Category Archives: Mail call

Looks like Romney’s a phony, too

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

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.

Scooped by the newsroom

Yesterday, Zeke Stokes sent me the above video, with the following terse comment:

Just when you think we’re making progress.

Once again, this was Zeke Stokes, not some guy who gets his jollies making fun of the S.C. public education system.

I looked at it and thought, "the poor kid," yet resolved to put it up on the blog as inherently interesting — but only after I put up several other things that had more substance. I didn’t get around to posting those things yesterday, and since Jon Ozmint is coming in in a few minutes to talk about all this, and we still have pages to produce, I’m probably not going to get to those things today, either.

Meanwhile, the blasted newsroom scooped me on this. They even blogged about it. Ah, well.

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

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.

I don’t know how to break it to you, but you got scooped on this one

Just got an op-ed submission,  and the e-mail containing it had this heading: "Timely op-ed on Diana’s death."

That would be Diana Spencer, who used to be married to the royal Brit with the ears. The proffered piece was titled,"What I learned from the Death of Princess Diana and the Life of Mother Teresa," and was authored by one Les T. Csorba.

Gosh, Lester, you got scooped by about 10 years. The competition totally spanked you on this one. Maybe you should drop the "timely" bit. Sorry, pal.

Well, not all that sorry. I’ve about had it with my e-mail slot being overwhelmed with unsolicited pooge.

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

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

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.

My week in the ‘phony’ Spin Cycle

By BRAD WARTHEN
EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR
HAD  YOU asked me on Monday what I would be writing about for Sunday, a second column dealing — even peripherally — with presidential wannabe John Edwards would have been the last thing I would have guessed.
    Yet here I am. What choice do I have? I’ve spent so much time this past week dealing with the reaction from the first one that I haven’t had time to develop anything on another topic.
    It was just a midweek column, not worthy of a Sunday slot, a back-burner thing I had promised to address several months earlier on my blog, after readers challenged me for calling the man a “phony” without explaining the series of experiences that had led to that impression — which is all it was.
    (And in case you didn’t read that column and are wondering what those experiences were, I have neither the space nor inclination to repeat them here. They took up a whole column the first time. You can find it on my blog. The address is below.)
    But without ever intending or wanting to, I got caught up in the Spin Cycle of national politics. My musings had become, for that brief moment, Topic A — or at least B or C or D — and believe me: You don’t even want to be Topic Z in that alphabet.
    Subsequent events didn’t follow each other in any way that made sense, so I’ll just throw them out in no particular order:

  • The Drudge Report picked up my column Tuesday morning, which launched the craziness as much as any one thing.
  • The New York Post called asking to reprint it, which it did the following day under the headline, “POOR LITTLE PHONY: JOHN EDWARDS’ FAKE EMPATHY.”
  • Pmgift
    Dennis Miller of “Saturday Night Live” fame interviewed me on his radio show Thursday.
  • I got mocked by the “Wonkette”: “Brad Warthen of the South Carolina’s The State has a controversial opinion about John Edwards! His controversial opinion, which he, Brad Warthen, thought of himself, and which he is going to share… with you now, is as follows: John Edwards is a phony! A big fat phony!”
  • After two more radio shows called — one from Charlotte (for Thursday), another from Canada (for today), I called Andy Gobeil so that S.C. ETV wouldn’t miss out, and he had me on his show Friday morning.
  • My column was the lead political story on the Fox News network Tuesday night. Or rather, the response the Edwards campaign felt compelled to produce — and I do feel sorry for them for that — was the lead story. The story posted online began: “John Edwards’ campaign scoffed Tuesday at a new effort to depict the Democratic presidential candidate as phony after an influential columnist for a newspaper in Edwards’ birth state wrote that his personal experiences only reinforce his image of Edwards as plastic.”
  • My blog had its third-biggest day ever Tuesday with 5,825 page views, and its fourth-biggest on Wednesday. The biggest ever had been in June, when state Treasurer Thomas Ravenel was indicted. That made sense. This did not.
  • ABC News National Senior Correspondent Jake Tapper wrote on his blog about my “rather nasty op-ed” in these terms: “I personally find the evidence rather thin for such a scathing verbal attack.” Hey, if I had meant to mount a “scathing verbal attack,” I would have come up with some thicker stuff.
  • Someone named Pamela Leavey, writing on “The Democratic Daily,” said I was “Spewing Right-Wing Talking Points About John Edwards,” and thereby providing “a classic example of what’s wrong with our media.”

Obama_detail
    I guess I had been spewing “Left-Wing Talking Points” when I said nice things about Barack Obama the week before. Of course, Ms. Leavey wouldn’t know about that, because she had probably never heard of me before Tuesday. That was true of most of the people commenting.
    And yet, they seemed to think they knew an awful lot about me. Their confidence in passing judgment was far greater than my own. All I had done was describe impressions I had formed from actual experiences in my life. I didn’t consider them any better than anyone else’s experiences. When Zeke Stokes wrote in saying that when he worked on the Edwards campaign earlier this year he had formed a very different impression, I urged readers to take what he said every bit as seriously as what I had said.
    But folks out in the blogosphere or in the 24/7 political spin cycle don’t have time for reflections upon personal experience. They have a convenient short-hand vocabulary for passing judgment instantly upon anything and everything, and all of it is based in childishly simplistic, partisan labels: “He’s one of them! I don’t like them!” or “He’s one of us! Everything he says is true!”
    Among the more than 1,500 unread e-mails awaiting me Tuesday morning were quite a few from across the country praising or damning me for having expressed my opinion. Many were as shallow as Ms. Leavey’s “reflections.”
    But here and there were messages from someone who got the point, which was this: We all form subjective impressions, often unconsciously. In my column I tried to determine exactly when and where I had picked up the bits that formed my overall impression of this one guy among many running for president. I thought that such an airing would be mildly interesting to readers, who often wonder what sorts of gut “biases” inform what we write in the paper, and where they come from.
    A few readers appreciated that, saying that there had been something about Edwards that had nagged at them, and my column had helped them define it: “You hit something in me that I had not been able to figure out,” wrote Glenice Pearson. “Thanks for explaining what was wrong with him,” wrote Nancy Padgett. “I couldn’t figure out why I couldn’t enthuse even though he is a SC boy.”
    In turn, I appreciate those few readers who got it. The rest of it I could have done without.

Listen to Zeke Stokes

For a whole other perspective on John Edwards, be sure to read Zeke Stokes’ letter on today’s editorial page. For you lazy types, I reproduce it here:

John Edwards
is genuine, caring

During the first half of this year, I was privileged to work with Sen. John Edwards, traveling throughout the United States as he and his wife, Elizabeth, began this campaign for the White House. I have spent hours in cars and on planes with him. I have witnessed him in front of crowds and behind closed doors. And I can tell you without reservation that Brad Warthen misjudged him and painted an inaccurate picture of him in his column Tuesday (“Why I see John Edwards as a big phony”).
    John and Elizabeth Edwards are two of the most caring and genuine people I have met in public life, and they have made it their life’s mission to improve the lives of people like so many of those in rural Lee County, where I grew up, and all across South Carolina and the country.
    While Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are seizing the limelight, John Edwards is seizing the hearts and minds of the people of this country who have been forgotten: those in poverty, without adequate heath care, without good jobs, without hope. Our nation would be blessed to have him in the White House.

ZEKE STOKES
Columbia

I wrote my column to explain the subjective impression I had formed of John Edwards from my experience, and it was what it was. Zeke — who is a good, trustworthy young man of respect, an up-and-comer in Democratic campaign circles who helped guide Jim Rex to victory last year — formed an entirely different perspective.

I urge you to pay every bit as much attention to his opinion as to mine. That’s why we have letters to the editor — to foster productive dialogue, from which we can all learn.

He doesn’t change my mind about my experiences, but he does give me another perspective to think about. And that’s the point of it all.

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

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

Touchy Catholics

Confession

W
e generally don’t run letters from non-readers, from out-of-state, or from professional advocates. But if any of the above is outweighed by good reasons to run it, any or all can be overcome. This is intentional. I think it’s stupid to have a rule that "we will never" run a letter that has this or that characteristic. You can end up poorly serving readers.

So sometimes the colleague who sifts through letter submissions asks me about one that has two or even three strikes against it. That happened today, with this one:

Do we want to consider this as a letter to the editor?

—–Original Message—–
From: Ken Foye [mailto:dn@catholicleague.org]
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2007 3:51 PM
To: StateEditor, Columbia
Subject: Robert Ariail cartoon June 19

Dear Editor,
Criticizing the Catholic Church in the wake of the recent sex-abuse settlement in Los Angeles is fair game. But associating the sacrament of reconciliation with this sordid scandal, as Robert Ariail did in his July 19 cartoon, is out of bounds.

This sacrament is a key element of our faith, administered by a group of fine men whose rate of sexual abuse of minors is no higher than that of the general population. There are legitimate ways to object to the Church’s handling of sexual misconduct by priests, but demeaning and trivializing one of our sacraments is not one of them.

Ken Foye
Senior Editor
Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights
450 Seventh Ave.
New York, NY  10123

The answer for me was pretty easy:

No.

But I could say more. The person double-checking with me is Catholic, as am I. I haven’t asked why she asked, but I know why I would have: The tendency with me would be to want to ditch such a letter, so I would want somebody to back me up on the fact there it was out of bounds on the basis of several objective criteria. In other words, when there’s a letter you don’t like, and you know you don’t like it on personal grounds, and you know you could bend over backwards and run it if you really wanted to stretch the boundaries, do you make yourself go through those gymnastics, or just do the normal thing and ditch it?

This is what it’s really like in this world. I know all you cynics out there think it’s just the opposite of that, that we twist and manipulate things to advance personal agendas, yadda-yadda. But the truth is that we are so obsessive about avoiding even the appearance of doing that that we often hesitate to make the simplest, most open-and-shut decisions. And of course, no one can obsess like a Catholic.

It helps to pretend to be someone who doesn’t have a conflict or the appearance of a conflict, and act accordingly. And move on, because you have lots of tougher decisions to make today… In this case, it’s fairly easy for me to pretend I’m a Protestant editor, because once upon a time I was a Protestant editor. And that Protestant editor says, "Aw, come on. Talk about your oversensitive mackerel-snappers. If this were one of our readers, that’s one thing. But this professional complainer? Are you kidding me?"

But since I’m no longer a Protestant editor (and haven’t been for about 26 years), there’s an emotional response I have to set aside:  As a Catholic, this people who go around looking to be offended as Catholics really gripe me. I don’t feel like a member of an aggrieved group, and I think the Catholics who do — especially when they form associations that exist just to gripe about being aggrieved — are a pain. They give me the dry gripes. To start with, I’ve got that sort of general White Guy sense of discomfort with the whole Identity Politics thing to start with; I certainly don’t want anybody being all whiny on behalf of any group I belong to, or am perceived as belonging to.

But never mind that. This letter does not offer reasons to run it that make it worth ditching a perfectly in-bounds letter from an actual reader expressing his actual opinion that he’s not paid to have. And that’s the choice for us. We can’t run them all, so we have guidelines to give a leg up to our actual readers.

So I ditch the one from the guy who says I ran a cartoon that mocks the sacrament (which I don’t think it does). My question is, do I have to go to confession about this? Or does this post count? As a convert, I’m still not clear on a lot of stuff like that.

Being for the benefit of Mr. Burbage

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.

Here’s how we fail to understand each other

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.)

You mean the insurance industry is AGAINST it?

Check out the letters to the editor today and be edified.

It seems that a guy who speaks for the insurance industry doesn’t like our own Paul DeMarco’s idea for a single-payer health-care system. Well, that settles that. If the middlemen, who would be completely eliminated along with all their lovely profits, think it’s a bad idea, why on Earth should anybody listen to a mere physician such as Paul?

Anyway, for y’all who are too lazy to click, here’s the letter:

Government monopoly won’t help health care
    Guest columnist Paul DeMarco (“Really fixing U.S. health care,” June 5) argued that single-payer health care should be implemented in America.
    Although Americans are clamoring for health care reform, this is one proposed solution that should be taken off the table.
    Under a single-payer system, the government could hold a monopoly over health care coverage, offering only one insurance plan option. If the government decided to reduce funding or deny coverage for medical technologies or procedures, Americans would either have to forgo potentially life-saving procedures or finance them out-of-pocket.
    Under the current system, if people are dissatisfied with their plan, they can simply switch insurance carriers.
    Any possible savings from a single-payer system would be quickly eaten up by increased use, and bureaucratic inefficiencies would replace functioning free-market systems. The result would be an overburdened, underfunded system that is more cumbersome to navigate than the current one.
    We should seek alternatives to a single-payer system to ensure health care for all.

ED BYRD
President
S.C. Association of Health Underwriters
Columbia

I was interested in how he brushed over the "any possible savings" part. Savings, of course, would be inevitable, because you would eliminate the third-party profits. Whether that were "quickly eaten up" in the way he suggests or some other way is certainly possible, but not inevitable.

Making friends, of a sort

I received this missive today, and while it’s hardly a welcome development to have someone turn his back on you, he did it in a civil way:

Mr. Warthen,
       This will be my last note to your newspaper. We’re not getting anywhere so I will bow out.
       I do thank you for communicating . . . . That is more than some newspaper folk do and even if we disagree, that’s our right, OK?

Thanks,
Irvin Shuler

I was just about to write back and say, sure, that’s cool; different strokes and all that … when I decided, just on a whim, to see what this correspondent had most recently had to say to me. I found that among my yet-unread e-mail was one he sent yesterday:

Why would "you" not want to talk about those n_____s brought across the
Atlantic by the damn yankee, money gruggers?    Were they "your" ancestors
and just how much did YOUR family make off of us?????? AGAIN ?????
Please,
Mr. Warthen……just get the hell out of our state….yes, b___h, leave this
state and
YOUR
State Paper should be forgotten.
Remember……there was a "State Paper"
editor once that pushed a little too far and
got…..well….just what he
deserved.     He spoke against Southern Folk and got just what he
deserved.    He was killed………thank goodness !!!!

Irvin
Shuler……………..NEVER ANOTHER APPOMATTOX   !!!!!

You will now, no doubt, remember this gentleman from previous correspondence.

At least, as we parted, he was in a better mood. That’s something.

The machine broke?

Reading a letter on tomorrow’s page on the subject, I was struck again at how often Andre Bauer does something that would draw all sorts of criticism and/or derision were anyone else to do it, but we generally don’t remark on it around here. There’s too much else out there to write about.

When we DO clear our throats to say something, of course, we are immediately subjected to howls from the Andre lobby about how we’re ALWAYS criticizing him, and why don’t we EVER write about anything else, and other easily controvertible assertions.

This has a chilling effect, so that we tend to give him one or two extra missteps before the next one we comment on? Why do we let that happen? Because Andre is the lieutenant governor, and the lieutenant governor is not a very important figure, so one can give him slack without neglecting one’s duty — at least, when there are plenty of important things to write about. Sure, it’s embarrassing for people to know this is our lieutenant governor (a title that sounds important, anyway), but in the scheme of things…

Since we’re not having elections right now, it’s not all that important to the state of South Carolina whether Andre screwed the pooch as a pilot, or the machine just broke. But this lawsuit is at least worth a raised eyebrow, is it not? I say that on the same day I read about this interesting case, and I am reminded of it.

So, any opinions out there among the brethren on the higher and lower steps of the pyramid? John Glenn? Chuck Yeager? Wrong-Way Corrigan? Anybody?

Nosy questions

Got this e-mail today from a nosy reader:

Please inform readers on the following:
a. How many members of "The State’s" editorial staff have children in elementary and H.S.?  Include in that count the publisher and editor-in-chief.
b. How  many of those children are in private schools?
c. How many of those children are in public schools?
d. How many of the public schools in which the staff’s children are enrolled are graded "unsatisfactory" by PACT or "No Child Left Behind" standards?

Thank you.

John Johnson
Winnsboro

Now why do I get the feeling that this is a challenge of some sort? Anyway, I replied as follows:

    I’m the only editor in editorial with a school-age child, and not for long, as she graduates next week. She will be my fifth child to graduate from public schools. Two of my colleagues have children who haven’t started school yet.
    The publisher has a teenaged stepson. I don’t know where he goes to school.
    We don’t have an editor-in-chief. I’m over editorial; another guy is over the newsroom. Totally separate arrangement.
    As for "D," none. Most of my kids graduated before those grades started, but they all went to Brookland-Cayce. So whatever that’s rated.
    Why do you ask?

What I did not mention, because it seemed irrelevant to what he seemed to be driving at, is that my youngest is graduating from a public high school in another state, which is a long story. It’s actually her third high school; she takes after her Dad in that regard (mine were in South Carolina, Florida and Hawaii). She also attended B-C, and the Governor’s School for the Arts in Greenville. She’s out of state further pursuing the art that took her to Greenville.

My other four went exclusively to Brookland-Cayce, and graduated from there. Go, Bearcats.

Poor Betty

One of the great benefits of reading this blog is that you sometimes get little glimpses into really choice stuff coming up on the editorial page, such as this letter on tomorrow’s page, which I hereby quote in its entirety:

    Get off Elizabeth Mabry’s back! She deserves a retirement party as much as anyone. The money collected is for the cost of the party. I had one when I retired, and a fee was charged.
    What’s the big deal?

Anybody want to tell this gentleman what the big deal is?

What gentleman, you ask? Well, for that, you’ll have to read the paper. One thing I won’t use this blog for is to hold people up to ridicule for writing letters to the editor. At least, not personal, specific, individual ridicule.

Although that one really is a corker.

Let’s see — she took full advantage of the unaccountable commission system to run her own little queendom over at what we euphemistically call the "state" Department of Transportation, and resigned last year in disgrace over such trifles as having deceived the Legislature to the tune of millions of dollars.

Then the Budget and Control Board "spent $40,074.57 to buy the remaining service time Mabry needed to be eligible for full retirement benefits," which I think means that we taxpayers spent over 40 grand for the privilege of pretending that she’s worked more time than she has, so that we might have the further privilege of sending her pension checks for the rest of her life. I’m not smart about money matters, but I think that’s right.

Then lawmakers who had defended her strenuously and said any reports of less-than-admirable conduct at DOT was purely a matter of that scoundrel the governor trumping up nonsense changed their tune to: She’s gone now, so that solves the problem, we don’t have to reform the agency.

Then … oh, I don’t even want to go again into all the machinations that have occurred in the House and Senate to try to protect the status quo, except to point out this quote from Sen. John Land in today’s paper:

    "This Senate would rue the day that you turn that billion-dollar agency
over to one person, and that’s what this bill does. It would be
terrible for South Carolina."

Mind you, he was reacting to a lame compromise that would keep the commission — which, with its multiple members provides multiples of multiple ways for powerful people to reach in and influence the agency’s running without leaving fingerprints — but give the governor the ability to get rid of members who really get out of hand a way that it can’t be missed. It most assuredly does not do what any sane state would do, which is put the elected chief executive in charge of this huge, expensive executive agency, so that voters can hold somebody responsible to some extent.

We wouldn’t want to put anybody in charge, oh no. Things are much better without that — better for Sen. Land and his peers, that is.

That’s all I can stand on this subject for today. By the way, here’s a copy of the invitation to Ms. Mabry’s party, in case you didn’t get one. I didn’t get one either. I guess that‘ll teach me to stay off that poor woman’s back. (And remember, folks, that RSVP address is celebratemabry@gmail.com.)

Here’s the bottom line: I don’t care about that. Throw her a party. Build her a palace, as long as you do it with your own money. May she live 1,000 years of pure ecstasy, day after day, while the rest of us and our descendants work for our livings.

What I care about is that we fix the problem with the way we run this agency — and plenty of other state agencies, this is just the mess we’re focused on at the moment. And that — fixing it — continues to seem highly unlikely.

Why don’t these guys just leave a comment?

Just to put it where it should be — on the blog — I share this bit of fan e-mail:

 
Mr. Warthen
 
First, I suggest you seek
professional help and get your Nazi fetish fixed. Listening to you whine about
how you are so pi**ed off because you weren’t born in time to go fight them
makes me want to gag. http://blogs.thestate.com/bradwarthensblog/2007/04/column_on_the_n.html
 
The WWII generation accomplished the
defeat of the Nazis without the likes of you – in short, they didn’t need you
and they probably wouldn’t have wanted you either. You, running around the
Nazi’s demonstration, snapping photos, etc, gave them exactly what they were
looking for – ATTENTION! Congratulations on helping them achieve their own
version of “15 minutes of fame”.
 
Second – if you are implying, and I
believe, like many others of your ilk, you are, that the Confederacy was
anything like Nazi Germany, then use your pen and superior historical intellect
to explain EXACLTY how this is so. If you can’t, (and I know you can’t), then
shut up, because, from where I sit, a country which tells its opponent and the
world, “All we want is to be left alone”, is a far cry from one which sends its
armies across its borders and steamrolls over anyone who gets in their way. Oh,
by the way, in looking at the photos of the Nazis demonstrating, I do see a
confederate flag. But, I also see at least one 50-star
U.S. flag.
 
Third – in reading one of your other
blog entries, I see you once again lambasted the SCV because they issued a press
release condemning the Nazi’s use of the Confederate flag.
Of course, had the SCV remained
silent, you would have condemned them for doing so anyway. I guess it’s a case
of “damned if you do and damned if you don’t”, right? I think it’s quite clear
from all your ranting that you simply want them and others like them to sit
down, shut up or go away.
 
But I had to laugh when you got so
upset about the guy who said he’d like to see you stuck in prison with those
whom you seek to ingratiate. http://blogs.thestate.com/bradwarthensblog/2007/04/confederate_fla.html
 
Your “Oh I’m so offended” attitude,
coupled with your moaning about the lack of civility on your blog and in the
world in general, were hysterical. I have seen and heard many Confederate flag
critics, but I have to say, you are one of the most over-the-top, intolerant
people I’ve ever encountered. Your intolerance of those who don’t share your
opinion, coupled with your reaction to how other people treat you, remind me of
the schoolyard bully who just got popped in the nose and is now whining and
crying about getting picked on. Face it, you reap what you sow.
 
Fourth: Stop yapping about how the
flag “offends”. There is no law anywhere which states that someone else’s
history must be hidden in order to assuage the feelings of others. If you know
where such a thing is written, please point it out. And in case you haven’t
noticed, blacks have made the South their location of choice since the end of
the war, and left to their own devices, will, more often than not, get along
just fine with their fellow Southern white brethren. http://www.petersburgexpress.com/Pocahontas.html
 
Having read a lot of history from
original sources as well as books, I’m going to give you a history lesson on the
very subject you brought up. The Lt. Colonel was quite right, as are all the
others who write to you to tell you that you don’t know squat about history, and
that applies doubly to the issue of black support of the Confederacy. Note, I
did not say “black soldiers”, because in the technical sense at least, there
were few of those. However, if you’d like to read the stories of a couple of
them, then have a look:
 
 
 
Most so-called “black Confederates”
were in support roles, the most frequent of these roles being the body servant.
While not officially mustered in as soldiers, their roles were often blurred,
and their history is dotted with acts of heroism, and sometimes even combat. To
my knowledge, I have yet to hear of an instance of a white confederate soldier
complaining about a body servant going into combat.
 
You dare compare these men to Poles
serving in the German army? You’re not fit to shine their boots Mr. Warthog. And
unlike the Poles in the German army, these men had something to say about their
war experiences, many of them speaking of their experiences in a positive
way:
 
 
And in the post war period, when the
Confederate veterans had their reunions, these black men were always welcomed by
their white comrades:
 
 
I know it’s convenient for you and
others of your ilk to believe that the slaves waited patiently for their blue
clad liberators, but the fact of the matter is, if you read the words of many
slaves themselves, you’ll find that this was not always so. Irregardless of your
inability to see the world of the 1860s within the context of its time (and not
your time), the words of the slaves are in print for anyone to read. All you
have to do is spend 9 months reading “The Slave Narratives” : http://www.georgiaheritagecouncil.org/site2/commentary/vallante-black-history-month11.phtml
 
 
And: http://www.georgiaheritagecouncil.org/site2/commentary/vallante-black-history-month13.phtml
– This is one story you definitely should read, especially since you are a
Southerner who had several ancestors in the conflict and since you seem so
intent on selling them down the river in front of the world, essentially, I
think, to try and prove what an enlightened guy you are. You could learn a lot
from this man!
 
Some “black Confederates” were as
over the top as their white Southern comrades:
 
Others were simply doing the best
they could in this life:
 
No, they were nothing like the Slavs
who served in the German army. I know that thought makes it easy for you to
dismiss them, but it simply isn’t so. Most Southerners, black as well as white,
have always had a strong love of home and family. Life may not have been
perfect, but the people you know are often times more reliable than the people
you don’t know, and the Union army was not always on its best behavior,
especially when it came to Southern blacks. Plenty of motivation here for a
slave to take the Southern side, I’d say:
 
 
 
 
 
Or how about this – from the history
of your own state?
 
“We have been told of successful
outrages of this unmentionable character being practiced upon women dwelling in
the suburbs. Many are understood to have taken place in remote country
settlements and two cases are described where young negresses were brutally
forced by the wretches and afterwards murdered – one of them being thrust, when
half dead, head down, into a mud puddle, and there held until she was
suffocated. But this must suffice. The shocking details should not now be made,
but that we need, for the sake of truth and humanity, to put on record, in the
fullest types and columns, the horrid deeds of these marauders upon all that is
pure and precisions – all that is sweet and innocent – all that is good, gentle,
gracious, dear and enobling – within the regards of white and Christian
civilization. And yet we should grossly err if, while showing forbearance of the
Yankees in respect to our white women, we should convey to any innocent reader
the notion that they exhibited a like forbearance in the case of the black. The
poor negroes were terribly victimized by their brutal assailants, many of them,
besides the instance mentioned, being left in a condition little short of death.
Regiments, in successive relays, subjected scores of these poor women to the
torture of their embraces, and – but we dare not farther pursue the subject – it
is one of such loathing and horror. There are some horrors which the historian
dare not pursue – which the painter dare not delineate. They both drop the
curtain over crimes which humanity bleeds to contemplate.”

“A City Laid Waste”, William Gilmore
Simms, Page 90
 
I really don’t expect to change you
or enlighten you. If this history lesson sticks a pin in your inflated ego, or
makes you pout, then I’d consider my job done.
 
And just for the record – I see a
couple of posts about the flag being raised on the State House in order to defy
Federal integration mandates. I’ve also heard this argument in other places,
Georgia for one, and I don’t buy it. You see, I’m old enough to remember the
Civil Rights demonstrations and resistance to federally mandated integration. I
remember Southern politicians PUBLICLY and LOUDLY speaking out against Federal
attempts to enforce integration. NO ONE WAS SHY about speaking out when it came
to these matters. Those were different times. No one was afraid to speak out for
fear of ostracism. There was NO need to indulge in hidden signals or code words
or surreptitious “flag-raising”, done with a wink of the eye. And I don’t
remember one Southern politician from any state saying that they would raise the
Confederate flag on any state house anywhere in order to protest any Federal
integration laws. Go ahead, look through the records. See if you can find a
quote of one Southern politician saying that this was so. You won’t find any.
 

Commack, NY

SCV Camp 3000
(Associate)
SCV Camp 1506
(Associate)

Now I’m getting lectured by "Confederates" from NY. It’s a weird world. And the one those guys live is in even weirder.

How much time do you suppose he spent on that? And WHY? I include this only because — while I personally only care about what South Carolinians think about the flag, since we’re the ones who have to decide what to do with it — I get an inordinate number of these, and they constitute part of the strangeness of this whole debate. Wannabe Confederates in Georgia, Florida, New York. It’s wild.

I get lectured on history … again

One of the most tiresome traits of those who defend the absurd practice of flying the Confederate flag at our State House is their smug belief that THEY are great students of history, and the rest of us are — among our many faults — ignorant.

Here’s an e-mail I got over the weekend:

Subject: Sterotyping and Logic Fallacies

    Dear Mr. Warthen,

I have taught secondary school, undergraduate, and graduate history for a number of years. I frequently encounter those who refuse to respect Southerners’ heritage due to bigotry and stereotyping.  Here’s a couple of photos I hope might show that stereotyping is wrong. The Kansas City Star newspaper ran a short column last week on a program I give around the country on black Confederate soldiers. The Battle Flag belongs to them as well.  Over-generalizing is a logic fallacy. The Battle Flag’s meaning isn’t defined by a minority of racists any more than they can define the meaning of our U.S. flag that they use.

    Regards,
    Ed Kennedy
    LtCol, US Army (ret)

Thank you for your service to your country, colonel. But I can’t resist sharing these thoughts with you:

    To enlarge
your perspective, you should probably do a little research on the Wehrmacht’s
Ost battalions
. There were likely  more Poles and other Eastern Europeans in the
German Army than there were blacks in the Confederate — that doesn’t mean the
Nazis didn’t want to enslave (or kill) Slavs, or that they didn’t regard them as
subhuman
.
 
    You might
also want to study up on the Stockholm Syndrome.
 
    When you
think about it, black soldiers in the Confederate army is hardly a more
surprising phenomenon than poor whites, who made up the vast majority of the
army. Both were dupes of the ruling class. Anyone who fought to support the
cause of secession who did NOT own slaves was a person risking his life for a
cause that was not his own, no matter what delusions he may have carried into
battle.
 
 
    … And it’s
spelled "stereotyping."