Ann Coulter on the John Edwards Sex Scandal
As always, Ann Coulter says it best….
EVEN BY TRIAL LAWYER STANDARDS, EDWARDS A REAL SLEAZEBAG
August 13, 2008
The good news: DNA testing has confirmed that John Edwards is not the father of Rielle Hunter’s baby.Senatorial Privilege: The Chappaquiddick Cover-up by Leo Damore, the evidence suggested that Kopechne died gasping for breath in the car while Teddy Kennedy was busy trying to convince various people to say that they were driving his car.
The bad news: The father is Bill Clinton.
Ha ha — just kidding! It’s almost impossible to get pregnant by having the type of sex Bill Clinton prefers.
Also, by now, everyone has heard the news that Edwards’ mistress, Rielle Hunter, has refused to grant a paternity test.
I wonder if Edwards knew that when he was making his chesty offer to take a paternity test? Edwards gushed to ABC’s Bob Woodruff: “I would welcome participating in a paternity test, be happy to participate in one … happy to take a paternity test and would love to see it happen.”
As Edwards knows, our paternity laws were written by Gloria Steinem, so if the mother doesn’t want a paternity test, it can’t happen. So when Woodruff asked if he was going to actually take the paternity test soon, Edwards quickly noted, “I’m only one side of the test.”
With Rielle in on the scam, Edwards could boldly demand a paternity test and then self-righteously defend his mistress’s decision to refuse a paternity test. How dare you gainsay this woman’s right to her privacy! Because if there’s one person who’s gone the extra mile to keep Hunter from becoming a public figure, it’s John Edwards.
Edwards is closely following the Kennedy model of responding to charges of misconduct. First, admit only as much as can be currently proved. Second, get the other party to block any further investigation. I guess he really is “Kennedy-esque”!
For example, when the cops found DNA on the murdered body of Martha Moxley in Greenwich, Conn., the Kennedy suspect, Michael Skakel, suddenly remembered he had been up in a tree that night masturbating! (Talk about a tree-hugger.) You can see how something like that could slip your mind.
After Teddy Kennedy plunged his car off the Chappaquiddick Bridge with Mary Jo Kopechne in it and then failed to report the accident for nine hours, Kennedy admitted he had driven off the bridge — but said he was in a state of shock for the next nine hours, preventing him from reporting the submerged car with a woman trapped in it.
Indeed, Kennedy was so disoriented he was barely able to dream up a highly unlikely alibi.
The historical parallel to Edwards’ pincer move with Rielle Hunter is that Kennedy ostentatiously demanded a full investigation –- while the Kopechne family stoutly objected to an autopsy of their daughter.
According to
There were lots of houses nearby with lights on, but Kennedy avoided them after he escaped from the car, so he could sneak back to his hotel undetected and begin establishing an alibi. Evidently, Kennedy is better than Edwards at sneaking into and out of hotels.
If Mary Jo had suffocated, then she had been alive for hours after the car plunged into the water. But an autopsy was required to determine whether Kopechne had drowned or suffocated.
Both the coroner and the diver who retrieved Mary Jo’s body from the car believed Mary Jo had suffocated, not drowned. The diver found her body contorted in the back of the submerged car as if she had been trying to press her face into the last air pocket in the car. The coroner concluded there wasn’t enough water in Mary Jo’s body to indicate a drowning.
But for the first time in Massachusetts history, no autopsy was performed in a possible manslaughter case. Mary Jo was buried within about an hour of her body being pulled out of the channel under the Chappaquiddick Bridge.
Naturally, Kennedy wanted a thorough investigation — to clear his name! — but the Kopechnes absolutely refused to consent to an autopsy of their daughter. What more could he do? The Kopechnes’ lawyer, Joseph Flanagan, refused to say who was paying him to fight the autopsy.
Similarly, Edwards aggressively offered to take a paternity test, knowing that the New Age hippie chick who still thinks she’s going to marry him would not hurt him by allowing a paternity test. Edwards certainly is adept at reading stupid women, or as his campaign called them, “the base.”
Democrats are always claiming to have the Kennedy magic, but, once again, another Kennedy-wannabe falls short. To be a real Kennedy, John, you have to kill her.
COPYRIGHT 2008 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE
4520 Main Street, Kansas City, MO 64111
Tags: Ann Coulter, Jacey Paladino, John Edwards
August 20th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
who cares about edwards’ affairs? he doesn’t hold any public office and he’s not running for anything. seriously, why would you care?
August 20th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
If it’s so unimportant, why even comment?
August 20th, 2008 at 6:56 pm
Noz, the funniest thing about Jacey’s post (to me) is her copy-and-pasting. For some reason, none of these College Republican’s know even basic HTML, and they substitute by copy-and-pasting.
In Jacey’s case, though, she didn’t remove the link to Amazon.com in “Senatorial Privilege: The Chappaquiddick Cover-up by Leo Damore.” That wouldn’t be a big deal except by leaving it in, she identified her source. You see, Anne Coulter’s turds are syndicated all over the place, but HumanEvents.com inserted the link to its own Amazon.com referral for that book.
So Jacey reads Human Events? What could be more hilarious than that?
Jacey, what is your favorite part of Human Events? Ted Nugent’s treatises on the American male, or the Human Events top ten most harmful books of all time, which list “The Feminine Mystique” and Keynes just below Mein Kampf?
What serious person reads Human Events on a regular basis?
August 20th, 2008 at 6:58 pm
And by the way, I guess Ann Coulter was off the mark when she called Edwards a “faggot.”
August 21st, 2008 at 4:21 am
Ann Coulter makes a living off shock value…take her for what its worth I guess. She is to radical and rude for my taste…lol.
Edwards was wrong, really really wrong but I just have to sympathize with his family. They are the ones who are suffering the most. This may put enough stress on his wife and sadly have a very devastating outcome. Cancer patients especially need to keep stress low and save all their energy for battling cancer. I think he is a lowlife but for his wifes sake and their kids, the media should back off.
August 21st, 2008 at 4:23 pm
If it’s so unimportant, why even comment?
because i’ve become a regular visitor on this blog. when i read the post, i honestly wondered why you or anyone else would care. that’s why i asked. it doesn’t require my having an interest in the subject matter to wonder why someone else would.
so i answered your question, why won’t you answer mine? once again: why do you care about edwards’ affairs?
August 21st, 2008 at 4:27 pm
Noz, the funniest thing about Jacey’s post (to me) is her copy-and-pasting. For some reason, none of these College Republican’s know even basic HTML, and they substitute by copy-and-pasting.
yeah, i keep wondering when they will figure out how to write even the most basic code. at the very least they should be able to use the google to learn how to do an embedded link.
it’s like the video in the post above this one. if there were a link, maybe i’d click on it, but why would anyone go through the trouble to copy it from the text and paste it into the address bar? not all of us are such fans of the cut and paste function.
August 21st, 2008 at 5:48 pm
I care because this man has been lying to America! He could have been our president or vice president. Whether or not he’s in office, he is still a political leader and a public figure. It’s my right to comment.
August 21st, 2008 at 6:00 pm
So Jacey, you would say that you are interested in his sex life?
It’s completely fine by me to point out that Edwards is a dog, and did a stupid and selfish thing. But my beef with Edwards is really more over how irressponsible it was to possibly subject this country to 4 more years of a Republican president. Otherwise, where he puts his pecker is between him, his wife, and his mistress.
August 21st, 2008 at 7:25 pm
I care because this man has been lying to America! He could have been our president or vice president.
but he lost. and he will almost certainly never be the president of VP. so who cares if he lied? people all across america are lying and having affairs right now. are you just as interested in them?
if edwards ever becomes a presidential candidate again, then i would understand why one might bring up this stuff. it’s just hard for me to understand why anyone would care now that his political career is likely over anyway.
and i never questioned your right to comment. i just was curious why you cared enough to bother.
but thanks for answering my question. now riddle me this: do you care about mccain’s affairs? (for example, the affair he had with cindy mccain, back when she was cindy hensley and john mccain was still married to carol mccain, his first wife who waited for him when he was a POW? unlike edwards, mccain is currently running for president. if you think an affair raises character issues, it seems that mccain would be the one with the most pressing character issues to consider.
August 21st, 2008 at 10:05 pm
“And why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, “Let me remove the speck from your eye” and look, a plank is in your own eye? Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye”
Noz also raises the good point that John McCain has flouted our Judeo-Christian heritage that this nation was totally founded on by repeatedly breaking the 7th commandment. Won’t somebody think of the children!?
August 22nd, 2008 at 10:43 am
somehow i suspect that jacey will be about as good at answering my last question as she is at html.
August 22nd, 2008 at 10:58 am
I think you ALL are hilarious. It’s the fact that liberals hail this man as such a warrior for the poor and this “model citizen” for all of us to be like, and yet one after the other after the other he has bogus screw-ups. First of all.
Second of all, Human Events is no different than the New York Times haha. Or MoveOn.org for that matter. I like the personal attacks once again represented by John and the left-wingers on here. Aren’t liberals supposed to be so open-minded? Yet when someone mentions anything that they don’t like, they get their thongs up their cracks, make a sour face, and cry. Grow up. Besides, I know Jacey doesn’t use Human Events as her only source of news…and wasn’t Al Franken such a hero for you libs? He’s the left’s Coulter, so I woudn’t talk down too quickly about Ann.
Finally “so who cares if he lied?” Yes he lost, but up until recently Edwards was VERY much a choice for Obama’s VP pick. Last I checked, libs chastised Bush for “lying” when in reality he went of several international intelligence reports. Not really lying when the information you’re basing your judgements off have miscalculations (which, let’s not even get into that because that’s neither her nor there for this post reply.)
Edwards was running for highest position in the world. He was a senator from North Carolina, hardly a pee-on state. He was the poster boy for the Democrats (besides Obama of course). Of COURSE we’re supposed to care that he lied. So I guess it’s Okay for Edwards to lie about affairs and cover it up (and if he’s the father of the illegitimate child, could be subject to child support issues, which gets into a legal mess, not even a moral one of infidelity!) but were so persistant with David Vittner’s sex scandal down in Louisiana and of course Mark Foley down in Florida.
Edwards even has quoted on his “campaign site” that “Restoring our moral authority means leading by example and making clear that the hard challenges don’t frighten us. There is no better opportunity than the challenge of poverty – the great moral issue of our time.” Really, John? How about you lead by example. Don’t have affairs and don’t go flying around on jets to the corner bistro and get $400 haircuts. I personally can only afford a $10 buzzcut at the Main Event in Allentown.
Typical hypocrisy. The media can have a field day with GOP sex scandals, but isn’t allowed to with Dems. Genius. In reality, who the hell cares. Report their affairs and let the public decide. In this case with Edwards, report it and let people judge for themselves if he really is committed to all these things he SAYS he is.
Much like his plan for housing vouchers: “Create a Million New Housing Vouchers: Our current housing policies concentrate low-income families together, isolating willing workers from entry-level jobs and children from good schools. Edwards will create a million vouchers over five years to help low-income families move to better neighborhoods. At the same time, he will phase out housing projects that tie families to certain locations and are often lower quality and more expensive than private sector alternatives.” Now isn’t that ironic. He is willing to help people move to better neighborhoods, but not willing to help people choose better schools? GREAT!
Anyway, this post is long enough. Point is, report it, let people figure it out for themselves. But don’t you liberal ninnies start bitchin and complaining because you can’t cover up slimeballs. Just like how GOP’ers bitch about their eff-ups. If you screw up, you screw up. Take it like a man (or woman?) and own up, move on, and stop wasting taxpayers’ time…
…and the $400 on a haircut too.
August 22nd, 2008 at 11:25 am
Adam wins the thread.
Mike, are you sure Adam is really a Republican and not some hilarious online caricature of one? Have you ever met him in person? Has he ever been in the same room at the same time as General Jesus Christ Christian?
August 22nd, 2008 at 12:16 pm
. It’s the fact that liberals hail this man as such a warrior for the poor and this “model citizen” for all of us to be like, and yet one after the other after the other he has bogus screw-ups.
huh? who has ever called him a “model citizen”? as john says, adam seems to be some sloppy caricature of a republican. i mean, my republican friends are capable of engaging in an actual discussion about stuff. instead of assuming (i.e. making up) what i really think, they ask me. it’s called a rational conversation. i guess adam is more interested in knocking over straw men. but i digress…
I like the personal attacks once again represented by John and the left-wingers on here.
what personal attacks are you referring to exactly? i’m not attacking anyone. i’m just trying to have a discussion.
Yet when someone mentions anything that they don’t like, they get their thongs up their cracks, make a sour face, and cry.
actually, the only person who seems to be even the slightest bit upset is you, adam. why such a tirade in response to a couple of simple questions?
Yes he lost, but up until recently Edwards was VERY much a choice for Obama’s VP pick.
no he wasn’t. edwards was out of the running for VP after he publicly said he wasn’t interested in the job.
Last I checked, libs chastised Bush for “lying” when in reality he went of several international intelligence reports.
well, first, bush is president of the united states. so his lying matters a whole lot more than other people’s lies, people who don’t hold any public office and are not running for one. by any standard the president’s lies matter a whole lot more than edwards’. your attempt to make them equivalent is really laughable and completely misses my point above (see for example my very first comment, where i say that “he doesn’t hold any public office and he’s not running for anything.” now think hard for a moment, and see if you can come up with why that sentence doesn’t apply to president bush)
and second, no you don’t seem to understand the charge that bush lied at all. at least not when i accuse the president of lying. we’re not saying he was relying on bad intelligence reports, we’re saying that bush was told the intelligence was bad, but told the american public the judgments were good. and we’re talking about how after the intelligence agencies told bush stuff that bush didn’t want to hear (like that saddam didn’t have an active nuclear program and was not connected to bin laden), he created his own intelligence “analyst” group, made of people with no actual experience in intelligence gathering, and had them come up with the conclusions he wanted. and then he presented those dubious conclusions to the world as if they were unquestionable “fact.” so yeah, that’s what i would consider lying. plus, these lies resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. bush’s decision killed more people than bin laden did on 9/11. so it seems to me that’s another reason that the bush-edwards comparison is off the mark. the consequences of bush’s lies were a whole lot worse.
So I guess it’s Okay for Edwards to lie about affairs and cover it up (and if he’s the father of the illegitimate child, could be subject to child support issues, which gets into a legal mess, not even a moral one of infidelity!)
of course it’s not okay. lying is bad, as is having an affair. i’ve never said otherwise. but that’s not what i was asking above. the point is that people all across the country are lying and having affairs (often at the same time) and i don’t care about 99.999999999% of them. i’m assuming that jacey doesn’t either (but maybe she could clarify that herself), which is why i asked why she would care about edwards when he doesn’t hold office and isn’t running for any office either.
but were so persistant with David Vittner’s sex scandal down in Louisiana and of course Mark Foley down in Florida
wow, are you really this slow? as i said in the very first comment of the thread, i can see why one would care about lies and affairs if the person held public office or were running for office. get it? vittner and foley were office holders. maybe if you wanted to claim i’m contradicting myself you should come up with a non-office holder/non-candidate who is having an affair and who i care about. other than friends and family, of course. normally that would go without saying, but i guess with you i have to spell everything out.
Edwards even has quoted on his “campaign site” that “Restoring our moral authority means leading by example and making clear that the hard challenges don’t frighten us. There is no better opportunity than the challenge of poverty – the great moral issue of our time.” Really, John? How about you lead by example.
yeah, that would almost be an argument if not for the fact that edwards isn’t running for office anymore and doesn’t have an active campaign. his “campaign site” is now just a relic of history. i wonder how many times i have to make this point before you get it?
Typical hypocrisy. The media can have a field day with GOP sex scandals, but isn’t allowed to with Dems.
name a single GOP sex scandal involving someone not running for office and not holding office that i have said i care about. just one, any one. i have published my opinion online just about every day for the past 5 years. if i’ve cared about something, it should be easy to google it up. go right ahead, i challenge you to find something, anything. my online name is always upyernoz
Much like his plan for housing vouchers
you mean his plan in his former campaign. former, get it?
August 22nd, 2008 at 1:29 pm
upyernoz “as i said in the very first comment of the thread, i can see why one would care about lies and affairs if the person held public office or were running for office. get it? vittner and foley were office holders. maybe if you wanted to claim i’m contradicting myself you should come up with a non-office holder/non-candidate who is having an affair and who i care about. other than friends and family, of course. normally that would go without saying, but i guess with you i have to spell everything out.”
Edwards was an office-holder. It shouldn’t matter if they are currently in office or not. Point Mr. LaDuca seems to be trying to make is that everyone on the Left makes Edwards out to be this saint of a politician fighting for poverty, etc. and he isn’t…anymore.
And John, I doubt anyone cares what your opinion has been that’s been published online. Thanks for telling me, because I haven’t seen it.
August 22nd, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Edwards was an office-holder. It shouldn’t matter if they are currently in office or not.
sure it does. if someone is currently in office, or is seeking office, then you can say their truthfulness or moral character or whatever is relevant because those things suggest how they will make decisions while in office. but if they are no longer in office, and are no longer seeking any office, then it no longer is relevant because they’re not going to be decisions makers anymore. if someone is no longer going to be making decisions that effect the country as a whole, they’re no different than some random person we pick off the street who may have cheated on his wife.
if you disagree with my opinion, please explain why former office holders matter more than the random person from the street.
Point Mr. LaDuca seems to be trying to make is that everyone on the Left makes Edwards out to be this saint of a politician fighting for poverty, etc. and he isn’t…anymore
then i guess my point is that mr. laduca (and also, it seems smitty) is wrong that “everyone on the left makes edwards out to be a saint.” i certainly don’t and i’m on the left. thus, everyone can’t believe that. Q.E.D.
you know, you’d probably be a better arguer if you asked me what i actually think rather than just pretend that you already know and make a fool of yourself when you guess wrong. just a suggestion.
oh and jacey, i haven’t forgotten about you! i’m still waiting to hear whether you think mccain’s infidelity is also important. adam and smitty, feel free to give your answer as well.
August 22nd, 2008 at 6:48 pm
Goodness! My apologies for not answering you right away! I’m getting ready for school and cannot spend every waking moment on the web.
McCain cheating? The only thing I’ve ever heard of was the COMPLETELY DISCREDITED NY Times article.
So much for this being a nonissue….
August 23rd, 2008 at 1:41 pm
I think McCain’s infidelity is an issue, but considering story after story regarding this “infidelity” has been discredited, ESPECIALLY the one posted in the New York Times which Jacey alludes to (surprise surprise?), it’s a non issue. Everything about McCain is something that a. happened 30-some years ago (hold a grudge much?) and is speculation by the media. Edwards’ happened in the here and now. You liberals aren’t very willing to forgive and forget something that happened 30 years ago aren’t you? Whew-eee…I’d like to see what Adam has to say about it…
August 25th, 2008 at 8:52 am
McCain cheating? The only thing I’ve ever heard of was the COMPLETELY DISCREDITED NY Times article.
wait, so you’re denying that mccain was involved with cindy mccain while he was first married to his first wife? i didn’t think that was even a serious issue. i mean, mccain the one who wrote in his autobiography that he was dating cindy for nine months while he was still cohabitating with his first wife. has mccain himself been discredited as a source about mccain?
maybe you’re thinking of the alleged affair between mccain and vicki iseman, a lobbyist. it is true that the NYT published a story on that and that the story did not seem to be substantiated. but i wasn’t asking about that, indeed, i don’t think it’s fair to attack him on an alleged affair with so little evidence to back it up. no, i was asking about the affair that mccain himself admitted he had. the one where he cheated on and then dumped his first wife–the wife who raised his children and stood by him for 5 years while he was a POW–for a younger rich heiress. that’s the affair i was referring to.
so now that i’ve cleared that up, can you answer that question: do you care about that affair?
August 25th, 2008 at 8:54 am
and smitty seems to be taking the same tack as jacey, denying that there was an affair even though mccain himself admitted that he cheated on his first wife when he wrote his autobiography.
maybe the fact that you’re in denial, that you simply don’t want to believe that mccain did something like what edwards did now even though the story comes from mccain himself, answers my question.
August 27th, 2008 at 11:26 am
still crickets here. i guess jacey and smitty are so busy with their back-to-school preparations they don’t have time to give even a one word, yes or no, answer to my question.
August 27th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
Hi Smitty, and upyernoz, and Jacey…I personally do care about the McCain affair. Sort of. McCain never has been painted as a poster-boy fighting for the “greatest moral challenge of our time.”
I mean, in reality, affairs are affairs and can be decided on by the public. If the public really sees it as an issue, they’ll vote accordingly. The media can do what they want with affairs. I also personally think the Repub’s impeachment of Clinton for lying about his affair was a low blow. His affair with Lewinsky apparently had no effect on policy or broke any laws, so what was the point? Now, had he paid her illegally with taxpayer funds to keep quiet or something like THAT, then it’d become an issue, but nothing of the sort was really uncovered.
So back to the Edwards and McCain affairs. I see it only as an issue in that Edwards always tries to paint himself as this saint of a candidate fighting for poverty and fighting for family issues. Then he goes and gets expensive haircuts and has an affair. It’s hypocrisy 101.
McCain has never really been a huge proponent of family issues as his main strength. Nor does the media paint him as such a person. So there really isn’t any hypocrisy involved on his side.
HOWEVER: the bottom line is this. Each person had affairs. Each person sought out another individual to be their partner while they were with someone currently. If society sees it as a damning quality, they’d take it into consideration accordingly. The only thing it affects really is the character of an individual. Perhaps more hurtful to McCain BECAUSE he is the GOP candidate and Edwards is not. On the other hand, while Obama does not have an affair on his resume, he too has pretty damning circumstances as well.
It all depends on each voter what they value most and what is most important to them on election day. Affairs, in my opinion, should not be on the Letterman top-10 list of what makes or breaks a candidate, so long as the affair didn’t involve any illegal activities. Like the McGreevy and Foley sex scandals. Who gives a flying hoot? But each was forced to resign not because of public outcry, but because of party bickering. You could argue McGreevey and Foley were terrible politicians to begin with, which I certainly could agree on McGreevey’s behalf (I don’t quite know enough about Foley), but that they had sex scandals should not be the reason for their resignation (unless they involved illegal activities.)
See the point?
Anyway, kudos to upyernoz actually on pointing out some good points.
BTW, smitty and jacey couldn’t give a yes or no answer to your question and you seemed flustered. Why couldn’t congress give yes or no votes on justice appointees and gasoline legislation in more recent times?
(A rhetorical question as a playful jab, not to have a condescending tone or whatever.)
August 27th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
P.S. Just BC McCain doesn’t tout family values as frequently as Edwards did does not mean he doesn’t hold those highly in his campaign. They just aren’t something he frequents on the campaign trail.
August 27th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
I can’t resist.
“Why couldn’t congress give yes or no votes on justice appointees and gasoline legislation in more recent times? (A rhetorical question as a playful jab, not to have a condescending tone or whatever.)”
Democrats did give a yes or no vote on judicial appointees. They said “no” by fillibustering. What they wouldn’t give was a floor vote, because they were in the minority and would have lost the vote, allowing radical idealogues to get on the federal bench.
Regarding “gasoline legislation,” John McCain and the Republicans have spent the last two years fillibustering and obstructing energy legislation. Adam, I beseech you to exam John McCain’s complete lack of leadership on energy issues these last two years. He missed 33 important votes on energy, including vote 425 last year on HR 6. That was a cloture vote (because Republicans were fillibustering) and it failed 59-40. John McCain was the only senator who skipped the vote.
Please, can somebody defend McCain’s record on energy to me?
August 27th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
hey thanks for answering. i half agree with you. i don’t think either affair really matters. to answer your question (rhetorical or not):
Why couldn’t congress give yes or no votes on justice appointees and gasoline legislation in more recent times?
congress could. they didn’t want to because of politics. it’s not like what is going on now is any different than what we’ve seen before. between 1994 and 2000 it was the republicans who were refusing to vote on judicial nominees because there was a democratic president doing the nominating. now the tables are turned, the one who makes the nomination (i.e. the president) is a republican and congress is controlled by democrats. so these days the democrats are blocking nominees from coming to a vote and republicans are complaining about it, just like republicans were blocking the vote and democrats were complaining about it in the 1990s. the parties tend not to like nominees that are picked by a president from the opposing party, so they use their power to block the nomination when they have that power. like it or not, that’s how the system works. including, i think, the complaining by the other side about the unfairness of not having an up-or-down vote on the nominee. that’s part of the system too. checks and balances can be fun!
it’s basically the same thing if you talk about any legislation, including what you call “gasoline legislation.” the parties have different views about energy policy and so they use their tools to try to advance their agenda, and stop the opposing party’s agenda from passing.