Media Notes Archive   |   Live Q&As   |   RSS Feeds RSS   |  E-mail Kurtz  |  Style Section
Page 4 of 5   <       >

Could Murdoch Be The Man?

Discussion Policy
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.

At Real Clear Politics, Tom Bevan scratches his head over Edwards's latest move:

"This makes no sense. In an interview with the Associated Press earlier this week, John Edwards declined to reveal how much he was paid by the hedge fund Fortress Investments for a one year consulting contract. But Edwards also told the AP that 'the amount will be revealed when he releases his financial disclosure forms due May 15.'

"In Chicago on Wednesday, Edwards brushed off another question about how much he was paid by Fortress, saying that we'd learn about it in a 'few weeks' via the 'normal' disclosure process.

"This is one of those situations where the candidate's handling of an issue becomes the issue itself. Even if the amount of the contract is insanely high - which I'm sure it is - if Edwards is going to disclose the number in the next couple of weeks, what justification does he have for making the public wait to get that information?

"From a strategic standpoint, Edwards is just kicking the bad publicity can down the road a bit. In the meantime, he's leaving the impression that he's not particularly interested in being upfront with either the press or the public. That's a mistake."

Not a mistake that Mitt Romney's folks made by leaking word that his disclosure would show him to be worth more than $200 million.

Power Line's Paul Mirengoff sees a troubling trend for Obama:

"Barack Obama is really scuffling, as baseball players used to say when they went into a tailspin . . . He got the death count in the Kansas tornado wrong by 9,988 people. Now, Jim Geraghty reports that Obama botched his facts in a speech criticizing the U.S. auto industry for 'investing in bigger and faster cars while foreign competitors invested in more fuel-efficient technology.' Obama stated that 'while our fuel standards haven't moved from 27.5 miles per gallon in two decades, both China and Japan have surpassed us, with Japanese cars now getting an average of 45 miles to the gallon.' But Toyota, which should know, has responded that 'No carmaker gets 45 m.p.g; ours is closer to 30 m.p.g.'

"Any candidate can make a mistake or two, but the most recent one in particular suggests that Obama may lack the staff support he needs to compete with the Hillary Clinton machine."

Romney was on "60 Minutes" last night and had to say how he thinks polygamy, once sanctioned by his church, is a really, really bad idea. But his religion remains a big problem, says the New Republic's Michelle Cottle:

"One prominent activist graciously took time out from burning an effigy of Rudy What's-the-Big-Deal-About-Roe? Giuliani to share this tidbit: 'I asked a friend of mine who's a pastor in Middle America, "You have a choice between two candidates: Hillary Clinton versus someone who is good on social issues and who is a Mormon." And my friend said, 'I don't think I could vote for a Mormon.'

"Think about that: A social conservative is given the choice between a Mormon and Hillary Clinton--the modern personification of Evil for GOP wingers--and he can't make up his mind? This does not bode well for Mitt's fortunes in the Heartland.


<             4        >


© 2007 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive