get you in here.

Now might be a good time for an update on the evolving standards for comments on this blog. We’ve been through several stages:

  • For the first year or so, I let in anything, and rejected nothing.
  • After it became clear that the nasty atmosphere of ad hominem bullying and partisan name-calling was running off the very kind of thoughtful readership I sought, I set a "double standard:" If you weren’t willing to stand behind a comment with your own, verifiable name, your comments were subject to summary deletion.
  • A few of our anonymous troublemakers made such insistent nuisances of themselves that I banned them from the blog.
  • Some of the exiles began a ridiculous game of repeatedly coming back (with a frequency that was shocking, in terms of the amount of time they were spending on the site) with slightly changed names, to get around the automatic blocking.
  • So after a false start or two ("authentication" was a bust), I drew a new line: For your comment to appear on the blog, I have to approve it. I really, really hated this step — and still do (if only for the extra work) — but what are you going to do in a world filled with the Web equivalent of vandals?

That development has given me a much more intimate acquaintance with individual comments. As long as they appeared without any effort on my part, the standards could remain pretty low. Basically, I don’t have time to spare to do this blog at ALL, much less to chase down every comment that lowers the bar. But when I have to spend time on it anyway — when no comment appears without a positive action on my part — a new question enters my mind: "Why should I approve this?" What does it add? In what way does this comment make the dialogue on this blog better?

Once I start thinking along those lines, pretty much all anonymous comments are endangered — by which I mean they are in danger of sitting right where you left them, because I am not inclined to throw MY back out leaning over to pick them up and publish them.

And while I continue to grant much, much greater latitude to those of you using verifiable real names, you are not completely immune. As I announced just over a year ago, those who stand behind their comments "will be free to post pretty much whatever they want." That "pretty much" means there are standards, even for you.

I say all this because I’ve been getting sidebar complaints from some folks who use bogus handles complaining that they don’t always get approved. And once or twice, I’ve heard from NAMED people who didn’t approved. (Those, at least — on the rare occasions that they occur — will get a reply.)

Everyone should remember: The question is no longer, why would I REJECT this comment? Now, it’s why would I approve it. That really moves the line.

Oh, and not to seem inhospitable or anything, but anyone who doesn’t like these conditions can go start his own blog, and say whatever he likes. There are a number of sites where you can do so for free.

Sure, and now I’ll be after havin’ the Irish on me case

Leave a reply

There was no way to avoid it, I suppose. It was inevitable from the moment I put a lame, mildly joshing headline on this item about Bill Murray.

Next thing you know, I get this e-mail from a fella name of … well, let’s call him "Kelly":

Sent: Thursday,
August 23, 2007 8:41 AM
To: Warthen, Brad – External
Email
Subject: Irish Catholics
Brad,  Thanks for another brain-dead stereotype of
Irish Catholics on your blog.
 
I understand that you are a parishoner at St.
Peter’s.  How does someone like you write a headline like that on your blog and
then actually show up for mass?  I appreciate you revealing who you really
are.
 
I know about 42 Irish-Catholic men in my Ancient
Order of Hibernians group in Columbia.  None of which are anything close to how
you stereotyped them.
 
Its despicable that you believe it is OK to trash
us for no reason on your blog.  Lets see if you do the same to Jews, Muslims,
Protestants, etc.  I know that you don’t have the cohones.
 
Please RSVP

Ah, now, it’s the Hibernians, is it? Are yeh sure they’re the genuine article, if none have been known to take a dram now and again?

I happen to be Irish — well, with some English and Welsh and Scot mixed in — and I’m Catholic. By choice — not one of your low-commitment, let-Father-worry-about-paying-for-the-new-roof cradle Catholics. I’m hard-core, a true believer. And I’ve been known to hoist a jar, perhaps two (last time I checked, that wasn’t against our rules). And, most to the point, it’s not beneath me to have a bit of craic — but to my thinkin’, a proper gentleman has craic at his own expense or his own lot’s, not at other peoples’.

So when I wrote back to ask Mr. Kelly — rather brusquely, I’ll confess (but subtlety is not "our people’s" forte) — to lighten up, it was a failure:

    Thanks for the reply. I figured something about
not having a "sense of humor" would be all you had to give me.
    I just don’t know how you see an AP story about
Bill Murray getting drunk and driving a golf cart in Sweden and turn that into
some stereotypical cheap-shot at Irish-Catholic people.  I don’t see how you
make that connection.
    You should apologize on your website for that blog
entry headline.

Oh, I’m sorry — sorry that it bugs you so much. (And how did I make the connection? Let’s see — his name’s Murray. He’s the fifth of five kids. He has a brother named Brian Doyle. He has a sister who’s a nun. I put two and two together.) Folks, all craic aside — this kind of defensiveness regarding one’s own sort is at the heart of most of the sorrow in this world. It’s had men at each other’s throats in the Balkans, in Iraq and yes, back on the Auld Sod. We’re never going to have peace on this planet until we can wear our ethnicity lightly, if we must wear it at all.

And if we can’t even have a smile at our own, well, we don’t stand a chance.

But I’ve probably dug this hole deeper than I intended, and I’m no doubt going to run into "Kelly" at Mass, and if I’ve really hurt his feelings, I’ll feel bad about it. I already do. But what I really want, what I really hope for, is for him not to be so bothered by it. That would make be feel better about the whole world. Let’s let all those other groups play the Identity Politics game of resentment, while we try to set an example by letting it go.

Look — it was a stupid joke. I feel ridiculous defending it. But it’s the chip-on-the-shoulder readiness to take offense that gets my goat enough to make me not want to back down. There’s another stereotype for you — that "donkey" stubbornness.

Now I’ve got a phone message from a "Kennedy," wanting to know if I wrote that headline. I called him back, but I had to leave a message, too. I left him my cell number. Now I’ve got that hanging over my head all weekend. Sigh.

Audio: Brownback’s proposal to end the fear of cancer

Leave a reply

Here’s an interesting e-mail from someone who was traveling with Sam Brownback yesterday, and sat in on the editorial board meeting, but had a minor question about the accuracy of the way I quoted the candidate in one instance.

I pass it on because I think the attention Sen. Brownback would like to focus on cancer is worthwhile, and I hope it can gain some traction beyond his candidacy — which I’m afraid is probably not long for this sin-stained world.

Anyway, here is the question:

From: LOUIS W NEIGER
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2007 10:32 AM
To: StateEditor, Columbia
Subject: Please forward to Brad Warthen

Mr. Warthen,
Your article in 8-16-07 concerning Brownback and the editorial board was I believe mostly fair.  One point I may suggest that you did not correctly high light what Brownback said. he would "end cancer in 10 years"
My notes show, Brownback  was saying, allowing government to loosen terminal cancer patients restrictions on new treatments and drugs and to investigate what will work and this would "end cancer in 10 years."
Your statement sounded like he personally would end cancer.
What did your tape say?????????
Thanks
Sincerely
Louis Neiger,CLU
Newberry

Here is my initial response:

You  left out
a crucial word from the quote. My column quoted him as saying he wanted to
"end DEATHS to cancer in 10 years." As I recall, he said he wanted to change
cancer from a terminal to a chronic disease.
 
I’ll see if I
can find that bit on my recording, and post it on my blog for you. You might
also want to look at the
blog version of my column, as it has links to additional
material.
 
— Brad
Warthen

And, most importantly, here is actual audio of what he said. (By some bizarre coincidence, I did quote him accurately.) An excerpt, for those who have trouble playing the clip, which goes to the heart of the distinction that might have caused Mr. Neiger to think my quote was inaccurate:

This will not end people getting cancer. People will still get it. But you’re gonna be able to treat it as a — what I want to do is be able to treat it as a chronic disease, not as a terminal one.

A dialogue on the Edwards flap

8 Replies

After spending a good bit of time in e-conversation with this reader, I thought I might as well share it with the rest of y’all. This is the message that started it:

From: Amy Holleman
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 9:35 AM
To: Warthen, Brad – External Email
Subject: Edwards and other Candidates

Mr. Warthen,

I continue to disagree with your claim that John Edwards is a phony and just love (note sarcasm) the way you used editorial space to toot your own horn and describe all of the attention you got.  Your editorial response to the responses you got make me wonder who the real phony is here.  While we’re all happy you got a good ego stroke, I hope you have not somehow damaged the reputation of a man who seems to really care.

At any rate, it is not my intention nor desire to figure out how genuine you may or may not be.  I can tell you though, as a person who has "bird-dogged" candidates since I was in high school (I’m in my 30’s now) on various issues, Edwards seems to me to be one of the most genuine politicians I’ve encountered over the last 15 years on the face-to-face level.  I cannot say that I’ve found any other candidate in any party this particular go-round who, face-to-face, seems so genuinely concerned with the problems that the majority of Americans face.  I cannot say that I’ve spoken to any other candidate about issues, such as AIDS, who seems to really care. 

Do I think politicians in general are phonies?  You bet I do.  Politicians, or the majority of them, do not seem to be in "the game" to make the country or world better anymore but for their own power gains.  Am I saying John Edwards is the perfect candidate?  Not at all.  No one’s perfect.  Am I saying that I believe you need to give John Edwards another look?  Not really, your opinion seems to be quite strong and one that probably will not change.  I’ll tell you one thing though, while I would never stifle another’s right to say what he or she wants as I believe strongly in our Constitutional rights, I believe the media hurts the American public more than anyone when it comes to elections.  Where people get off thinking it is OK to tell people how to think, I’ll never know.  The media, especially outlets such as The State and Fox News seem to completely disregard concepts like informing the public in an unbiased manner.

Amy Holleman

To which I replied:

Well, I don’t — think most politicians are phonies. And my somewhat more positive assessment is based on having observed these folks professionally for 30-something years. I’m afraid that my impression of Mr. Edwards is that he is a bit of a standout on this point. Do you believe, for instance, that Barack Obama is a phony? I don’t.

Meanwhile, I agree with you that "the media hurts the American public more than anyone when it comes to elections" — or at least, just as much as. Mostly, they hurt it by shaping everyone’s political vocabulary so that most folks find it difficult to engage anything like my column for what it was — they try to force it into their narrow little polarized boxes, and that makes it into something else entirely, and THAT is what caused all the hullabaloo last week.

I have a great deal of distaste for the way media cover politics in general. And I don’t hold out a lot of hope for it getting better.

Ms. Holleman replied today:

I think the hullabaloo last week was seeing an editorial writer for the only newspaper we have around these parts (the corporate trash that is has become at that) take a candidate that people overall see as sincere.  I can admit to being a fairly liberal democrat (and don’t try to hide it by saying things like "I’m not liberal; I’m progressive"), but I’ve even got a few Republican, Libertarian, and independent-minded friends that were turned off by your column.  These friends are all quite intelligent and do not need the media to tell them what to think; the majority do not read The State but read the article because someone sent it to them.

I do not think the Barack Obama is a phony.  I think Hillary Clinton is, but if it comes down to it, she will have my vote.  I think that McCain, Romney, and Giuliani are all phonies.  I do not think that Brownback, Paul, and Huckabee are phonies, but I’d never vote for them regardless.  I think our current "president’ is the biggest phony out there.  I think that many who are most sincere about making our country and world better, many with the most passion for politics and the like, do not ever get a chance to be seen or heard because money rules the game and the people with the most of it often do not even know how to be genuine anymore.

I’ll tell you one thing though, even though I whole-heartedly disagree with the words you wrote, I do thank you for initiating the discussion.  I’ve heard people defending Edwards whom I never thought would defend him, and I’ve seen people who are big supporters question their support.  It is always good to question ourselves and why we feel the way we do about things, especially something so important as the presidential race.  The next POTUS, no matter who he or she may be or which party he or she is affiliated, will have a big job to do that will involve a whole lot of trying to mend this great land of ours and the ties we have outside of our borders.  W. and his puppet master, Cheney, have created a holy mess.

And, a few minutes ago, I sent this final rejoinder:

Well, I’m glad you could thank me for one thing. That’s some consolation. But I think you have a broader definition of "phony" than I do, since you can apply it to Sens. Clinton and McCain, Gov. Romney and Mayor Giuliani. I find it hard to understand why you could cast your net that widely, yet still miss Sen. Edwards — who still seems to me the likeliest fish in that sea.

I would not label any of those as "phony," with the possible exception of Romney — but I still haven’t been exposed to him enough to know. In fact, I haven’t met him yet. And among all the Republicans, McCain is the least phony — just as I think Obama is the least phony among Democrats.

Then there’s Joe Biden, the master of "blarney" — which is a different thing.

I realize that "phony" sounds like a broad label, easily applied. But I did not apply it broadly or lightly. Nor am I alone in applying it to him. Quite a few South Carolina Democrats, including some statewide party leaders, see him the same way. They’ll just never say so on the record, which sort of leaves me with nothing more than my own personal observations to back up the assertion — that’s enough for me, but obviously not for you or quite a few other people, which is why I’ve made a couple of (unsuccessful) stabs this week to get some of those folks to come out of the shadows and be honest about what they think. Unfortunately, there’s nothing in it for them. But their private opinions expressed to me provide me with far more certainty of my assessment than I needed to write what I did.

You should know that I don’t have to go looking for such affirmation from these anonymous folk; it finds me regularly. I had lunch yesterday with Teresa Wells from the Edwards campaign, and while I was waiting for her to arrive, someone who was the Democratic nominee for a statewide office in 2004 told me that he agreed completely with my assessment. But he wasn’t around when Teresa arrived…

OK, now y’all jump in.

Faint with damning praise

5 Replies

OK, OK, I guess I was wrong! I guess maybe there was some fatal flaw in that Edwards column! I say that not because of any criticism leveled up until now, but because Michael Graham praised it. This means I will probably be fired at any moment, and that’s usually a bad sign.

Or maybe, just maybe, he’s settling down. At least, he mentions something about a full-time job in this message:

Your John Edwards piece got a lot of attention. Deserved it, too.  Congrats!

Don’t know if you’ve heard, but I’m retiring the Usual Suspects column. (details attached)

I’m in the Boston Herald twice a week now and that (plus a fulltime job, four kids and Jennifer) are keeping me too busy.

I’m coming to Charleston later this month to do a show at Theatre 99.  It’s comedy based on my experiences of being:

  • Fired from talk radio in Washington DC by the Council of Angry-Islamic Radic…er Council on American-Islamic Relations
  • Jumped by illegal immigrants for wearing my "INS" (I Need border Security) t-shirt to one of their rallies
  • Banned from SC public radio for making fun of the state legislature
  • Shaken down by the Secret Service for on-air comments I made re: Hillary Clinton and a tire iron.

It’s been years since I did stand-up for a living, but it should be fun.  Might (or might not) be of interest to folks in Columbia.

Take care.
Michael Graham

The people (some of ’em, anyway) speak out on Edwards

22 Replies

Just got caught up enough to look at my external e-mail account (what with being off last week, I’m up over 1,500 unread messages, even after reading today’s), and a whole lot of folks chose to react to my column there. Assuming they just didn’t know about the blog, I’ll pass on their thoughts here. Y’all will probably find their words more interesting than anything else I might say today:

Good 4 you!  Honesty, that is what the media is missing these days.

________________________

Chad M. Mattison, Architect

Subject: Edwards the Phony

So what else is news???

Anyone who cannot see through left wing hypocrisy is a fool.

As far as Edwards is concerned specifically, I cannot help but be reminded
of seeing the appratchiks’ dachas on the Black Sea during the evil empire’s
reign.

Commies are the same everywhere – they believe the little guy is an idiot
and will swallow any phony, psycho dribble they can concoct.

TJK
Dallas

Subject: From Pimm Fox

Many thanks for your notes about John Edwards – I have always thought
that small things can mean quite a lot – particularly when people who
are supposed to like people turn into self-appointed leaders. Well, it
isn’t a surprise but it is an indication of how unfortunate we are to
have this current crop of pols on the corn huskings. We will probably
get the evil of many lessers. Cheers and thanks again, Pimm

From: Stehpen Mayo [mailto:smayo@ec.rr.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 9:33 AM
To: Warthen, Brad – External Email
Subject: Phony?… someone Finally noticed….
Importance: High
A very good friend of mine was a pilot, and among a very impressive list of people he has piloted for are many top politicians and former presidents.  He flew Edwards once on the campaign trail and was absolutely startled at how he… switched on and off with the opening and closing of the cabin door… he’d fly into tirades, berate his wife, telling her she’d be riding on the bus next time etc…staffers would cower…
 
I’ve been waiting for a story to appear along these lines because obviously that is something that cannot be hidden… the jeckyl/hyde… to be honest though… I did not expect to see it ever printed… congratulations on exposing a truth that tells people what they really need to know… truth that I believe is deliberately withheld by many so called respected journalist… Thank You…

From: Chris Zarpas [mailto:czarpas@SLNUSBAUM.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 9:37 AM
To: Warthen, Brad – External Email
Subject: God Bless You

Mr. Warthen,

Thanks for calling a spade a spade. I have neighbors with in laws in Mr. Edwards former neighborhood. They told my neighbor that they were driving near their home one day and passed a little to close to Mr. Edwards while he was jogging. He very energetically flipped them off. That is the real John Edwards.

All The Best,

Chris Zarpas

 

From: TOM [mailto:talbergotti@sc.rr.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 9:40 AM
To: Warthen, Brad – External Email
Subject: Why I see John Edwards as a big phony
Did you report this in 2004?  If not, why?

From: A Plus Awards Apex [mailto:aplusawardsapex@bellsouth.net]
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 9:57 AM
To: Warthen, Brad – External Email
Subject: Edwards a Phony
Sir,
I’m told you paper leans if not tilts to the left but I could care less about that now after reading your article.  You hit the nail on the head, with regard to "mr. Edwards".  As a former citizen of the great state of "Eastern NC" and tobacco farmer, we tend to root out bovine scatology when ever we encounter it.  Edwards is full of it, like most lawyers!  Thank you for printing your ed. piece as it confirms what "we the Regular people" already know. 
God, the South, and God bless Strom Thurmond!
Le Batts

From: Linda Champion [mailto:Lindachamp@nc.rr.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 9:10 AM
To: Warthen, Brad – External Email
Subject: Why I see John Edwards AS A Phoney
O’ Please write more such as this article on this man. 
Your observations are totally correct!
He’s another black eye for our State!
Keep writing.

From: Glenice Pearson [mailto:nonprofitnetworkbiz@sc.rr.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 9:28 AM
To: Warthen, Brad – External Email
Subject: Thanks

Thanks for your article on John Edwards in today’s paper. You hit something in me that I had not been able to figure out. I am one of those persons who signed on, early on, with John Edwards because I do feel that the plight of the poor in our nation should be on the agenda of all persons seeking the highest office. I am deeply concerned about people entrenched in poverty—especially the bone-grinding poverty that forces working mothers to choose between their jobs and their children’s well-being and their lives. Despite my early entry as a supporter, I was never quite able to send the check. Something always held me back. I think your observations of Mr. Edwards may be what I sensed. Of course, your influence on my decision to withdraw, as of today from this farce, means that I placed a moderate amount of trust in what you write;  itself rather strange given my southern black roots and the segregated experiences of my youth.  But there it is so thanks for the heads up. You probably saved me from some disappointment down the road.

 

From: JOYCE EVANS [mailto:mjoyceevans@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 10:34 AM
To: Warthen, Brad – External Email
Subject: John Edwards
Mr. Warthen:
I’m a native South Carolinian, born (Baptist Hospital), Columbia High (1966) and Carolina grad.  I’ve been in Texas for 25 years, but frequently look at The State on line.  (Sidebar: was in the class with LaNelle Dominick Barber, yr. ahead of Robert Barber, and the Barbers and our family were members of the same church, Virginia Wingard.  They were/are good folks but Robert seems to have had quite an interesting career.)
Saw your link this morning and Drudge, and let me say how proud I am of you for saying what needs to be said.  It was a deep analytical piece or scientific research, but ’twas dead on!
I like to think there are good people in both parties and I usually vote split tickets, but John Edwards has always left me cold.   Kinda the way Bill Clinton did – a snake oil salesman.   And that was before I saw the "I feel pretty" clip and youtube!   His hypocrisy, like the Clintons, just oozes out of his pores.
 
Thanks again,
Joyce Evans
Arlington, TX

From: BNeal@gstoyota.com [mailto:BNeal@gstoyota.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 10:52 AM
To: Warthen, Brad – External Email
Subject: Welcome to what should have been painfully obvious to you even before the three strikes….

….he’s a plaintiff’s attorney!!!  That breed operates under the motto:  "Sincerity:  I can fake that!"  That he goes on to fake humility and compassion is why he makes the REALLY big bucks.

I know; not exactly an engaging response, but I’m always concerned when I see someone who claims to be something he isn’t ask to represent me.

Bob Neal

From: BILL RODGERS [mailto:wsrodger@ntelos.net]
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2007 10:59 AM
To: Warthen, Brad – External Email
Subject: John (phony) Edwards

I read your blog with great interest as I have known for years that he is a big fake. The obsession with his hair, the phony "lit" up smile, etc. all of it looked contrived to me long, long ago. Good article!

From: Mike Garland [mailto:garlandm@bellsouth.net]
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 12:12 PM
To: Warthen, Brad – External Email
Subject: Edwards a phony

Liberals are so gullible.  Edwards is as phony as a $3 bill, and it takes a normal person less than an hour to make that conclusion.
You seem like a nice man Brad– but you need an education in real people.  Put down your latte, your copy of the NYT, and park your Saab.  Now take a walk somewhere around real people, the real other side of America.

Listen to them, Edwards, Kerry, Clinton, obama, kucinich, dodd, biden etc…. they are all jackasses.  And yes they are transparently phony.

Mike Garland
Jacksonville, Fl.

From: Rick Marsh [mailto:rmarsh@marshlawfirm.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 11:15 AM
To: Warthen, Brad – External Email
Subject: The Best Evidence of John Edward’s Phoniness comes from his trial practice, and his career in the Senate
Dear Mr. Warthen:
 
I am a tax lawyer in Charlotte, NC.  A few years ago I ran a small law firm.  I had a partner who was a litigator.  She wasn’t available one day, so I handled a meeting with a "Trial Consultant" from Raleigh who was looking to expand his firm’s business into Charlotte.  His firm produced "Day in the Life" videos and other illustrative audio-visual aids designed to prejudice the jury without getting thrown out by the judge.  The consultant bragged that one of his best clients in Raleigh had been our then U.S. Senator, John Edwards.
 
"What was he like?" I asked.  The consultant told me that John Edwards was the most ruthless and aggressive lawyer that he had ever seen, without any sense of conscience or shame.  One time, when another member of the litigation team questioned whether one of Edwards’ flamboyant approaches would work with the jury, Edwards’ whirled on him and said, "My Eastern North Carolina juries believe that the moon landings were faked, and that WWF wrestling is real!"
 
He isn’t just a phony – he’s an anti-social personality disorder in a $5,000.00 suit.  He’s Elmer Gantry and Bill Clinton rolled up into one, except Edwards is more dangerous, because he has a sympathetic wife and he isn’t a lecher.
 
When John Edwards was in the U.S. Senate, fortunately, he didn’t do much.  However, one of the things he did was to smear the reputation of a genuine hero, Judge Charles Pickering.  Edwards falsely accused Pickering of being a racist and an unethical lawyer and jurist.  A close examination of that Senate Judiciary Committee transcript shows how Edwards baited Pickering and twisted the facts.  In fact, Pickering showed Atticus Finch-like courage in fighting the KKK in Mississippi as a young man, at a time when the Klan was something to be feared.  Judge Pickering describes the campaign against his judicial nomination, and Edwards’s central role, in his recent book.  http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0974537691/manhattaninstitu/. While Edwards may have been no worse than Senators Schumer or Kennedy, it is a telling point of Edwards’s character that he would eagerly do the work of PFAW in reinforcing their stereotype that white Southerners are, even today, racists, bigots, and scoundrels.
 
Thanks for your column.  You are just scratching the surface when it comes to John Edwards’s pathology.  If you would like, I could try to find the contact information for that trial consultant in my old subject files.
 
Sincerely,
 
 
Richard E. Marsh, Jr.
Marsh Law Firm, P.A.
828 East Boulevard
Charlotte, NC 28203

From: John Lindsay [mailto:John.Lindsay@us.thecolomergroup.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 11:05 AM
To: Warthen, Brad – External Email
Subject: John Edwards

Mr. Warthen:
Your piece on Mr. Edwards phoniness struck a chord with me.  Back in 1992 I
dated an ATF agent who was an ardent democrat as were about half of her
fellow Treasury Department agents.  During that time most of Treasury was
marshalled to supply as many agents as possible for security details to
fill all the demands associated with protecting the presidential
candidates.
My ATF friend told me of an incident involving the Clinton’s that turned
most of those Treasury agents to the Republican camp.  GHW Bush and his
wife were well-known for their friendliness and personal interest in the
lives of those employees serving around them, and were much-appreciated for
it.  The Clintons did not fare so well in that regard.  One agent was
assigned to take therm to church one day and was made to wait 20 minutes
for them to show up for the limo ride in to church. When they did show up
all three were arguing and bickering amongst each other.  Not unusual for
families pressed out of measure. But when they got in the limo, Hillary
proceeded to order the agent/driver to proceed by an unapproved route –
presumably faster.  When he declined in favor of the prescribed route she
began to argue with him.  When this did not work she began cursing.  When
he raised the privacy screen she proceeded to slam her bible against it
until she spend her fury.
When news of this got out along with a number of other anecdotal stories
concerning similar Clinton antics, most of those agents voted for Bush.
I’m not saying this as an indictment against Democrats because there are
plenty of quiche-eating Republicans who are just as unworthy.  My gripe is
that these coarse phonies never seem to get publicly exposed.
I’m sure my friend still voted for Bill.  She hated Clarence Thomas
too…….. I think it was the pubic hair………

Regards,
John Lindsay

From: Louie Sardenga [mailto:lsarden@deltapathology.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 11:27 AM
To: Warthen, Brad – External Email
Subject: Seeing Edwards as a phony
Dear Brad
I enjoyed reading your piece about John Edwards and I fully agree with you.  Do you remember Tokyo Rose during world war II.  She played great music for our soldiers but also played the same message every day just packged in a different way.  She and the enemy (Japan at the time) hoped that it would have a negative impact on our GI’s morale.  What was the demoralizing message?
1. Your President is lying to you.
2. This war is illegal
3. You cannot win the war!!!
Sounds familiar, eh.  It sounds very much like what liberals like John Edwards, Barach Obama, Hilary Clinton, Chris Dodd and Dennis Kuchinich are preaching to people in the U.S. through the written and video liberal media.  To me, they are all phonies
Again, thanks for the piece.

From: Salena Zito [mailto:szito@tribweb.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 11:35 AM
To: Warthen, Brad – External Email
Subject: Edwards Editorial

Good stuff on Edwards.

You nailed him perfectly.

Salena Zito

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/columnists/zito/

Political Reporter

Editorial Columnist

From: Les Vogt [mailto:lvogt@tbaglobal.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 12:07 PM
To: Warthen, Brad – External Email
Subject: Edwards

I just read the article ³Why I see John Edwards as a big phony². Edwards is
not my favorite candidate but those are the most lame and petty excuses for
that headline I can imagine. It’s your right, of course but, it is, for me,
completely irrelevant and unpersuasive.

Les Vogt
Chicago

From: Peter S. Cohl
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 12:23 PM
To: Warthen, Brad – External Email
Subject: Fred Thompson, John Edwards… unearthing the political brands

Dear Mr. Warthen:
A friend forwarded you latest on John Edwards. From the looks of his poll numbers in SC, the voters seem to agree.  I’ve personally had some conversations on trade with him, however.  At the time, he seemed quite sincere.
With regard to Thompson, you might want to peruse my blog, "The Political Brandwagon" <http://www.politicalbrandwagon.com>, where we view "The song of politics in the key of brand." 
Our most recent post

TV Dinner: Chris Matthews Casts Fred Thompson as the New Ben Cartwright

…takes a look Sen. Thompson as an iconic brand — and comfort food for an America that’s been on edge since September 2001.

‘Southern-Fried Reagan’: Fred is Well-Framed By The Christian Right

…speaks for itself.

All the best,
Peter

From: C.D. Chebon Marshall [mailto:chebon.marshall@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 12:44 PM
To: Warthen, Brad – External Email
Subject: John Edwards Editorial

Mr. Warthen –
I must say that I enjoyed your editorial concerning the "phony" factor
of former Senator Edwards.
I live in Oklahoma, where in 2004 we were an early primary state.  Mr.
Edwards made numerous trips here in his attempt to win the state.  On
one such occasion he allowed C-SPAN to travel with him.  On his tour
bus, after leaving a small rural town in southeast Oklahoma, he sat on
the bus and made fun of the people he had just met and the humble
nature of their surroundings.  The amazing part – he did it on camera!
I’m glad to see that you are taking a strong stand on this lack of
character that so many politicians suffer from.  I was taught by a
former Congressman I used to work for that the least voters can ask of
the people they elect is that the politician love the land and people
they represent.  I can’t say that I feel Mr. Edwards does.

Sincerely,
Chebon Marshall

From: George Lyster [mailto:lystgl@jrtwave.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 12:53 PM
To: Warthen, Brad – External Email
Subject: Edwards the phoney
Shouldn’t have taken you that long! Two minutes into any speech Edwards makes you just know he’s an empty shirt and as phoney as a three dollar bill.

From: MDR094@aol.com [mailto:MDR094@aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 12:57 PM
To: Warthen, Brad – External Email
Subject: John Edwards

I read your piece on Edwards. Though a liberal ( you know, the thing Thomas Jefferson,Ben Franklin and the other Founding Fathers were?) Im always interested in having politicians exposed for what they are regardless of their end of the political spectrum ( though if truth be told – you know, that thing that Conservatives call "liberal bias"?) the number of phony conservative Republicans both in office and as journalists would dwarf anything the Democrats can produce.But what stunned me was your personal observation of Edwards, which I found almost silly and the conclusions you drew from them and what you think are their significance,  closing with"not enough for you"?
 
It would be enough for Fox News, Michelle Malkin and Ann Coulter but, sorry, its not enough for anyone who doesn’t pay for the beach house by bashing Democrats.What did you expect Edwards to do? Go up on stage looking like maybe he didn’t really feel like being there which is a distinct possibility? Should he have had his wife say" sorry you all came but john is no phony and he really doesn’t feel like talking now so we’re going home"?
 
If you want to criticize preparation and phoniness how about Justice Department officials whose salaries are paid for by the tax payers, spending hours and hours of tax payer time over a period of weeks coaching, preparing, and mock grilling Alberto Gonzalez in preparation for his sworn testimony before Congress to make sure he doesn’t perjure himself.
 
Sincerely
Marc Rubin

From: abechtel@email.unc.edu [mailto:abechtel@email.unc.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 12:59 PM
To: Warthen, Brad – External Email
Subject: copy editor and Howard Dean

Mr. Warthen,
I enjoyed your column on John Edwards. I am sure you are getting plenty
of reaction.
I had a question about a small piece of the column. Is the copy editor
who is a fan of Howard Dean working on the news side or editorial? I
was surprised to see a copy editor described as a fan of a political
candidate, especially if the person works on the news side, but perhaps
not as much if the person is on the editorial side.
I blogged about this here and would be happy to update the post with
this clarification as needed:

www.editdesk.blogspot.com
Thanks.

Andy Bechtel
Assistant professor
School of Journalism and Mass Communication
UNC-Chapel Hill

From: Martin Duggan [mailto:martindug@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 1:05 PM
To: Warthen, Brad – External Email
Subject: Phony Edwards

Mr. Warthen:
Let me compliment you on your characterization of John Edwards. I
haven’t met the man. Your sketch reinforces my feeling that I really
don’t want to.
Martin Duggan
retired editorial page editor, St. Louis Globe-Democrat
martindug@sbcglobal.net

From: David Barham [mailto:dbarham@arkansasonline.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 1:02 PM
To: Warthen, Brad – External Email
Subject: your column on Edwards

I got the same feeling about a pol I covered in Louisiana — Mary
Landrieu (now a U.S. Senator, but I think she was running for governor
when I got the phony impression at a behind-the-scenes meeting).

Excellent work.
DAVID BARHAM
Editorial writer
Arkansas Democrat-Gazette

From: Carleton Casteel [mailto:farside31@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 1:09 PM
To: Warthen, Brad – External Email
Subject: Edwards The Phony
I usually vote for Democrats.  Thanks for this insight into the 
"trial lawyer" nature of John Edwards, for that is what he is, and 
God bless them, successful trial lawyers, be he/she for the defense 
or the plaintiff, have to charm the jury.  That said, there is no 
bigger huckster and phony than George W. Bush, all the way from his 
put-on Texas twang to his brush cutting photo ops.  (I know cuz I am 
a Texan) But your op-ed sealed the deal for me on John, particularly 
the last two incidents, the final one being unforgivable.  Thanks.

Carl Casteel

From: edwa2256@bellsouth.net [mailto:edwa2256@bellsouth.net]
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 1:16 PM
To: Warthen, Brad – External Email
Subject: Edwards is a phony?

The bow-tie says it all..

That generally denotes a giant F-you I’m smarter than you are and don’t care what you think.

Given the limited field and the current state of the retarded monkeys that we call the president, vice president and his cabinet I would believe that a publicly educated man (NC STATE and CAROLINA [ the real one] would suit the white house better than another Yale or Harvard ass.

Registered independant

From: SCMassageTherapy@aol.com [mailto:SCMassageTherapy@aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 1:23 PM
To: Warthen, Brad – External Email
Subject: Hello

Hello Mr Warthen,
Read your ,  John Edwards story with amusement.  I recently went to visit my folks in Rochester, NY and John Edwards was on the radio in town.  But to my surprise, he was talking like a New Yorker.  Very refined, very deliberate and nothing like the "ya’ll doing ok" JE one hears down South.  I live in Greenville, SC so I know the big difference I was hearing in him. 
Warm regards
Dennis Diehl

From: Geoff Pope [mailto:gpope@popehoward.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 2:09 PM
To: Warthen, Brad – External Email
Subject: Unbelievable

While campaigning for Senator Edwards in South Carolina in ’04, I came to appreciate The State.  I am stunned that you have cast judgment on someone based on some incredibly minor details.  This article would be more appropriate for the Bill O’Reilly blog than a serious newspaper.  For what it’s worth, I have heard countless people who have observed Edwards in similar situations describe him as completely genuine.  Too bad they don’t have your platform.

Geoff Pope

From: Blair Priest [mailto:Blair.Priest@cushwake.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 2:23 PM
To: Warthen, Brad – External Email
Subject: Edwards
Dear Brad,
Your editorial reminded me of a Time Magazine article I read excerpting Robert Shrumm’s new book.  The following paragraph in particular sickened me and illustrates what a used car salesman Edwards is:
 
"Kerry talked with several potential picks, including Gephardt and Edwards. He was comfortable after his conversations with Gephardt, but even queasier about Edwards after they met. Edwards had told Kerry he was going to share a story with him that he’d never told anyone else—that after his son Wade had been killed, he climbed onto the slab at the funeral home, laid there and hugged his body, and promised that he’d do all he could to make life better for people, to live up to Wade’s ideals of service. Kerry was stunned, not moved, because, as he told me later, Edwards had recounted the same exact story to him, almost in the exact same words, a year or two before—and with the same preface, that he’d never shared the memory with anyone else. Kerry said he found it chilling, and he decided he couldn’t pick Edwards unless he met with him again."
 
Thanks,
Blair Priest
From: Marty Parrish [mailto:martyparrish@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 2:35 PM
To: Warthen, Brad – External Email
Subject: Edwards, the Phony

Yep, I can believe Edwards is phony…which is just too bad.

Attached is "Why I Vote Joe." I’ve found Joe Biden to be real. http://martyparrish.spaces.live.com

Marty

From: Renegar, David [mailto:DRenegar@BBandT.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 2:42 PM
To: Warthen, Brad – External Email
Subject: RE: Why I see John Edwards as a big phony

Dear Brad:

I thought this was an excellent article and wonderfully written. Thank you for writing this for all to read; it made the Drudge Report as you probably are aware of.

I have always thought the good Senator was a phony with the two-America campaign. Then again, the people of NC had him pegged as well and would have likely voted him out of office had he run for the Senate for a second term.

He indeed fooled a jury on the "child within speaking to them," theatrics in his closing arguments that gave him fortune but I don’t believe for a second that phony approach will give him the momentum he desperately needs at this point. I think he’ll eventually stay on the compound for good.

David Leigh Renegar
Mortgage Loan Counselor
Greenville, SC 29601

From: Sterling W. B. Homan, Ph.D., J.D. [mailto:02homan@charter.net]
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 2:52 PM
To: Warthen, Brad – External Email
Subject: Article on Edwards as a phony…
Hi:  Not only did I heartily agree with your opinion in the article, I thought that you might want to know that I downloaded it for an example of good writing for my grandchildren.  My sons always want me to explain good expository writing and I try to do so satisfactorily.  It is much easier, however, with a good example of something current to show them.  They are in both high-school and college so they need to learn the rudiments on constructing a good essay.  You gave me a great example to show them.  I have had post-graduate students who couldn’t do it so when I find a good example like this article, I am always tickled pink. 
 
Thanks for a good article and a big help.
 
Sterling W. B. Homan, Ph.D., J.D.
Birmingham, Alabama

From: Drholcomb@aol.com [mailto:Drholcomb@aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 3:24 PM
To: Warthen, Brad – External Email
Subject: John Edwards IS a phony

Four years ago, we had a chance encounter with a former neighbor of John Edwards who told us–guess what–"John Edwards is a phony". Glad you found out. Allen Holcomb, Sun Valley ID

From: NHP33@aol.com [mailto:NHP33@aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 3:26 PM
To: Warthen, Brad – External Email
Subject: column about John Edwards

Thanks for explaining what was wrong with him.  I couldn’t figure out why I couldn’t enthuse even though he is a SC boy.  My daughter-in-law says he acts like the fraternity boys she knew in college.  I want you to know I voted for John Dean even thought I doubted he had a chance.  nancy padgett

From: Rich Hall [mailto:richhall@OGIND.COM]
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 3:38 PM
To: Warthen, Brad – External Email
Subject: John Edwards – phony
Brad, If you haven’t seen it you must check out the YouTube John
Edwards hair combing / preening marathon set to "I Feel Pretty"….he
is a complete phony.

Rich Hall
Connecticut

From: shawn@charisradionetwork.com [mailto:shawn@charisradionetwork.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 3:41 PM
To: Warthen, Brad – External Email
Subject: Interview Request
Brad-
My name is Shawn Stinson and I’m the executive producer with the Danny Fontana Show in Charlotte, North Carolina. I’m writing to schedule an interview with you to discuss your blog talking about why you see John Edwards as a big phony.
We broadcast from 3 – 6 p.m., Monday through Friday and the interview will last around 6 to 8 minutes.
You can reach me directly in my office at 980-235-7917 or on my cell phone at 704-517-9718.
 
Thank you in advance,

Shawn Stinson
Executive Producer
Danny Fontana Show
WDYT 1220 AM

From: On Behalf Of Samson Habte
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 4:50 PM
To: Warthen, Brad – External Email
Subject: JE is also not a good tipper
as a former colleague at a DC-area restaraunt where I worked a few years back found out. Not a bad tipper — something like 17 percent — but not a good one, either (I’m a pathetically broke student and almost never give less than 20 percent).
 
I guess waiters are part of that ‘other America,’ huh?
 
– SH

From: Jeffrey Sewell [mailto:jeffrey@sewellconsultancy.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 5:24 PM
To: Warthen, Brad – External Email
Subject: you just made FOX

Congrats!

Regards,

Jeffrey Sewell, MCP
Principal Consultant
Sewell Consultancy, LLC
100 Sunset Boulevard
Suite 203
West Columbia, SC 29169

From: Paynecarriere@aol.com [mailto:Paynecarriere@aol.com]

Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 5:37 PM
To: Warthen, Brad – External Email
Subject: Permission to reprint your article on Edwards

 
We request permission to reprint your opinion piece on ‘Edwards the phony’ for our website: www.repayne.com
Thank you for consideration.
R E Gus Payne
www.repayne.com

From: de France, Linda [mailto:Linda.deFrance@jt3.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 6:06 PM
To: Warthen, Brad – External Email
Subject: Question on use of words
Mr. Warthen,
 
Forgive my ignorance, but in your column of today, entitled "Why I see John Edwards as a big phony" you use some phraseology of which I am unfamiliar.
 
Under the Strike Two example, you write Mr. Edwards "was all ersatz-cracker bonhomie." 
 
I have no idea what this means.
 
Is this a racial slur? I know what ersatz means, and I understand the word cracker is sometimes used to describe white people, and I know that bonhomie means a friendly and approachable disposition, but put all together– I am not sure what you were driving at.
 
Please tell me it isn’t a fake white approachable guy, because then the meaning is clearly lost in translation. What would it matter what race Mr. Edwards is? I just can’t understand what you meant by that.
 
Linda de France

From: Nancy L. Wolf [mailto:nwolf@lsl-law.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 6:21 PM
To: Warthen, Brad – External Email
Subject: Exercise every day
I,for one ,think it is great that Senator Edwards makes time to exercise every day. It shows his commitment to staying healthy – far better than your commitment to using anecdotal "evidence" from 3 and 4 years ago to support a fact-free argument.
 
Nancy Wolf
Washington, D.C.

From: Jeffrey Sewell [mailto:jeffrey@sewellconsultancy.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 6:38 PM
To: Warthen, Brad – External Email
Subject: RE: you just made FOX

You were national, at least a half dozen TV and Print, time for a raise?

~Jeffrey Sewell

From: John De Fede [mailto:jdefede@sc.rr.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 6:43 PM
To: Warthen, Brad – External Email
Subject: Good Job Brad!

Brad,

 

I like reading your thoughtful pieces in the State. This was another one.  Generally, I feel your too ‘nice’—too damn liberal—which for a troglodyte like me—somewhere to the right of Attila the Hun (he was too soft on the Romans….) is pretty easy to do.  But you told it like you thought…not based on the positions, not based on the press releases, but from your own experience with der mensch—the man.  And…that of others.  Important people that I think deserve the real attention at any org….the NCO’s and privates, the receptionists and secretaries…..(I drove a cab before I joined the Army).  Bravo.  What a shame you’ll get some personal attacks on this….but what can they say?  This was your own real experience, and you certainly don’t need validation from me or anyone else.  Your article was picked up on the Drudge report….be prepared for the deluge…..jad

 

John A. De Fede, Esq.

Major, US Army (Ret.)

 

From: juliewolves@comcast.net [mailto:juliewolves@comcast.net]
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 6:44 PM
To: Warthen, Brad – External Email; Warthen, Brad – External Email
Subject: John Edwards is a phony?
Mr Warthen,
I read you bit on John Edwards, describing him as a phony?  Mr. Warthen?  You got nothin’.

From: Sterling W. B. Homan, Ph.D., J.D. [mailto:02homan@charter.net]
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 6:46 PM
To: Warthen, Brad – External Email
Subject: Re: Article on Edwards as a phony…
Loved your answer.  However, I am a lady, not a "Sir."  Almost was drafted because of this name, at one time. And my Mother died calling me "Son," although she did go on to have two of the real thing.  Used to hate it when the boys yelled  "Hi, Ho, Silver" at me but came to like it after I grew up and figured out that it was sort of classy.
 
I took the liberty of copying your article, underlining the thesis statement and then italicizing your supporting documentation so the kids could see it clearly.  Also, I noted that you used really pithy comments to lay him out.  And that is important because the tendency in beginners is to pussy-foot around and not to make clear statements.  I used to tell classes of Flannery O’Connor’s comment:  "For the almost deaf, you shout, and for the almost blind you draw with bold and glaring strokes."
 
And thanks, also, for the reference to Clinton.  Did you notice him laughing as he approached Ron Brown’s funeral–But then, walking through a flower trellis to the funeral and coming out the other side with tears coursing down his face?  LOVED that.
 
Thank you for the good writing and for the response.  Best Wishes.
 
Sterling Homan

From: bill mack [mailto:wahookingpcola@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 6:57 PM
To: Warthen, Brad – External Email
Subject: John Edwards phony
Wow, you must be either really, really,  preceptive or paranoid scheptic. 
With your keen observation of one facial expression and two second hand stories from un-named people who you say felt slighted because they either didnt get to shake John Edwards hand, or had to suffer standing around what was probley an "open" bar, chugging free drinks, waiting for him to appear, …you deduced him to be a complete phony.  With such overwhelming evidence, you even managed to put down a Clinton and complement Howard Dean.  (one easy task, the other not so easy).
Now thats what I call sticking to what your blog proclaims it self to be about…. "talk about pragmatic ways to do stuff that truly needs doing in South Carolina, the nation and the world." 
And I wont, and your blog invites, "challenge the rest of us with sincere ideas" as I see none on your blog from you.  Maybe its like clicking on your blogs heading "About Brad Warthen’s Blog"
Coming Soon?
ndpendant

From: Jeffrey Sewell [mailto:jeffrey@sewellconsultancy.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 7:38 PM
To: Warthen, Brad – External Email
Subject: RE: you just made FOX

It was awesome, they credited you by name and it was extensive, good job!  We don’t agree like most people on all things but you are good, best face on SC in the last month.  So sick of the Susan Smith moments.

~Jeffrey Sewell

‘Plan A’ for Iraq: the perfect course of action

9 Replies

This is another one of those comments that went on and on until I decided to turn it into a post. It started like this: Uncle Elmer wrote, in part…

Brad you’re completely wrong when you say "it’s not about Bush," of
course it’s about him! He’s still in charge, and still following the
same pattern of bad decision making and ignoring history that has
become his trademark. Given his absolute refusal to work with other
countries, build consensus support here in the US, or even explain
himself in any other way than beating the Al Qaeda drum what choice is
there? I think a lot of the "pull out now" crowd is really saying "I
don’t trust him and won’t trust him" and what they are hearing you say
is "trust him!"

Exactly (to that last part). And I’m trying to get them to hear the opposite, which is that Iraq has a real-world existence that is independent of what you or I or anyone else thinks of that serial bungler in the White House. What we do from this moment on is what matters. We’re stuck with Bush as president until January 2009, which is really, really bad, but it has nothing to do with whether we need to maintain our commitment in Iraq. The only issue we have before us in terms of who the president is, or what we think of the president, is the 2008 election.

Let’s say there is some "Plan A" that is the perfect thing to do with regard to Iraq. Maybe it’s go with the surge. Maybe it’s run like a scalded dog. Maybe it’s a phased pullout. Maybe it’s institute a draft and inundate the country with U.S. troops. Maybe it’s declare martial law. Maybe it’s to pull back to remote bases, or try the Biden plan of partitioning the country. Whatever.

Now mind you, even though "Plan A" is the one most perfect thing to do, it "won’t be a fairy-tale ending," as RTH said in the same string. The "perfect" plan under such circumstances (that is to say, in the real world) is merely the best result you can get. That is not, and never was, the bogus "Jeffersonian democracy" that various people who didn’t want us there to begin with seem to set as the impossible standard, short of which we should just give up. (If they’re waiting for us to have a "Jeffersonian democracy" in THIS country, I hope they’re not holding their breaths. Given that reality, we would be looking for something short of that in Iraq.) No, the standard is that things will be better. Greater peace, greater prosperity, greater stability, greater self-determination, better relations with neighbors and with the West, etc. And Plan A gets things "more better" than anything else.

Whatever "Plan A" is, it’s what we should do — at this point in time, in this situation. And let’s say we can just wave a wand and make it happen. Of course, one thing we CAN’T do, because it’s a one-wish wand, is change who the president is. We’re stuck with Bush until January 2009, just like in the real world.

That means, when you wave the wand, whatever orders have to be issued — whether the orders are to keep fighting, withdraw to neutral corners, skedaddle, whatever — will go through him, acting as the commander-in-chief. Just like in the real world.

Now you can either wave that wand and implement Plan A, or refuse to do so because it will involve that guy you don’t like. Me, I’d wave the wand. There seem to be a lot of people who would refuse to do so, because as soon as they tried to implement it, "Plan A" would seem to them like the "Bush plan," and they would feel obliged to hate it.

And what I’m saying is that that’s crazy thinking.

Now, the Petraeus Plan is not "Plan A," in my opinion, and probably not in yours, either. The difference between us is that MY idea of "Plan A" would be more like institute the draft and and blockade every crossroad in the country. But you know what? There’s no chance of my plan A being implemented. That’s because there is no magic wand. But Petraeus’ approach — that of far more targeted reinforcements applied where they will do to the most good toward creating a more secure environment in which to seek political solutions — is as close to Plan A as we’re going to get, and more likely to produce a good result than anything else we are likely to do.

So I support it, and I do all I can to get other Americans to support it, because if they don’t, then neither this nor any other plan will ever succeed in making things appreciably better.

That doesn’t work, for you? OK, how about this: "(Extremely rude four-letter word starting with an "F") Bush. Forget him. Nothing you can do about it. All we can do about Iraq is the best we can do. We get to change presidents 18 months from now. Let’s do whatever we can to make the situation there as good as it can be when that new president takes over."

Being for the benefit of Mr. Burbage

3 Replies

Lately — since I started fooling around with my comment policies, and constantly changing settings — TypePad has been sending me e-mails every time someone tries to comment. It’s pretty irritating, but it’s easier to keep deleting them than to republish my entire blog to change the settings. Besides, it reminds me to keep checking comments, so I can approve them — or most of them. (That, in case you forget, is the current policy. You don’t have to authenticate, but it doesn’t post until I approve. A drag, but blame those who don’t play well with others.)

Anyway, as I was deleting e-mails in batches, I noticed there was a comment from a name I hadn’t seen — Bill Burbage. I checked. No comments awaiting approval from a Burbage. I checked other ways — sniffing around the docks, leaning on my snitches and such. He’s not someone I banished under some pseudonym (that was a disappointment, as I hoped for some mild mystery or other to be solved). So I got all radical and wrote back to him. He replied as follows:

Mr. Warthen,
    Twice I have tried to post a message on your blog.  The first time I thought it was rejected because when I entered the "code" word I put spaces between the letters.  That’s the way it looked to me.  I don’t know what happened the second time.
    My message concerned the annual interest rate (APR) on a periodic interest rate of 15% every 14 days.  The 391.07% figure put out by the Consumer Financial Services Association (CFSA) is an egregious error.  They have succeeded in selling it to The State, The Wall Street Journal, NBC Television and even the Federal Trade Commission’s Consumer Protection Agency website.   I have emailed the CFSA at 515 King Street in Alexandria, VA and asked how they computed that APR.  After  mulling it over for12 days they answered: "Our members calculate the APRs in accordance with the federal law requirements in Appendix J of the Federal Reserve’s Regulation Z.  In that regard the 391.07 APR is accurate in accordance with federal law for the fourteen day loan."
    I pointed out to the CFSA that if something grows at a rate of 15% every 14 days, in 26 periods it will grow to 37.8568 times whatever you started with.  Compound interest or exponential growth is such a powerful phenomenon that it is literally unbelievable until you take out your scientific calculator or Excel spreadsheet and ‘do the math’.  Albert Einstein called it the 8th wonder of the world.
    It would be greatly appreciated by this reader if somebody would explain how the CFSA arrived at that 391.07% figure.
    Thanks for the quick reply.  I have been unable to get any response at all from the editorial staff at the WSJ.  I think they think I don’t know what I’m talking about, but I can’t get them to say so.
Bill Burbage

Being the helpful guy with the jiffy service that I am, I responded thusly:

Well, I certainly don’t know what you’re talking about, but then I don’t write about that. My usual response to such subjects — and I’m not terribly shy about it — is, "That’s something about money, right?" Not my forte. I just know that no matter the terms, it seems like I always end up paying more in interest than want to — unless it’s me getting the interest, in which it never seems like much.

The "miracle of compounded interest" I’m always hearing about only seems to work with money flowing away from me. I think it tends to work in favor of people who have a lot of capital to start with. I think if I had a lot of capital, I wouldn’t much care what the interest did. I’d still have a lot of capital.

Anyway, thanks for trying. I’ll put this on the blog for you. And I’ll ask your question for you. I can’t guarantee a satisfactory answer (I probably won’t understand it, anyway).

Of course, I’m not quite as stupid as all that; I just think modesty is becoming, don’t you? I’m almost entirely sure that this is about predatory lending — and most likely the payday loan version we’ve written about most recently. But that’s about all I know, or think I know. As for the rest, well, if you think I understand personal finance, ask my wife. Or anybody who works with me. It’s one of those things I’ve tried hard not to learn, because what little I have learned about it has never been pleasant. I’m not dumb, but I’m not Einstein.

Knowledge can be dangerous. For instance, I’m the only full-time person in the Editorial department with a working understanding of QuarkXpress other than Mike Fitts, who until today was cruelly absent in the Rockie Mountains since July 6, causing me many long days and nights. Bad case of too much knowledge.

You may find this hard to believe, but I’ve been plagued by knowing too much quite a few times before. In Wichita, I bothered to figure out how the UPI photo machine worked back in the mid-80s (it was a very strange machine that operated according to strange principles). The nearest official UPI repair guy was, I think, in Oklahoma City. I spoke to him for a long time one night when we really, really needed one of their photos. Big mistake on my part. I was in charge of the whole newspaper every night after 6 p.m., which sounds grand, but I often spent the night with my head down the UPI machine (that’s enough; I know that sounds like a straight line).

When I worked in Jackson, TN, before that, I figured out how to operate the lighting setup in the photo studio. I had made the  mistake of mastering the 35mm SLR earlier. So if anybody in the world walked into the building needing to have a mug shot taken and our two or three shooters were out, guess who stopped everything to set up the studio for a shoot? The putative city editor.

So you can have your financial expertise. If I learned about that, I might have to balance somebody’s checkbook. Maybe even my own.

Speak of the devil (whose name, apparently, is ‘Hannity’)

4 Replies

Weldon was taking me to task for not knowing my business because I didn’t know who Neils Bohr was (just kidding), and suggested I didn’t know who Sean Hannity was, either, and he was sort of right, but I wasn’t going to give him the satisfaction, so I let on that I knew who he was, because I had heard the name, more than once.

And then, speak of the devil, it turns out he’s been helping out Lindsey Graham. So he must be OK, or at least have his good side, right?

Anyway, I just got this release — the first one I remember getting from this campaign that Shell Suber just joined, as you read here:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:        Contact: Scott Farmer
July 16, 2007

Graham Breaks $4 Million Cash-on-Hand Mark
Raises $1.75 Million in First Half of 2007

COLUMBIA, SOUTH CAROLINA – Republican U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham’s re-election campaign has now gone over the $4 million cash-on-hand mark.
    Early reports suggest Graham’s $4.04 million will once again rank as the 3rd highest cash-on-hand figure among the twenty-one Republican Senators up for re-election in 2008.  Graham trailed only the Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky ($5.7 million cash-on-hand) and Senator John Cornyn of Texas ($5.6 million cash-on-hand) who represents the nation’s second-largest state.
     Graham raised $543,616.77 over the past three months and collected a total of $1.75 million since the beginning of the year.  The quarterly financial report, covering receipts and expenditures from April 1 through June 30, was filed this weekend with the Secretary of the Senate.
     “Senator Graham is deeply appreciative of the strong showing of support, financial and otherwise, and will continue to provide a leadership role in the United States Senate,” said campaign manager Scott Farmer.  “Whether it is supporting the War on Terror, fighting to confirm conservative judges, securing our nation’s borders or any other difficult issue, Senator Graham has stepped up time and time again.  South Carolinians have come to expect strong leadership from their Senators, and that’s exactly what they’ve received during Lindsey Graham’s first term in the Senate.  We look forward to sharing Senator Graham’s conservative record of achievement and leadership with voters in South Carolina.”
     In the second quarter, Vice President Dick Cheney was the Featured Guest at a reception in Washington benefiting the campaign.  All Republican U.S. Senators endorsed Graham in his re-election bid and served as Co-Chairs for the event.  At the reception the Vice President called Senator Graham “one of the outstanding members of the Senate.”  He continued, “The President and I were delighted to help in his very first campaign for the Senate back in 2002…  We are delighted to stand with him again to be certain he gets re-elected to the United States Senate.”
     Conservative talk show host and television commentator Sean Hannity also headlined a May luncheon in Columbia for the campaign.  During the luncheon Hannity remarked, “Senator Graham, you have been steadfast.  You have never wavered.  You have never vacillated.  Your commitment has been one thousand percent.”  Video of Hannity’s full remarks can be found at www.lindseygraham.com

  • Lindsey Graham for Senate Cash-on-Hand:  $4,040,395.93
  • Total Receipts for the Second Quarter of 2007:  $543,616.77
  • Total Disbursements for the Second Quarter of 2007:  $185,195.57

                    #####

Here’s how we fail to understand each other

33 Replies

I got a very nice e-mail from a very nice person who was complimentary of my column Sunday, but then it went on to say something that seemed to perfectly illustrate the point of the column. Here’s the message:

Dear Brad,

I very much enjoyed and agree with your editorial
"Policy isn’t about personalities". However, is
this not the reason why The State (and the media
in general) ignores the FairTax?  This plan will
unburden American citizens and businesses and
create economic prosperity by making US-made
products globally competitive. The benefits to our
country are enormous, so I must ask, is it the
proposal itself or is it because Neal Boortz
co-wrote the FairTax book and the legislation is
sponsored by a Republican? (This is what I have
been led to believe). As your column suggests,
ideas should not be judged based on who supports
them.

I welcome your comments.

And here was my response:

No and not. And now I have to ask you:
— Who is Neal Bortz? I’ve never heard of him.
— Why on Earth would you or anyone else have the impression that we would ignore something "because … the legislation is sponsored by a Republican." That’s bizarre.
With all due respect, I think your note is another illustration of my point. Only someone who thinks very differently from the way I do could think my interest in something could be turned on or off by an individual or the party associated with it. Those are alien concepts to me.
As far as the "Fair Tax" is concerned, is that the thing Jim DeMint was pushing back when he ran for the Senate? If so, we examined it pretty carefully at the time, and weren’t too crazy about it. No one has brought it up to me since then. I’ve been vaguely aware there was an effort out there to revive the idea — I think there was a meeting or something at the same time that everybody was busy with the GOP debate, and I saw a banner about it at the luncheon that Fred Thompson spoke at. That’s about all I know.

— Brad Warthen

So now I guess I’ll have to look up this Fair Tax thing at some point, and this Neal Bortz guy too (I mean "Boortz," Google corrected me, sorry for not reading the message more carefully), and I have no idea that I will find either particularly interesting. But I’ll look, when I get time. Right now, I’m processing e-mail. I provide the links so you can look, in case you have time today.

(Tomorrow Mike comes back, and I go back to being only a couple of people, instead of three or four.)