Mickey Kaus's creepy obsession

By Kathy G.

Ann Coulter's arm candy, Mickey Kaus, is at it again.

Kaus is pathetically trying to pimp the "John Edwards love child" story One. Mo'. Time.

For those of you sensible enough to avoid reading Mickey Kaus (and I'm guessing that's most of you), the John Edwards mistress/love child tabloid story has been Kaus's number one obsession this primary season. He's mentioned it at least 29 times since October, as you can see here. And this for a blogger who doesn't bother to post more than a couple of times a week. It's an even more powerful obsession for him than the perfidy of teachers' unions or the world-historic evil of Ezra "command and control" Klein.

Mickey can't understand why the mainstream media ignored the story. How about, oh, I don't know -- that the story is bogus?  Anyone remember the "Kerry had an affair with an intern" bullshit that surfaced briefly in the tabloids and on Drudge during the 2004 primary? The story died because it lacked substance, and it seems likely that that's why the Edwards story died as well.

And besides that -- has Mickey noticed that Edwards is no longer in the race?

Mickey's latest excuse for dredging up this sleazy story is Elizabeth Edwards' op-ed taking the media to task for its mind-bogglingly vacuous and altogether craptastic coverage of the primary campaign. Mickey whines that it's unfair for Elizabeth to criticize the media because the press "cut her and her husband a huge break" on the love child story

A few responses to that:

1. So far as anyone other than the parties involved is concerned, there is no good evidence that the rumor is even true (unless Mickey has his own private stash of letters, photos, and taped phone conversations, which, given his level of obsession with this, wouldn't surprise me.)

2. Even if it is true, it's unlikely Elizabeth knows about it.

3. Even supposing that: a) it's true and b) Elizabeth does indeed know about it -- what is the point? Is Elizabeth responsible for her husband's allegedly wandering genitals? If she's a cheated on spouse, does that mean she has no right to criticize the media about anything?

I suppose Bill Clinton has no right to take the media to task, either -- because as we all know, there is a vast media conspiracy devoted to covering up the well-known stories of Hillary Clinton's voracious lesbian appetites.

Of course, Mickey never bothers to actually address Elizabeth's argument. Because this is something he almost never does. There's no evidence of intellectual heavy lifting on his blog, ever, about anything. He constantly makes smug assumptions that he assumes his readers must share, almost never offering up any supporting details. For instance, whenever he writes about unions, he decries union "work rules" that  allegedly hamper productivity. But he seems unaware that the best research shows that unionized firms on average are not any less productive than their nonunionized counterparts, not less.

Obviously, the reason why Kaus never addresses Edwards' argument is that he himself is a prime example of the vapid, pea-brained media coverage she deplores. Kaus's recent fixation with just how much of an arrogant snob Barack Obama is, is exhibit A of this tendency. 

Kaus's nasty smears concerning the love child story are especially rich given that just last week, he blasted Joe Conason for Joe's "sleazy" 1992 reporting on George H.W. Bush's alleged extramarital adventures. And Kaus has the balls to bitch about Elizabeth's "chutzpah?"

The lack of self-knowledge constantly on display by so many media types never ceases to amaze me.

Overall, I'd have to say -- good job, Mickey! Obviously, it's much more important that you to try to smear, discredit and humiliate Elizabeth than ever have to address the serious, troubling, and entirely sensible argument she makes.

I'm an inveterate matchmaker, and a brilliant idea just occurred to me: how about pairing up perennial  bachelor Mickey Kaus with perennial bachelorette Maureen Dowd? Their dinner conversations would be scintillating, I'm sure. Maureen and Mickey can take turns -- first she can talk about Bill Clinton's cock and then he can talk about John Edwards' cock.  They  can break it up occasionally by talking about how Hillary Clinton is a ball-busting bitch and Barack Obama is an effete latte-sipping snob.

It sounds like a match made in heaven to me!

Comments

[peep]

Thanks for writing this -- I still read Kaus for reasons I can't fathom, and this post was incredibly disgusting, awful and stupid, even by Kaus's unbelievably low standards.

(unless Mickey has his own private stash of letters, photos, and taped phone conversations, which, given his level of obsession with this, wouldn't surprise me.)

I can say with certainty that Mickey does not have any privately held evidence that the Edwards love child story is true. That is because if he had any evidence he would have posted it on his blog.

[Dilan Esper]

I'm not necessarily as convinced as you are that the story is false, and I also must note that the political charms of John Edwards have always been lost on me, but I am convinced that it would have monstrous of the press to bring this up during the campaign (absent either more evidence or one of the other candidates making it an issue) and it would be even more monstrous to bring it up now.

Elizabeth Edwards, in case Mickey Kaus didn't notice, has terminal cancer. She's going to die, sooner or later. And she is, by all accounts, a wonderful woman and a passionate advocate on real issues of importance. To piss on a dying woman by unnecessarily publicizing her husband's affair would be beyond bad taste. Especially now that it doesn't even bear any potential relevance to the presidential campaign.

Kaus is wrong because the media didn't afford the Edwardses kid-gloves treatment so much as they simply refused to treat them like dirt. I don't see how the fact that the media made the proper call on that issue disqualifies Elizabeth Edwards from press criticism.

[Sir Charles]

Mickey Kaus, Maureen Dowd, Chris Matthews -- these are deformed psyches who are for some reason afforded significant voices in our political discourse. It is utterly baffling to me.

I refuse to read Slate at this point, the wonderful Dahlia Lithwick notwithstanding. I would like them to go out of business -- hopefully on the same day that the Politico folds. Any organ (and I use that term with care) that publishes the goat blower, Saletan, Dickerson, Hitchens and Schaefer does not deserve to live.

[pseudonymous in nc]

I knew from the Slate headline that the byline would be Kaus Hackula's.

I shouldn't have clicked through, because I needed a shower afterwards. And like Sir Charles, the only thing I find worth reading there is Lithwick -- I'd hoped she'd have a piece on the voter ID ruling -- and it's frankly shameful that she hasn't been offered a spot at a respectable publication.

I'm an inveterate matchmaker, and a brilliant idea just occurred to me: how about pairing up perennial bachelor Mickey Kaus with perennial bachelorette Maureen Dowd?

If that happens, let's just hope they don't reproduce.

[Dilan Esper]

Ann Coulter's more his type.

[Martin]

Great post -- he really went after Conason on that GHWB thing? That's just priceless. Aside from all the obvious observations about his hypocrisy in pretending to be a good Democrat, it sort of makes the point that he's a one-trick pony, his only skill is insinuating that Dem pieties are mistaken. He has no other skill as a columnist.

[Clambone]

At one point, I counted the percentage of Mickey Kaus's posts which mentioned the tabloid affair story. Starting at his first mention of the story and going out for a month, 41% of his posts mentioned or were totally about the alleged Edwards affair. 41%! In the middle of the fun, he posted a couple times about a story that Hillary was having a lesbian affair. (The source, incidentally, was a British column that was about all the stupid and silly stories floating around the American election- Mickey just ran with that one.)

Worst professional writer ever. I really, really dislike that guy.

[Handle]

I love the last paragraph. I don't know Ann Coulter, but I'm pretty sure Maureen is no Ann Coulter. But when I saw this photo:
http://www.laist.com/2006/06/19/why_wont_ann_coulter_leave_la.php
I had to wonder if she isn't Todd Rundgren in drag...

[spencer]

Kaus is wrong because the media didn't afford the Edwardses kid-gloves treatment so much as they simply refused to treat them like dirt.

No, it's really more that the media completely ignored John Edwards while he was a candidate. He did not fit into their pre-approved campaign narrative.

[Dan]

"The Voracious Lesbian Appetites" would be a great name for a band.

[kija persson]

I quit reading Mickey Kaus long ago. He writes like an ADHD-addled hummingbird flitting from allegation to innuendo with never a drop of proof.

Moreover, he's a liar. He claims to be Democrat but opposes the Democratic party on issue after issue. I am certain his only reason for registering as a Democrat is that it gets him invited to play a pundit and provide falsified "balance" to opinion journalists who lack to guts to talk to real liberals.

And if that were not enough, he's a bigot, a misogynist, a nativist and a racist. That this clearly mentally ill hate-monger continues to be employed by SLATE says all you need to know about the so-called Liberal Media

[Glenn]

Kathy G, only one question from me; how's that egg taste?

[Kathy G.]

Whaddaya mean, Glenn? I said I doubted the story but I never said that it was impossible -- just that there wasn't any evidence for it. I still don't know whether it's true or not, but the point is -- who gives a shit? And what does the truth or lack thereof of this story have to do with Elizabeth Edwards' argument about the press, which is what Kaus was allegedly writing about in the first place?

At the time I wrote this, Edwards had already dropped out of the presidential race. What was the point of harping on this? It's sick, and it betrays a truly warped sense of priorities. Mickey has a very sweet gig at Slate. He can write about just about anything he sets his heart on. There so very many more interesting and important issues facing this country than what John Edwards did, or is doing, with his cock.

But if All Edwards Cock All the Time is your thing, be my guest and camp out at Kaus' blog. My blog, alas, will not have much to offer you.

[hlem]

Well, given the dubious nature of Kaus's relations to goats, is it any wonder he assumes others have something to hide?

[Steve]

Looks like Kaus was right.