Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
John Edwards In—Get Him!
John Edwards is officially in the presidential race, with a premature announcement from his web site; a diarist at DailyKos (and a bevy of HuffPost commenters) show why a certain (how significant? I guess we'll find out) segment of the Democrat faithful are not amused. He's using New Orleans as a symbolic site of GOP failure for the announcement.
TLB|12.27.06 @ 9:50PM|#
His first mistake is that the situation in NewOrleans is sympomatic of vast corruption and general anti-American activity by both parties. For the details, scroll backwards through this category.
|12.27.06 @ 9:55PM|#
He is from the South. If Hillary gets the nod, someone from the
South would help--I doubt she could carry Arkansas. If Obama gets
the nod, he'd benefit by having someone from the South too.
Of course, all that depends on whom the Republicans run. If the
Republicans run a non-starter, the Dems might not need a Southerner
on the ticket. ...and who the hell are the Republicans gonna run
anyway?
...Surely not anyone from the Bush Administration? That would be my
definition of a non-starter.
|12.27.06 @ 10:14PM|#
Oh, wow, TLB | December 27, 2006, 9:50pm | #,
I honestly didn't realize that a link about corruption would
actually turn out to be about how the Mezzicanz ur gunna git us
yit.
I need to look closer. The TLB shold've been a dead giveaway that I
was destined for bigotland.
Jesus Q. Christ on a cracker, man, what the fuck have the spics
done done to affect you so?
|12.27.06 @ 10:18PM|#
This post is exactly as I posted it in the Mitt Romney thread,
and it is equally apt here:
2) Uh, one term as governor [Senator] and no serious conservative
[liberal] accomplishments? Why is Romney [Edwards] considered such
a serious presidential candidate?
|12.27.06 @ 10:58PM|#
Lamar
Can't answer about Romney, but for Edwards:
The deep pockets of the Trial Lawyers' Association.
|12.27.06 @ 11:41PM|#
Jacob
"I'm still waiting for the palatable dark horse."
In that case, I'd suggest you try this post:
Ooh, Look at That One. He Looks Delicious., Jacob Sullum, November
2, 2006, 1:15pm
?Am I preaching to the converted?
|12.28.06 @ 12:01AM|#
This guy is pure evil. Trial lawyer, pto-war, anti-free trade,
pro-victim group politics mentality.
I'm not fooled by his beautiful, angelic face.
TLB|12.28.06 @ 12:21AM|#
Obviously, ConnectedContractors being allowed to bring in
ForeignSerfLaborers to take jobs from AmericanHurricaneVictims has
absolutely nothing to do with PoliticalCorruption.
Clearly, all the MultilevelContracting and the workers living in
NearSlave conditions and underage workers cleaning up waste without
the proper safety gear is just the Libertarian Way [TM] and is not
an example of PoliticalCorruption.
Clearly, those ConnectedContractors being allowed to get huge
contracts from the Feds and then squeeze as much money out of them
as possible is not an example of corporatism and massive
subsidies.
Clearly, the NationalDemocrats scaring off the LocalDemocrats who
complained about this anti-American situation is also not an
enormously evident example of PoliticalCorruption.
And, just as clearly, libertarians are able to think things
through.
|12.28.06 @ 12:22AM|#
"I'm still waiting for the palatable dark horse."
Try James K. Polk.
As for Edwards being a trial lawyer...yeah, can't stand those guys.
I want to defend them because, in theory (and only in theory), they
do a great service. But what if your stock broker charged 33%?
|12.28.06 @ 12:32AM|#
The point stands, Lone Wolf.
...why does it seem to so many that everything you see has
something to do with immigration somehow?
It's noticeably odd. At some point, you lose your credibility.
|12.28.06 @ 12:36AM|#
"But what if your stock broker charged 33%?"
I probably wouldn't have bought those stocks he recommended. As it
is, he has 2.35% more of my money than I do.
|12.28.06 @ 1:15AM|#
Oh joy, the zillionaire class-action lawyer with the bogus sob story about the little girl who was cold because she was too poor to own a winter coat (~$10 at any Salvation Army, etc.). I don't imagine a great wave of enthusiasm. Like Obama, he's running for VP and hoping fate knocks out the front-runner.
The Wine Commonsewer|12.28.06 @ 1:24AM|#
Hey, at least Dave Weigel will have someone to vote for (rimshot) thanks, I'm here all week
|12.28.06 @ 2:52AM|#
From the Washington Post > > Edwards listed five
priorities to change America. Among them: "Guaranteeing health care
for every single American," "Strengthening our middle class and
ending the shame of poverty," "Leading the fight against global
warming," and "Getting America and the world to break our addiction
to oil."
He also listed "Providing moral leadership in the world _ starting
with Iraq, where we should begin drawing down troops, not
escalating the war."
This is how I read it...
"Guaranteeing health care for every single American," = Getting
government out of health care.
"Strengthening our middle class and ending the shame of poverty," =
Getting rid of the Federal income tax, repelling the 16th
amendment, getting rid of minimum wage, aboloshing the Fed and
returning to a Gold Standard.
"Leading the fight against global warming," = Passing legislation
that mandates all Democrats and Majority of Republicans should keep
their mouths shut.
"Getting America and the world to break our addiction to oil." =
Repelling The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937.
"Providing moral leadership in the world _ starting with Iraq,
where we should begin drawing down troops, not escalating the war."
= He is just saying this to dupe the anti-war crowd into voting for
him and not a real solution.
Do I think he or any other Democrat or Republican will listen?
No.
Therefore, Vote Libertarian forever!
|12.28.06 @ 8:27AM|#
He is from the South...someone from the South would
help.
Ken, I'm from the South and currently live there. What makes you
think southerners would vote for Hillary or Obama just because one
of them picked a southern running mate?
I'll suggest that southerners otherwise inclined to vote for either
Hillary or Obama would be even less so if either one partnered up
with Edwards.
Edwards is pretty universally seen as creepy and dishonest even by
many not-so-right-leaning folks. He made a poor showing in 2004 and
was at least part of Kerry's downfall with swing voters and
centrists.
In sum,you may be right that a Southerner would broaden either
Hillary's or Obama's appeal...but not THAT Southerner.
|12.28.06 @ 8:28AM|#
"He's using New Orleans as a symbolic site of GOP failure for
the announcement."
Then he'd better get a new symbol, since the state of Louisiana and
the city of New Orleans have been run by corrupt and incompetent
Democrats (like Nagin)for many long years and the "failures"
related to Katrina are every bit as much theirs as it is the
GOP's.
anonymous|12.28.06 @ 8:31AM|#
Isn't he that con-artist who scams people out of their money to
talk to dead people?
Oh wait, that's John
Edward (without the s).
Maybe John Edward can talk to the ghost of the Kerry/Edwards '04
campaign and learn some valuable lessons for John Edwards.
|12.28.06 @ 8:55AM|#
Edwards is trying to singlehandedly rebuild New Orleans because if the Democrats can't get more Katrina evacuees to come back, the state will go GOP again in 08. Madpad is right, Edwards won't help get southern votes. South Carolina was ready to throw him out of the senate in 04.
|12.28.06 @ 8:56AM|#
anonymous,
John Edwards should run with John Edward as his running mate. In
the ensuing confusion, one of them would win. They're each equally
qualified for office, after all.
|12.28.06 @ 9:05AM|#
""Then he'd better get a new symbol, since the state of
Louisiana and the city of New Orleans have been run by corrupt and
incompetent Democrats (like Nagin)for many long years and the
"failures" related to Katrina are every bit as much theirs as it is
the GOP's.""
Well yeah, but it depends on how you sell it. Despite reality you
can sell it as GW and the republicans mistake. I think I remember
it being done well at the time.
Reality doesn't matter, what matters is what idea you can sell.
|12.28.06 @ 9:21AM|#
All of the (well-deserved) pot-shots notwithstanding, it's worth
mentioning Edwards message - Poverty.
Some reality, per WSJ. The number of people in poverty, number of
uninsured and the level of income inequality are all up.
Now WSJ is not exactly known for it's liberal stance and I'm not
exactly pro-government meddling in the economy myself. But the
reality is that 6 years of Republican domination of government
hasn't exactly been a boon for middle classers and those below them
on the income scale.
The free-market-as-saviour meme is wearing a little thin on just
the folks he's courting - largely because of Republican
ineptitude.
My point is that as venal and disgusting as he is, Edwards may be
fronting a key message for 2008 that the Republicans are bad for
the middle class.
And as big as they won in the mid-90s against HillaryCare, in the
long run the Republicans may have made it more possible
for Socialized Medicine by fronting policies that made medical care
seem more insecure to an aging population.
I'm not saying I like it, I'm just an old marketing hand saying
"perception is reality" and the free marketers have got some mighty
heavy lifting to do to change perceptions.
And of course libertarians will likely just do what they always
do...bitch and complain and do nothing but nominate crazy losers as
presidential candidates.
|12.28.06 @ 9:43AM|#
madpad, other than the editorial page, the wsj IS one of the most liberal newspapers, according to at least two recent studies of bias. The political section often has me fuming. And if New Orleans shows anything about poverty, it shows that dependency on government leads to disaster eventually. I would hope that advocating more dependency, like Edwards does, would be a tough sell.
|12.28.06 @ 9:55AM|#
"Isn't he that con-artist who scams people out of their money to
talk to dead people?
Oh wait, that's John Edward (without the s)."
Yeah but Edwards with the "s" is the guy who once won a huge and
bogus jury award by chanelling the voice of the fetus that he
claimed the defendent harmed. So, actually they go together better
than you might think. The Edwards Edward snake oil ticket.
Does anyone remember the video that got out during the 2004
campaign of Edwards foofing his hair and makeup for like 10 mintues
getting ready for an appearance? God that was funny.
|12.28.06 @ 9:57AM|#
And if New Orleans shows anything about poverty, it shows
that dependency on government leads to disaster
eventually.
You make a good point but it really depends on how you spin it.
From what I can see, the Democrats have pretty successfully spun it
as "dependency on Republican-led (or Bush-led) government leads to
disaster."
I would hope that advocating more dependency, like Edwards
does, would be a tough sell.
James, you're missing the point. No one sells dependency...they
sell security. To a retiree within a decade or three of shuffling
off this mortal coil, I think the consensus is (rightly or wrongly)
"fuck your goddam cf of a medicare plan...just take care of my
cancer bills."
BTW, don't confuse my awareness of certain political realities as
an endorsement of Edwards' policies.
|12.28.06 @ 10:05AM|#
Ken Schultz,
Screw the South. The Democratic base in the NE, upper midwest and
Pacific coast, plus one or two states in the Mountain West o
Southwest, (or just Ohio) equals a Democrat in the White
House.
Which is good. They've been getting their ass kissed too long on
the national stage. Do you like NASCAR, Senator? DO YOU?!
ed|12.28.06 @ 10:07AM|#
it's worth mentioning Edwards message - Poverty
Right. Keep telling the citizens of the richest country on earth
how poor and unhappy they really are. That should work. In
1933.
ChrisO|12.28.06 @ 10:09AM|#
Anyone publicly committing to a run for the presidency this early in the game is almost assuredly going to be roadkill by early '08. If Edwards needs to get the fundraising machine going in earnest this early, he'll never make it.
|12.28.06 @ 10:10AM|#
...and the idea that Edwards' good old boy cultural ass-kissing was a winner took a serious blow in 2004. He spent the campain in rural Ohio, saying things like "Golly Gee, y'all talk kind of like me!" and it accomplished nothing.
|12.28.06 @ 10:10AM|#
Good point, joe...the Republicans really bit it in the western
former-red-stronghold states.
But then that's representation in Congress and the Senate. The
South is much more densely populated. A presidential bid really is
going to have to consider some Southern influence.
For that area, the issue isn't poverty...it's immigration.
|12.28.06 @ 10:12AM|#
Joe is right. Democrats should indeed screw the south. I figure they have already sewn up every state they won in 2004. Obama lives close enough to Missouri and Ohio to win those states simply by visiting once a week and smiling a lot. Maybe Colorado too. Beyond that, who cares.
|12.28.06 @ 10:20AM|#
Joe is right. The Democrats are the party of the rich coastal elite and African Americans. There chances of appealing to a majority of Americans in places like Birmingham or Houston is just zero. They come accross as phonies when they try. Just run as what they are the party of Manhattan, Hollywood, Berkley and Al Sharpton and let the chips fall where they may. Yeah, that is a hell of a way to win an election. Whatever they do, they shouldn't do what they did this last election by running candidates who tried to appeal to places like Virginia and Montana and threw nutso liberal issues like gun control over the side. Yeah, just call half the country the racist toothless bible thumpers that they are.
|12.28.06 @ 10:24AM|#
Right. Keep telling the citizens of the richest country on
earth how poor and unhappy they really are.
No, Ed...it's keep telling the Middle Class with dwindling 40lks
who haven't had a raise in 5 years and the growing elderly
population who got bitch-slapped by Bush with Medicare Part D that
Republicans are all about the love.
You really don't understand what I'm getting at, do you?
Again...you're confusing perception with reality.
Maybe you haven't been paying attention. Citizens of the richest
country on earth really are unhappy...and for at least
some of them, it's about being poor.
|12.28.06 @ 10:26AM|#
South Carolina was ready to throw him out of the senate in
04.
When did South Carolina start chosing Senators from North
Carolina?
As for Southerners, they won't vote for Hillary or Obama. Of
course, they also won't vote for Romney (Mormon, you know and from
Massachusetts), Giuliani (liberal and from New York) and they don't
particularly like McCain after his run against W. in 2000. They
don't seem to vote for anybody outside their region or Democrats,
period. They would vote for Newt.
Democrats can win without the South as Southerners continue to
isolate themselves with their in-your-face religiosity and general
right-wing craziness. People outside the South are tired of it
all.
|12.28.06 @ 10:26AM|#
I had no idea John Tester was a rich African American who lived
in California.
The Republicans are a regional party who, like the Iraqi Sunnis,
have spent too long being fed lies about being a majority.
Wow, John, all the way from Houston to Birmingham? You know, I've
heard rumors that there are Americans who live outside of those
areas.
Nice elitism there, bud - you're an American, or you live outside
the South.
David Ross|12.28.06 @ 10:30AM|#
I am in agreement that any presidential candidate who thinks
that Edwards is their key to the South is hopelessly out of touch
with how Southerners think. And I am very much including John F
Kerry as Exhibit A.
Hillary has her Arkansas husband and so doesn't need to bring on
any more tokens like Edwards. She's also not an idiot. If she wants
a Southerner who isn't phony and/or tainted, then she does have
other options. Governor Bredesen of TN, perhaps.
Obama hasn't been so tested, and so may well screw up and choose
Edwards; but if chosen he's more likely to turn around and pick
Hillary.
|12.28.06 @ 10:32AM|#
Hey, John, are you sure you didn't mean to say,
"This fellow here over here with the yellow shirt, Macaca, or
whatever his name is. He's with my opponent. He's following us
around everywhere. And it's just great. We're going to places all
over Virginia, and he's having it on film and it's great to have
you here and you show it to your opponent because he's never been
there and probably will never come. Let's give a welcome to Macaca,
here. Welcome to America and the real world of Virginia."
Please, Mr. Republican, tell us more about who is and who isn't a
real American.
|12.28.06 @ 10:35AM|#
...but seriously, folks, I'm sure that John meant it as a deep compliment when he described the Democrats as the party of African Americans.
|12.28.06 @ 10:39AM|#
"The Republicans are a regional party who, like the Iraqi
Sunnis, have spent too long being fed lies about being a
majority."
God you are an idiot Joe. The country is pretty evenly divided.
Take a few percentage points either way in any election and one
side takes control. Fortunately, it is not deeply divided so people
are not shooting one another just evenly divided. But you are so
fucking stupid there is no point in making that distinction. You
won't understand. More importantly, look at what region of the
country's population is growing and what ones are falling. The
south and the west are where the population and the political power
is. In addition, the suburbs are booming. When people get older,
buy a house and have a family, they get more conservative. Forget
the laundry for a minute and think about the ideology. No one is
clamoring for a return to 1970s tax rates. Gun control is a dead
political looser. Socialized medicine has been revealed in places
like Canada and the U.K. to be a disaster. All over the country
anti-affirmative action initiatives are passing by a wide margin.
We are in the middle of an allegedly unpopular war, yet there is no
real anti-war protest movement to speak of. The country is
increasingly conservative. If the Democrats can reposition
themselves to take advantage of that, more power to them. But to
win election, the Democrats are going to have to take positions
that you don't like Joe and basically look more like Republicans or
least what Republicans claim to look like.
|12.28.06 @ 10:40AM|#
The Democrats are the party of the rich coastal elite and
African Americans.
I think John missed that uptick of African Americans who voted
Republican in 2004.
He also missed that uptick of non-coastal westerners and
midwesterners who voted Democrat in 2006.
Please try to keep up, John.
ed|12.28.06 @ 10:40AM|#
Citizens of the richest country on earth really are
unhappy
Nobody I know, and I don't know any actual rich people. If you
haven't gotten a raise in five years you just aren't trying.
the Middle Class with dwindling 40lks
Again, if you've lost money in your 401K since 2002 you're either
not trying or an idiot or both.
|12.28.06 @ 10:41AM|#
The country is pretty evenly divided.
Didn't seem evenly divided last month, john.
|12.28.06 @ 10:45AM|#
Madpad,
Look at the vote totals in November. It was like 51 to 46. That is
not that wide of a margin. The margin hasn't been that wide in any
of the elections since 1996.
|12.28.06 @ 10:46AM|#
"The country is pretty evenly divided."
Good to see that some of you Sunnis are waking up to reality.
"More importantly, look at what region of the country's population
is growing and what ones are falling."
Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada, California...
|12.28.06 @ 10:47AM|#
Madpad,
I was bieng sarcastic about the coastal elite remark. I saw the
election just like you. It is just that Joe reveals himself to be
such a narrowminded asshole in his "screw the South" remarks. That
is the party Joe apparently thinks it is by his comments. I really
think Joe needs to leave Mass and get out and see the country. He
is such an unbelieable bigot on here sometimes, it might do him
good to see the exotic cultures of North Carolina or Texas.
|12.28.06 @ 10:48AM|#
Joe,
The Sunnis are like 18% of Iraq. You surely don't think that only
18% of the country disagrees with you? Or is that maybe after you
take over and launch the appropriate purges.
|12.28.06 @ 10:53AM|#
"The Democrats are the party of the rich coastal elite and
African Americans."
is lake michigan considered the coast? the mississippi river
banks?
if one party is for the elite, is the other party that of the
mediocre? seriously, i'll never understand how "elite" is
considered a perjorative term. if someone called me an elite, i'd
be flattered!
|12.28.06 @ 10:54AM|#
Maybe you haven't been paying attention. Citizens of the
richest country on earth really are unhappy...and for at least some
of them, it's about being poor.
Cry me a freakin river. I've met the people who worry about money
at bars and they are of a low stock. Anybody who can't make it in
21st century America can't make it in any place nor at any time.
Their is no benefit to haveing them in our gene pool at all and why
do people look at me like I'm crazy when I say they shouldn't
be?
"He who one can not help to fly one should help fall faster"-
Nietzsche
|12.28.06 @ 10:56AM|#
"The south and the west are where the population and the
political power is."
Even with the entire South and the entire West (excepting the
coast), the Republicans still need places like Ohio, Missouri, or
Iowa to win. And if Democrats establish even a small beach head in
one - just one - of those regions, it's game over.
"In addition, the suburbs are booming."
And as they fill up, they turn more blue. The fastest growing
counties by % are quite Republican (and also quite small), but the
fastest growing counties in absolute numbers are slightly Democrat
(and much more populous).
And John, people have been reading what you write, and what I
write, for some time now. It just makes you look silly to insult my
intelligence.
|12.28.06 @ 10:56AM|#
"if one party is for the elite, is the other party that of the
mediocre? seriously, i'll never understand how "elite" is
considered a perjorative term. if someone called me an elite, i'd
be flattered!"
Read the whole post. I was being sarcastic. According to Joe's
screw the south theory, that is what they are. As far as being an
"elite", depends on the term. If elite means the jackasses who run
the big media, elected officials, or anyone associated with
academia, I can think of few worse insults than being called an
"elite".
|12.28.06 @ 10:58AM|#
ed,
You mean you don't know a single person who voted for Nixon? Well
isn't that nice for you.
"it might do him good to see the exotic cultures of North Carolina
or Texas."
And why not Nevada or Montana? Oh, right, they're not "real
Americans" there. They're more like African Americans, I suppose.
Right, John?
|12.28.06 @ 11:02AM|#
"And John, people have been reading what you write, and what I
write, for some time now. It just makes you look silly to insult my
intelligence."
No Joe, I make myself look silly by even responding to you. I would
have better luck trying to talk to the infamous Jersey McJones.
Seriously. Face it Joe, the 60s and the 70s are not coming back. We
are not going to get socialized healthcare or gun control.
Affirmative action is on its way out upheld by a few deadenders in
government and academia who consistently ignor the law and election
results, taxes are never going to go any higher than they were in
the late 1990s (1970s levels are unthinkable), the old welfare
state went away in the 1990s, just what the hell are the Democrats
going to give you besides pay offs to their cronies? Really?
Separeate your inherent biases for a moment and think about the
policies. This country is basically right of center and it is not
changing anytime soon. If the Democrats want to run and govern
right of center, good for them, but that is the only way they are
going to win an election. This is not the Yankees versus the Red
Sox. Politics is not sports. Stop rooting for the Democrats like
they are the Red Sox and think about what if any real policy
changes would occur if the Democrats ruled the world. The answer is
damn few, because hard core liberalism just isn't that popular.
|12.28.06 @ 11:02AM|#
"According to Joe's screw the south theory, [mediocre] is what
they are."
Actually, the only thing I said about the South was that it is not
dominant in the electoral college.
John read that as an elitist, bigotted remark about
Southerners.
Victimology being such an essential plank in Republican ideology
these days.
|12.28.06 @ 11:06AM|#
Oh, darn! Because causing the 60s and 70s to come back is so
very important to me, and to all liberals. What's next, you're
going to tell me that leisure suits aren't coming back,
either?
You keep fighting your baby boomer kullturkampf, John, while the
Democrats keep taking over the country by talking about today's
problems. And please, keep speaking authoritatively about not being
partisan. You're so convincing when you do that.
|12.28.06 @ 11:11AM|#
"You keep fighting your baby boomer kullturkampf, John, while
the Democrats keep taking over the country by talking about today's
problems. And please, keep speaking authoritatively about not being
partisan. You're so convincing when you do that."
And doing what Joe? Really what do you want? I know what I want out
of the government. Jesus we had 8 years of Clinton and got a
reduced capital gains tax, the end to welfare as we knew it, and
NAFTA. All of those are pretty conservative things. Clinton really
stuck it to the liberals in a lot of ways outside of his nutbag
Supreme Court appointments. Honestly Joe, if the Democrats watnt to
deliver free trade and low taxes and smaller government, I frankly
couldn't care less how many elections they win. If they do win
those elections and deliver that are you going to be happy? I
honestly don't know because I don't know that you have any idea
what you want the government to be or do other than the fact that
you want the Democrats running it, for what reason you really don't
seem to know.
|12.28.06 @ 11:22AM|#
"If elite means the jackasses who run the big media, elected
officials, or anyone associated with academia, I can think of few
worse insults than being called an 'elite'."
would this include Fox, republicans, and those at Liberty, BYU,
Oral Roberts, Bob Jones, etc.?
what is so elite and terrible about being educated and educating
others? further, if i work my ass off and climb the rungs of the
media industry - why should my success be held in such
contempt?
the disdain for successful people and "elites" is fascinating to
me. i'd like to think that there is something more to it, but it
just comes off as jealousy.
to the post: i'm not crazy about the prospect of john edwards. i
wouldn't want to endure his candidacy because i couldn't stand the
whole trial lawyer boogeyman campaign that would be sure to follow.
(every one hates them till they need them)
the other problem with an edwards nomination is that there are many
other quality candidates that the dems could run instead. i'd
consider gov. richardson from new mexico for one. but then again, i
liked dean and thought he got hosed - so what do i know. nominating
the same people to me seems like admitting that the bench is short
- and i just don't think that is the case. same premise against a
hillary nomination.
ed|12.28.06 @ 11:25AM|#
You mean you don't know a single person who voted for
Nixon?
Lots. Mostly middle-class folks with good Republican coats. I'll
see your cliche and raise you one.
|12.28.06 @ 11:27AM|#
A well-funded indie candidate would have a decent chance of winning in 2008. Perot got 19% his first time around, surely someone less nuts could manage 34% against Clinton and McClain. I suggest libertarians get behind the "draft Bill Gates" movement.
|12.28.06 @ 11:29AM|#
"would this include Fox, republicans, and those at Liberty, BYU,
Oral Roberts, Bob Jones, etc.?"
It would. Our elites suck. The average people in this country are
still great but our elites and our institutions continue to fail
us.
|12.28.06 @ 11:30AM|#
"the disdain for successful people and "elites" is fascinating
to me. i'd like to think that there is something more to it, but it
just comes off as jealousy."
I don't distain successful people. People like Bill Gates who
actually do and produce positive things are great. I distain our
intellectual class, who are the worst generation this country has
ever produced.
Jim Bob|12.28.06 @ 11:33AM|#
Sure Edwards is running for president, but does he know why kids love the great taste of Cinnamon Toast Crunch?
|12.28.06 @ 11:35AM|#
I don't distain successful people. People like Bill Gates
who actually do and produce positive things are great. I distain
our intellectual class, who are the worst generation this country
has ever produced.
And considering the last generation had a lot of people sympathetic
to the most murderous regimes in world history, that's saying a
hell of a lot.
|12.28.06 @ 11:43AM|#
It's funny how "elite" means "intellectual," but absolutely does
not apply to those who refer to working-class people as "of low
stock," "just not trying," or "an idiot."
Anyhoo, getting back to Edwards, those of you salivating at the
prospect of a tiral lawyer getting pasted have short memories.
Remember when the Republicans announced they were going to go after
John Edwards for having the gall to represent plaintiffs,
successfully, in personanl injury cases? What ever happened to
that?
I'll tell you what happened - they came to their senses. Sure, in
the abstract, people hate trial lawyers. But when there was an
actual example, and actual case to point to, the Republicans
blinked, and put that campaign in the back of the same closet where
they stored that anti-environmentalist strategy they promised to
use against Al Gore in 2000.
Go ahead, Republicans; you take the side of the pool manufacturer,
and John Edwards will take the side of the family. We'll have a
great debate. Hell, if you play your cards right, you might be able
to create in the public's mind an association between that case,
and the entire "tort reform" movement. Then again, why think small?
Perhaps it can come to represent the entirety of how the parties
differ in their views of the proper relationship between
corporations and the public. Wouldn't that be great?
Oh, no! Pleae don't throw me in the briar patch!
|12.28.06 @ 11:43AM|#
The Democrats are the party of the rich coastal elite and
African Americans.
I caught an interesting bit on CSPAN yesterday. A panel discussion
on bias in the gay media. One interesting fact that came out (so to
speak) was that around 25% of gay voters consistently vote for
conservatives; George Bush for example.
|12.28.06 @ 11:52AM|#
"I distain our intellectual class, who are the worst generation
this country has ever produced."
i have to disagree. for one because i refuse to consider
intellectuals as a class of its own - out of the reach of ordinary
people. it seems to conclude that "ordinary" people cannot or are
incapable of persuing the intellectual. average people shouldn't be
sold so short. my dad worked nights in a factory but held season
opera tickets and has a vast interest in history. so is he an
ordinary working class guy or an intellectual? these classes, if
they can actually be called such, are fluid and can overlap one
another.
however, if you mean the "professionally" intellectual - i would
still have to disagree as i couldn't consider them a generation. in
a given semester i will have professors that are my grandfather's
age and some that are only a few years older than myself.
consequently, academia is a diverse group generationally and the
young professors are remarkably sharp.
overall, such a characterization of any group is a massive
generalization and ultimately unuseful. i learned about such
fallacies years ago from a professor in his twenties.
|12.28.06 @ 11:54AM|#
Anybody who can't make it in 21st century America can't make
it in any place nor at any time.
Chalupa (and Ed),
Would you please actually read my post and quit pulling
some hotbutton quote to react to. Jesus H Christ on a popsicle
stick...it's like you woke up this morning determined to be purely
reactive and pissy.
I NEVER said I agree with this line of thinking. I simply pointed
out that a growing portion of the country seems to based on the
current polls and recent election. I also pointed out that certain
real economic factors magnified the issue.
The totality of my point was that - rather than bitch about how
people don't get it - the free market types need to...
1. Do a better job of selling the notion of free-market solutions
AND...
2. That they had an uphill battle due to the Republicans screwing
it up.
If further pointed out that historically, the libertarians did
little more than whine and nominate whiney idiots as presidential
candidates.
Wow, I just realized that Chalupa and Ed pretty much underscored my
point.
|12.28.06 @ 11:55AM|#
Oh, no! Pleae don't throw me in the briar patch!
If we do, you'll have the trial lawyers going after the briar patch
industry and their clearly unsafe shrubbery.
|12.28.06 @ 11:56AM|#
I distain our intellectual class
Thank God conservatives have no intellectuals or elites in their
class.
|12.28.06 @ 11:57AM|#
I'm with downstater on this.
The dem's would be making a bad move to nominate Hillary or
Edwards... they have a better shot with someone that appears to be
outside the old guard. Richardson could pull that off...Obama as
well, but even though the Kerry/Edwards ticket was backwards I am
not sure he's a wise choice (maybe Obama/Richardson or
Richardson/Obama?)
|12.28.06 @ 12:10PM|#
JW,
Just wait 'til Big Shrubbery's attorneys get wind of how you've
been slandering their product.
The problem with getting someone without a record of federal
leadership is the perceived lack of facility with national security
and military issues. From telling the August 6, 2001 CIA briefer
"OK, you've covered your ass" to Tora Bora to "Stay the Course,"
the last six years have provided the country with a very serious
lesson about electing someone who can't find Pakistan on a
map.
And the answer to this charge - I'll surround myself with capable,
experiences professionals - hasn't worked out so well, either.
Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice, Powell, Bolton, Wolfowitz, Libby, Perle -
fat lot of good their hard-headed experience did in keeping Jr.
from screwing up his Commander in Chief duties.
|12.28.06 @ 12:13PM|#
"If we do, you'll have the trial lawyers going after the briar
patch industry and their clearly unsafe shrubbery."
only if the briar patch industry promoted its product to be a safe
place of refuge that actually turned out to be dangerous. ;)
MainstreamMan,
I'd prefer Richardson/Obama
Richardson has the executive experience as governor and someday
Obama would have a better shot at the presidency as the vp than as
a senator, imo.
now i'm not from new mexico, i don't live anywhere near new mexico,
and i've only been there once - so i don't have a whole lot of
insight on Richardson. but then again, i do live in illinois - and
i don't have a whole lot of insight on Obama either - ha! but what
i do know about them seems pretty decent. neither particularly
repulses me.
further, i've never voted for anyone who won a race until this past
november - so i'm a crappy political strategist and parties should
probably do the opposite of what i say.
|12.28.06 @ 12:18PM|#
The Democrats should nominate someone with experience both in
the military and in directing foreign/military policy. Somebody
thoughtful, tall, serious, and presidential looking. A seasoned
campaigner who's good in debates. And, right now, a history of
standing up to stubborn presidents who won't pull the plug on
obvious military failures would be nice.
Where do you think they can find someone like that?
|12.28.06 @ 12:26PM|#
joe,
very subtle! like a hammer!
i actually liked kerry well enough. but again, i have an aversion
to running the same people for reasons stated above. i think kerry
would make a great sec. of state or defense.
i just wonder if you may be overstating the military/foreign policy
requirements for the job. now, i don't want to minimize them either
and current situations may just make them a bigger factor than i
personally make them. however, i think a sharp person with a
willingness to learn and interest in such affairs would suffice.
otherwise, you're narrowing the pool substantially and i think it's
a bit early in the race to do so.
|12.28.06 @ 12:32PM|#
"A seasoned campaigner who's good in debates."
Yeah, the Dems should send all them underachieving debators to
Iraq, really teach them idjits a lesson. The Dems should have went
with Bob Graham when they had the chance. Instead they went with
Stiff Gore and Foppy McSilverspoon.
|12.28.06 @ 12:40PM|#
I never understood why the Very Serious People were so certain that nobody would ever vote for Bob Graham. They just ganged up on him like a bunch of Heathers and refused to provide any substantive coverage. The storylike was "Oh, look at the cute old guy who actually thinks he has a chance!" right from the beginning. Just like the did to Dick Lugar in 1996.
|12.28.06 @ 12:43PM|#
"Keep telling the citizens of the richest country on earth
how poor and unhappy they really are. That should work."
Uh, ed, it did work. Perhaps you are aware of at least the
perception of the income gap? Distribution of wealth? Sweet
analysis, there buddy. Look at this farty comment:
"If you haven't gotten a raise in five years you just aren't
trying."
C'mon, ed. What kind of raise? A promotion? Cost of living? Getting
a raise isn't the issue, though many people are losing jobs. I
assume you don't know anybody who lost their job or didn't get a
raise because you tend to make stuff up to defend your point.
"Again, if you've lost money in your 401K since 2002 you're
either not trying or an idiot or both."
This comment is apparently only valid for people working since
2002. Hey ed, what's the percentage of the population there? Are
you a 22 year old working since 2002? What if you started working
in 1998? You'd be pretty screwed huh? My advice: if it fits on a
bumper sticker, or is based on friends you just made up, it
probably isn't a good argument.
My position on elites is clear: disdain the educated all you want,
but don't forget who signs your paycheck you ingrateful little
f*ck.
|12.28.06 @ 12:46PM|#
Joe: Graham's slogan was that he was from the "electible" wing of the Democratic party. Not the best foot to put forward. I grew up in Florida and always thought Graham was an honest capable politician.
|12.28.06 @ 1:34PM|#
downstater,
Being from NM, I can tell you that Richardson is an egotistical,
vindictive, slimey bastard. All good qualities in a presidential
candidate. He is, essentially, Bill Clinton in terms of political
skills, is smart and works his ass off and expects the same from
everyone around him, does things that will keep him popular (i.e.
moderate), is pro-business for the most part, has a good sense of
the immigration issues...and is the person with greatest chance of
dealing successfully with the North Koreans..
You wouldn't want him over for dinner, but he'll get the job
done.
The Wine Commonsewer|12.28.06 @ 1:47PM|#
Remember Reason's belly button cover? Best cover they ever did but.....I think they swiped the idea from this Edwards campaign photo from last time around.
|12.28.06 @ 1:48PM|#
"You wouldn't want him over for dinner, but he'll get the job
done."
i dunno - i need a pres i can have a beer with, y'know? ha!
actually, that's great to hear. i'll have to do even more research
since now i'm even more intrigued.
new mexico is one of those places i've always thought about moving
to without ever having really been there in my adult life and with
no angle on gainful employment whatsoever. but when you're coming
from the midwest (outside of chicago which is a kick-ass city) -
you're likely to think that way about a lot of places!
in short - i'm jealous of you.
ChrisO|12.28.06 @ 1:51PM|#
Wow, food fights between Team Red and Team Blue are just so gosh-darned exciting.
|12.28.06 @ 1:52PM|#
MainStream Man -
And don't forget the probability that Richardson will suffer from
bimbo eruptions as well! The man is a notorious lech.
|12.28.06 @ 1:56PM|#
John M will be President after the next election. Between now and then a lot of people will talk and talk and write and write, but it will all be nothing and John M will be prez.
|12.28.06 @ 2:11PM|#
Ethan,
Not if the country is still arguing about whether to continue the
Great Iraq Adventure, or dealing with its ugly end, during the
campaign. With that discussion going on, McCain is losing to
Hillary (Hillary!) by 4-8 points.
Do YOU foresee George W. Bush backing down to save his party? Look
at how he handled the 2006 elections. Look at how he brushed off
the Baker "graceful exit" report.
|12.28.06 @ 2:13PM|#
downstater,
NM is great, but think carefully before moving there. High crime,
low wages are part of the package. But there's great food, good
art, beautiful country and the best skies I've seen on the
planet.
RC Dean. True, true. One of the reasons Richardson will be able to
deal with NK is how similar his tastes are to those of Kim J.
Ethan,
In the words of my ex-military MP, republican father-in-law.
"McCain is a hot head. Only an idiot would vote for him." This from
a man that would be considered his base. He ain't gonna win.
|12.28.06 @ 2:41PM|#
thanks, i'll keep it in mind - though i've already got the highest crime in the nation and low wages right here. no plans to leave the StL any time soon - which is actually a pretty cool city if it could get its act together.
|12.28.06 @ 3:15PM|#
I don't distain successful people. People like Bill Gates
who actually do and produce positive things are great. I distain
our intellectual class, who are the worst generation this country
has ever produced.
Intellectuals who produce nothing? Like, say, lawyers? Like John
Edwards of course.
|12.28.06 @ 3:50PM|#
"Intellectuals who produce nothing? Like, say, lawyers?"
or any other service sector profession?
"True, we build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no
engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own
principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the
eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve
stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by
our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful
state."
John W. Davis
|12.28.06 @ 4:00PM|#
I used to think the Permanent GOP Majority talk was stupid, but hearing joe's theory that a 2-seat Senate majority makes Republicans comparable to Sunni dead-enders certainly makes it more respectable.
|12.28.06 @ 4:08PM|#
Josh,
I didn't assert a Democratic majority. I just denied that there was
a Republican one. Rather a significant difference there.
|12.28.06 @ 4:10PM|#
Part of Edward's spin is that we all need to "do something" now
to "help the poor". We "can't wait" for the next election.
What a load of bullshit.
Since when does running for president count has "helping" the
poor?
If Edwards was really concerned about helping "the poor", he'd be
actually doing something with HIS OWN MONEY now to help them
instead of blowing it on a presidential campaign. Let's see him
sell off that mansion he lives in and downsize to a regular
suburban style house (like Warren Buffet lives in) and then donate
the sales proceeds to charities serving the poor.
|12.28.06 @ 4:15PM|#
Since when does running for president count has "helping" the
poor?
1932?
But, hey, who can argue with the assertion that the proceeds of the
sale of John Edwards' house would be equivalent to the resources
available to the federal government?
|12.28.06 @ 4:15PM|#
TWC:
The Reason cover was incredibly sexy. The belly button on John
Edwards site looks like a gouged-out eyeball.
|12.28.06 @ 4:29PM|#
"1932?"
Nope - the correct answer is never.
For Democrats, running for president is all about acquiring power
by attempting to buy votes via promising targeted constituents
handouts of other people's money.
"But, hey, who can argue with the assertion that the proceeds of
the sale of John Edwards' house would be equivalent to the
resources available to the federal government?"
When you find somebody who actually made that assertion, let me
know.
Blowhards like Edwards are always claiming that advocating
government confiscate somebody else's money to pay for some goodies
for "the poor" counts as HIM "helping" them.
It doesn't. Let's see him spend a large chunk of his own money on
it.
The Wine Commonsewer|12.28.06 @ 4:53PM|#
Lamar, thanks for pointing that out.... :-)
I said: Reason stole the idea not the belly button.
Agreed, one of the best Reason covers ever.
|12.28.06 @ 5:21PM|#
Agreed, one of the best Reason covers ever.
Gettin' the dirty old man on, eh TWC?
That's OK, mine has been on for a while. (And I keep telling the
20-somethings "I'm not that old and the dirty is redundant. I'm a
man. We're the same lechers at 80 that we were at 16 and yes, that
includes your dad." The last part always creeps them out. Too
fun.)
Yes, outstanding cover.
The Wine Commonsewer|12.28.06 @ 6:04PM|#
JW,
no snappy response is forthcoming.....except that line from
KISS...
...it's a sticky situation, when she ain't old enough to
vote.....
|12.28.06 @ 8:46PM|#
"Every American listening to me now knows what needs to be
done. We can't wait for someone else to do this for us. There is
just too much at stake."
This is just one example of the vapid nonsense coming out of
Edwards' mouth.
Just what is it we all "know needs to be done?" What is his plan?
How does he plan to make poverty go away?
Edwards' is an empty suit with little going for him beyond looks
and ability to speak in public. People will see through the lack of
vision and ability soon enough.
|12.28.06 @ 9:03PM|#
madpad,
I agree, much of Edwards' public appearance are a triumph of style
over substance. Normally, this indicates a lack of intellectual
depth in a candidate.
But, oddly enough, it doesn't in Edwards' case. In the 2004
primaries, he was roundly applauded for having the most detailed,
comprehensive policy positions among all the candidates, at least
on the domestic side. He could have legitimately campaigned as the
wonk in the race, if he had so chosen.
|12.28.06 @ 10:13PM|#
joe...I don't think Edwards lacks intellectual depth. But I do
think he's an ambitious man with a lot of mouth who thinks like a
trial lawyer. He seems to be focused on acting angry about
injustice (notice I said "acting").
Poverty is with us no matter who is in power. And while I have no
problem ackowledging the worsening of poverty under Republicans, I
find the statement "we all know what needs to be done" more than a
little empty and patronizing.
The interview this afternoon on NPR wasn't much better. Maybe she
caught him off guard, but he came off as a guy with little real
understanding of the job of president.
In any case, it's far to soon to judge too much. Lots of things
will happen 'tween now and 2008. As of now, I just don't see him as
"the guy." But I don't know that anybody's looking like someone I
want for president right now.
|12.28.06 @ 10:37PM|#
"Every American listening to me now knows what needs to be done.
We can't wait for someone else to do this for us. There is just too
much at stake."
John Edwards
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the
Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on
objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
James Madison
|1.3.07 @ 9:43AM|#
John Edwards knows a lot about poverty, after all, he's helped
throw a lot of people into it with:
- his co-sponsorship of H-1b visas,
- his support for illegal aliens,
- his vote for MFN-China
but what about stuff like iraq war and the patriot act?
well, he voted for them too
About the only think you can say for Edwards is, he spent so much
time running for president that he didnt have time to do more
damage as senator
You've got to ask yourself - 'what did he do, with the power he
had, when he had it?
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245