Scraping the Barrel

Republicans go after John Edwards. But is this really the best they could do?

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


Say this for the Bush campaign – its attack dogs did their homework. They just didn’t do it terribly well.

In anticipation of John Kerry’s big announcement Tuesday, the GOP purchased the web address www.kerrypicksedwards.com (plus similar ones for Gephardt and Vilsack) and was ready to launch its opposition research as soon as Kerry made the pick official. The result is a nearly 30-page document called “Who is John Edwards?” (Answer: “a disingenuous, unaccomplished liberal and friend to personal injury trial lawyers.”) The Republicans proceed to attack the North Carolina senator on everything from his having served just one term in office to his inability to name the type of truck he has.

Besides pointing out obvious disagreements over policy, the “research” includes a scattershot list of unrelated and often bizarre criticisms, many taking small portions of news reports grossly out of context. Take this example, designed to paint Edwards as a dabbling latecomer to politics:

“Neither was [Edwards] active in politics for the first 44 years of his life, except for the occasional donation to a Democratic candidate. He never ran for office or worked on a campaign. Indeed, before he burst onto the political scene in 1998, he did not even vote in several local elections, because, he says, he was too busy with his legal work.”

But the January New York Times piece where that quote appears goes on to explain how “that all changed” with the 1996 death of Edwards’ 16-year-old son Wade:

“Mr. Edwards emerged from seclusion to throw himself into politics and public life with a vengeance. Although he had toyed with running for office since the early 1990s, several family friends said, Wade’s death pushed him into the public fray. He tried only two more cases.”

The Republicans use a similar approach to Edwards’ voting record, pointing to a 1998 Charlotte Observer article (story not online) that found:

“[Edwards] failed to vote in half the elections he could have over the past seven years. One of seven Democrats in the May 5 primary, Edwards voted in nine of 18 elections since 1991, according to Wake County voting records.”

The very next sentence explains these were mostly local elections, and quotes Edwards acknowledging that he usually voted in “major and primary” elections. But considering Dick Cheney’s well publicized track record of skipping elections – including the 2000 primary – this might not be a wise route for the Bush campaign to go down.

So too with the GOP charge that “Edwards’ presidential campaign has received $2,500 from oil and gas company employees.” Not only is $2,500 a drop in the proverbial bucket when it comes to campaign finance, but do Bush and Cheney of all people want to get into contributions from oil companies?

One of the strangest bits of research is a
quote from Bill Clinton
(whose judgment the GOP seemingly now endorses) about Edwards’ campaign:

“As Clinton said, according to a transcript on the Atlantic Web site, ‘I told him: John, you’re great on TV. You make a great talk. You can talk an owl out of a tree. But my opinion is, presidential elections are won by the strength of the candidate, and having a network of support, and then by the mega message, having the big message.’ In other words, Edwards looked and sounded good — but there wasn’t much substance behind his words and image.”

Of course, the site leaves out the fact that the article was from March 2003. So Clinton was speaking about Edwards in the embryonic stage of the campaign – before Al Gore decided whether to run, before Howard Dean was a household name and well before Edwards began using the “two Americas” stump speech that provided a textbook case of “mega message.”

But the most bizarre section of opposition research is that entitled “Edwards is Phony and Disingenuous,” which uses a random assortment of innocuous facts to imply Edwards is somehow less than authentically Southern:

“Beverly Hills, 90210, Was The Ninth Ranked Zip Code Contributor To Edwards’ Presidential Campaign, Totaling Over $68,000 In Contributions.”

“Dennis Hopper Hosted A Fundraiser For Edwards”

“Edwards Hasn’t Hunted Or Fished ‘In Years.’”

“Edwards Doesn’t Follow Weekly NASCAR Races, Adds He ‘Doesn’t Follow Anything Except Politicking.’”

Considering the GOP had ample time to look into Edwards’ past and compile a range of frivolous criticism, his selection probably bodes well for the Kerry camp. If this is the best Republicans can come up with, Edwards is already proving a formidable opponent.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate