Rosen, like Limbaugh, suggested Edwards held press conference about wife's cancer to promote campaign
Summary: During his March 22 Newsradio 850 KOA broadcast, Mike Rosen insinuated that Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards had called a press conference to announce his wife's cancer had returned in order to "draw national attention to his campaign." Rosen's comments were similar to those of conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh, who suggested Edwards' camp had manipulated the media to "jump-start the campaign."
On March 22, Newsradio 850 KOA host Mike Rosen suggested that Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards was exploiting his wife's recurrence of cancer, and that a press conference to discuss Elizabeth Edwards' health was an effort to "draw national attention to his campaign." Rosen's remarks were similar to the comments of nationally syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh, who, as Media Matters for America noted, suggested that Edwards' camp "leak[ed]" false information about his possibly suspending his bid in order "to jump-start the campaign."
During a March 22 press conference, former U.S. Sen. Edwards (NC) announced that his wife had been told that she has Stage IV metastatic breast cancer, but that he would continue his presidential campaign. Following Edwards' announcement, Rosen asked, "So, why did John Edwards call a press conference?" He later stated:
Keep in mind, he's a politician. Politicians do things with at least one eye if not both on the political ramifications of it. He enlists some sympathy for his wife, and by association for himself. That's understanding -- understandable, as well. And, of course, he gets to call a press conference and draw national attention to his campaign. And during the course of that press conference he gets to say some things about how dedicated he is to serving the American public and presenting his agenda.
Rosen's remark that Edwards was able to "draw national attention" to his campaign was similar to comments Limbaugh made later the same day on his broadcast. Referring to Edwards' press conference, Limbaugh claimed, "I'm telling you, this is to jump-start the [Edwards] campaign. This is to see if it'll jump-start the campaign. And we'll find out the next three or four days or whatever, week, if that happens."
From the March 22 broadcast of Newsradio 850 KOA's The Mike Rosen Show:
ROSEN: For the most part, Elizabeth has been answering questions about the nature of her illness and how she's dealing with it. So, why did John Edwards call a press conference? There are some who had speculated that maybe his wife's condition was so serious that he'd had to -- he'd have to withdraw from the race. We obviously now know that that's not the case. And in his opening remarks, I thought Edwards made it pretty clear that his wife's condition is not immediately life-threatening. He had earlier said, some time ago, that she was cancer free. Now it's back. So, some explanation, I think, was in order. He talked about the nature of her cancer and how it's treatable. And people are certainly sympathetic for Elizabeth, Elizabeth Edwards. As a political matter, her cancer is of some interest. It would be of much greater interest politically if the candidate were revealed to have cancer -- obviously that's not the case here.
And I, I think that John Edwards' purpose was manifold here. On the one part, he wanted to make it clear that his wife's condition wasn't so serious that by continuing to run -- and he didn't say anything about backing off on the campaign -- he wasn't being indifferent to her condition. He wasn't placing his political ambitions ahead of his, his wife's health and safety. So, he's now explained that she's on medication, and that she's under treatment, and that they can deal with it, such that he doesn't have to back off on his efforts to gain the Democratic nomination for president. In addition to that, he presents himself before the American public as a loving, concerned, caring husband; that won't hurt him at all. Keep in mind, he's a politician. Politicians do things with at least one eye if not both on the political ramifications of it. He enlists some sympathy for his wife, and by association for himself. That's understanding -- understandable, as well. And, of course, he gets to call a press conference and draw national attention to his campaign. And during the course of that press conference he gets to say some things about how dedicated he is to serving the American public and presenting his agenda. So there you have it. John Edwards is not withdrawing from the race and he's not going to back off on his campaign activities.
—C.H.
to listen to this audio clip
Comments (12) Show
1 - 12 |
rosey michelle and drugbaugh share many of the same shamefull traits. self loathing is obvious. that they are both on the same american enterprise institute gravy train is another. every morning hundreds of these cowardly little sycophants get their faxes from the CONserve think tanks and flood the airwaves with the same co-ordinated messages. it doesn't matter to them that they are being directed to misinform the very people they are supposedly looking out for. the money, perks and strokes from the repubics they represent counterbalances any shred of decency they should but don't have.
As spokesmen for the Republican Party, Rosen and Limbaugh have exposed it and themselves as being interested in only one thing: using whatever situation arises, no matter the actual consequences in real life, to further the agenda they support. Rosen and Limbaugh see Edwards as using the cancer growing in his own wife as a means to garner support for his "selfish" political aims. No expressions of sympathy for the (possibly fatal) ordeal that the Edwards' face. Just cold calculating speculation about Edwards' possible lack of sincerity in calling a press conference to inform the public of the status of his wife's health. Why is this? Perhaps it is because Rosen and Limbaugh lack the fundamental human qualities of empathy, sympathy and emotional attachment to others, which are qualities that should cut across the petty antagonisms of politics and partisanship. Unfortunately, I guess that's a little too much to ask of right-wing talk radio ranters.
I so wish people would leave personal insults out of these posts...
Sorry boys. Your arguements, along with this website's "article," do not hold water. What was the LEAD story on EVERY mainstream TV newscast, both local and national, on Thursday evening? "Mrs. Edwards has cancer, but her husband's presidental campaign goes on." The Edwards campaign didn't have to hold a press conference to announce anything, but what was the result? Every media outlet in the country gives the campaign more free publicity than they could have ever paid for. All calmly calculated by the campaign to get the exact result we all got.
Rosen simply stated the perfectly obvious. How you guys, or anyone else, could register (GASP!) SHOCK at what a presidental canidate's press conference produced by way of the media is silly. Rosen stated it best: "Politicians do things with at least one eye, if not both, on the political ramifications of it..." If this comes as a "surprise" to you. May I recommend a double jolt next time you wake up in the morning so you can see the real world for what it is.
LB: Empathy, sympathy and emotional attatchments are not the overriding qualities we need in a leader of government, either locally or at the federal level. Making major policy decisions that concern your own life or in the political power you are able to wield over others using emotion is always a bad idea. Always.
Spongy,
yet again you display your stunningly obtuse ability to completely miss the point of this item and my comment. You misunderstand my statements and misquote me while doing so. And of course, you claim that I have hurled insults when discussing the insulting behavior of a commentator whose statements are highlighted by this site. Nothing surprising so far -- the standard Spongebob modus operandi: ignore the substance of the post, wring your hands at the multitude of 'insults' you claim are hurled in the commentary, and then (a little faux-wearily) go about the thankless task of imparting your sober-eyed wisdom to the gritty realities of political discourse. It's wearing a little thin.
You say: I so wish people would leave personal insults out of these posts... I agree one hundred percent. That's why Rosen is rightly called out by Colorado MM. Rosen's very statements are an insult to Edwards and his wife. Granted it's a veiled insult, but it's there. So, for your edification Mr. "Real World," allow me to explain:
Obviously, when the spouse of a Presidential contender is diagnosed with cancer during the closely watched early stages of a campaign, it will be big news, and reported widely throughout the media. Rosen, Limbaugh, and from what I gather, you, seem to be saying "Well, because this was front page news, Edwards conducting a press conference is not only unnecessary, but a cynical ploy to use this "opportunity" as a nakedly self-serving publicity moment.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm guessing that neither Rosen, nor LImbaugh, nor yourself have been in the position that Edwards now finds himself in. I sure know that I haven't. What should Edwards have done? That's not for us to judge. Should he have remained silent? Should he abandon the campaign? My guess is that he loves his wife and that the decision to continue his campaign as well as hold a press conference to make public the details of her illness was made in consultation between them. To immediately assume that Edwards would use the onset of a possibly terminal illness to his spouse as a method of stoking the publicity machine strikes me as denying Edwards' humanity as well as displaying a lack of humanity in one's self for all to see.
As far as your laughable lecture where you intone that: Empathy, sympathy and emotional attatchments are not the overriding qualities we need in a leader of government, either locally or at the federal level. Making major policy decisions that concern your own life or in the political power you are able to wield over others using emotion is always a bad idea. Always. To this I say firstly, I never claimed that I was in favor of a government leader whose "overriding quality(s) were sympathy, empathy and emotional attachments." Check my post. I never said that. I certainly don't want a leader who bases his or her decisions on the latest emotional impulse. Please... it's idiotic. Secondly, we already have a President who does exactly what you say shouldn't be done. From the very beginning, the Bush Administration has cynically and enthusiastically promoted, promulgated and exploited the emotion of fear to advance its horrible failure of an agenda. That's pretty much common knowledge. That's the 'real'world, Spongebob. What would you call it... sunshine and daisies? Go back to the Central Scrutinizer for more programming. We'll take it from here.
LB: I wasn't refering to you regarding personal insults. They were put forward in the first post and not by you. My apologies for not being more clear. Indeed, I find your arguments thoughtful and worthy of response, unlike some here who spew forth so much non-relevant diarrhea...
Veiled insult: Give me an example, at anytime in history, of a politician who HOLDS A PRESS CONFERENCE for non-political gains or expects no political ramifications. Do you honestly believe Edwards thought the outcome of his event would result in NO coverage or speculation regarding his presidential run?! If you do, I recommend you seek professional help. Rosen's observation is simple fact. If it's an "insult" to simply make it, then Mrs. Edwards is currently the MOST insulted person on the planet. It's an observation! Insulting? No. The natural result of a presidential candidate's press conference? Yes! If you're insulted, go ahead and be insulted. Not my problem.
Position the Edwards are in: My answer is yes, but nobody in my family is running for President and if they were, I sure as hell wouldn't call a press conference! Maybe I'd issue a press RELEASE and make it clear that the issue wouldn't be open for discussion... Especially if my loved one's condition was non-life threatening! Not sure how those actions could be intrepreted at "denying humanity."
I'm reminded of Laura Bush, who had the most minor "surgery" imaginable done on her leg, and ended up being peppered by the left and the mainstream for NOT notifying the press! "I'm a private person," I recall her saying. She's not required to release medical results, unlike the President, and so she didn't. Suggesting otherwise is a far worse insult than anything directed at Mrs. Edwards by Mike Rosen.
Emotion in leadership: I stand corrected regarding your assigning it to political leadership. Not sure how I reached that conclusion. Looks like we might agree on the overall point, but not so much on it's use in the current administration. (But that's another post.)
This just in: An announcement from CBS and "60 Minutes." "Presidential candidate John Edwards and his wife Elizabeth will discuss her recent cancer diagnosis and his presidential bid in an interview with Katie Couric."
A quote from you, LB: "To immediately assume that Edwards would use the onset of a possibly terminal illness to his spouse as a method of stoking the publicity machine strikes me as denying Edwards' humanity as well as displaying a lack of humanity in one's self for all to see."
It should be pretty clear now even to you that "stoking the publicity machine" is EXACTLY what is happening here... Enough humanity for you now?
To be clear: I'm not opposed to them doing an interview at every opportunity they have and grabbing as much publicity as they can. I'm even willing to bet that they have a "side goal" of raising cancer awareness in the public eye, but any reasonable person can't deny that this is primarily about John Edwards' presidential campaign. Saying so is not insulting. Saying so is a perfectly reasonable observation. You don't go on 60 Minutes and NOT talk about your run for the Presidency.
Spongebob's last two coments deserve a response. First, I'll provide a link to the transcript of the Edwards' press conference. [link to www.washingtonpost.com]
After reading the transcript it becomes obvious that the substance of the press conference centered primarily on Ms. Edwards' condition and treatment, not on Mr. Edwards' campaign. The sense I'm getting is that the right-wing noise machine has encountered a circumstance that puts it in a quandary. Obviously, as I stated before, this is big news. The media coverage will be big. As Spongebob mentioned, even Laura Bush's, by comparison, 'minor' surgery was a major news item. Unfortunately, that's where the comparison breaks down. For one, her husband was already President. Secondly, if Laura Bush claims it was minor, then I believe her. I think we can all agree, a diagnosis of bone cancer isn't classified as minor. That alone explains the media frenzy. With the advent of high-profile cancer survivors like Lance Armstrong, the story of people continuing to live their lives and follow their dreams is the media equivalent to striking the motherlode whatever the political affiliation of the individual concerned. Armstrong and Bush are Texans and if I remember correctly, Bush didn't hesitate to bask in the Armstrong's reflected glow. Getting back to the quandary that the right-wing noise machine finds itself in -- yes, in absolute pragmatic terms, this stroke of misfortune has given Edwards a media windfall in terms of coverage. John Edwards didn't ask for it. I'm willing to bet that he would trade it all back for a diagnosis that clears his wife from having cancer. This coverage is also armored for Edwards' protection because it concerns his wife's illness. If you read the transcript of the press conference you will see that outside of his statements that he will continue the campaign, with her support, the bulk of the press conference focused overwhelmingly on her condition. So, how does the noise machine get around all this? By attacking the 'cynical' manner in which they assume John Edwards will exploit this 'windfall' for political profit. Rosen and Limbaugh were making these accusations before the press conference had even been held. Spongebob is making the same claim before 60 Minutes has aired its piece. Basically it boils down to this: don't make accusations about Edwards' purported motives before you have seen or read the transcript of the press conference and the 60 Minutes segment. The media coverage would have been just as intense if this had happened to the spouse of a Republican presidential candidate. How would that person have handled it? We don't know. What we do know is that the Rosens and Limbaughs of the world wouldn't be trying to attach sinister or self-serving motives to those involved. Instead of attacking the candidate they would be offering expressions of sympathy. Case in point: the Reagan funeral. His funeral was milked to the utmost for the benefit of the Republican Party. It was a media boon for Bush, who tried to assert himself as the inheritor of the Reagan legacy. Talk about exploiting the moment for political gain.
The problem here is that the charges of Edwards' exploitation of the current circumstances are not only misleading but premature. It's not his fault that his wife was diagnosed with cancer. It's not his fault that he was already under the media microscope when this happened. It's also not his fault that the media coverage of this event is intense no matter what he does. These things are not his responsibility. His responsibility is to his wife and to the things they agree to pursue together. The press conference and the 60 Minutes segment are steps that I'm sure both of them have agreed to. The insight and the story of Ms. Edwards' personal battle with this illness will be more compelling and enlightening, I'm sure, than the slightest possibility of a windfall campaign 'bounce' nineteen months before the election even occurs.
In essence, get over it boys. The woman has cancer. She didn't get it to boost her husband's campaign. Jeez, just how morbid are you guys?
Whoops, forgot to put the close italic on
The only place a "quandry" exists is inside your own comments, LB. I still would like an answer to my question:
Give me an example, at anytime in history, of a politician who HOLDS A PRESS CONFERENCE for non-political gains or expects no political ramifications. Do you honestly believe Edwards thought the outcome of his event would result in NO coverage or speculation regarding his presidential run?
John Edwards DIDN'T ASK for a media windfall?! He called a press conference!! What else would you expect?!
Agreed: The substance and the stated reason for the press conference was to discuss Mrs. Edwards' condition. But you know damn well that they fully expected and wanted questions regarding the campaign. It was the SECOND question asked after the prepared remarks, and no one was surprised or insulted. Edwards answered immediately and candidly.
Comments before press conference: This is why I have a rule about only commenting on things here that I've heard for myself.
I can't speak about Limbaugh, but Rosen's comments came immediately after KOA's coverage of the press conference. Not before. His reaction was perfectly reasonable.
60 Minutes: The quote I pulled was from CBS's own website! My "accusations," although I would call them "observations" since I don't blame the Edwards for grabbing whatever publicity they can, are backed up by their OWN WORDS! Example FROM the 60 Minutes interview, again from CBS's own site:
Katie Couric: "Can you describe the decision making process for me in terms of what should we do now? Do we stay in? Do we suspend it temporarily? Do I call the whole thing off? Do we call the whole thing off? How did that unfold?" John Edwards: "Well, first the decision was made by the two of us, no one else... as it should be. And she said to me, "This is what we believe in. This is what we're spending our lives doing. It's where our heart and soul is. And we can not stop."
How do you describe their "purported motives" now?
By the way, I don't think we can call Mrs. Edward's condition life-threatening. She stated herself that this is like diabetes. There is no cure, but proper treatment will allow her to live a long, fruitful life. Another quote from 60 Minutes:
Elizabeth Edwards: "Cancer took a lot away from us a few years ago. It took a year of my life and a lot of John's. I didn't want it to take this away not just from me but from those people who depend on our having the kind of president he would be."
Even SHE connects her cancer to the campaign! Why can't you?
And THIS little jem from John Edwards himself regarding the subject of this entire thread. He's a lot more reasonable about this than all those here who are constantly looking to be offended:
John Edwards: "I say all of those judgments and questions are entirely legitimate. I mean, you offer yourself up for service to the country as the President of the United States, you deserve to be evaluated."
Bush and Regan's funeral: Again, history says your wrong. Name a funeral for a deceased President where the serving President didn't participate in the funeral or other surrounding events. I'm not sure if Bush used the word, but your use of "inheritor" is acedemic. Of course he inherited Regan's work. He inherited Clinton's and his father's as well. So what? And you will not find any appearance of one President at another's funeral intrepreted without political ramifications. That animal dosen't exist.
Boiling it down: Media people connecting John Edwards' presidental run with his wife's cancer, resulting from a press conference that does exactly that, is completely fair and proper. To expect otherwise and be INSULTED by the only outcome possible proves how firmly partisan you and others here really are. Your turn to visit the Central Scrutinizer.
Almost 72 hours now without a response. The silence is deafening.
Maybe instead of turning to politics, Mrs. edwards should have turned to DRUGS like Rush did when he had a little bit of back pain. I daresay Mrs. Edwards is the better woman, since she hasn't yet taken to skulking around Denny's parking lot at night looking for pushers, as Rush did.
Huh? What does that have to do with anything? I think the drugs you found at Denny's parking lot this morning are working pretty well.
1 - 20 |