Why John Edwards bugs us.

[Sapphire Blue]

DAVID KUO
Thursday July 12, 2007
Category:
Why John Edwards bugs us.


John Edwards is a rich hypocrite. He is vain. He spends too much money on his hair, his house and everything else. He isn't believable. He shouldn't be talking about the poor - he is just using them. These are the critiques that I read about him in print and in my blog and in private emails to me.

I think I know why he bugs us. It isn't any one of those reasons. He bugs us because he challenges each of us in a most uncomfortable way. In talking about poverty he makes us confront the poor. And unlike other major social issues - health care or immigration for instance - we know we can do something about poverty. We know that we can give me more money and time. We know that we can spend a little less on ourselves to help the poor.

It is easier, however, to label him a hypocrite.

We have this very disturbing 'hypocrisy' standard when it comes to dealing with the poor. If a politician is rich and says anything about the poor we say they are hypocrites. We do not apply that standard anywhere else. Imagine if we did. Would that mean that only sick politicians could talk about health care? Only immigrants could talk about immigration? Of course not. I think, however, that we do it to make ourselves feel better. If we can call someone else a hypocrite we don't have to listen them and unlike mega-issues like health care and immigration poverty is something that we can touch - we can help the poor that we see and those in our communities. And we know this and it bothers us and that is why we so want to discredit those politicians who talk about them.

posted by David Kuo @ 9:47am


http://blog.beliefnet.com/jwalking/2007/07/why-john-edwards-bugs-us.html

Transformational Change For America And The World - JOHN EDWARDS for PRESIDENT 2008

:woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo:

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:
:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:
:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

A true revolution of values

"I'm proposing we set a national goal of eliminating poverty in the next 30 years." - JOHN EDWARDS 08

Silence is Betrayal - JOHN EDWARDS 08

Moral Leadership - JOHN EDWARDS 08

Ending Poverty in America - edited by Senator John Edwards

[aquart]

1. Doesn't bug me. Voting for him.

[SammyWinstonJack]

37. Doesn't bug me either and I am voting for him.

[markk]

73. doesnt bug me

I'm ok with poverty.

[Sapphire Blue]

85. You're "ok with poverty"?

:shrug:

[GoneOffShore]

2. Edwards is the guy

The others are corporate shills.

[Snotcicles]

3. Edwards/Cuomo 2008, Now thats the ticket. nt

[saltpoint]

8. Love 'em both.

On Mario Cuomo: if he can be persuaded to serve in any capacity our next government, we are all so much the better for it.

Supreme Court Justice, for example.

Vice President.

Etc.

[saltpoint]

4. True heart, true mind, true public servant, true voice

of the working person and the poor.

This John Edwards guy has my vote.

[William769]

5. Doesn't bug me either.

[jgraz]

6. So far, he's the best of the lot

Though I'm not that inspired by any of the choices so far.

Al?

[shraby]

7. My choice too. He speaks to the

real problems in America..poverty, health care, education etc.

[JANdad]

9. K&R

Thanks for posting!

[Catchawave]

10. The MSM bugs me for reporting non-issue stories

about all the candidates. No wonder America is apathetic, and 75 million voters stayed home in '04. :mad:

[wtmusic]

11. Good thing Mahatma Gandhi was bald

He was never tempted to get one of those $700 haircuts.

[cascadiance]

15. But Shrub might want to grab his head!

[wtmusic]

17. true

and if anything would make Gandhi go off on someone, that would be it.

Would have been fun to watch. :D

[waiting for hope]

12. No. 5 - you go SB!

David Kuo? Really? Isn't he the whistle blower from the faith based initiatives WH program? If so, then JRE is appealing to more than just the base.

[Sapphire Blue]

21. Yes, Kuo is the whistleblower & wrote about it in his book "Tempting Faith"...

Book says Bush just using Christians
‘Tempting Faith’ author David Kuo worked for Bush from 2001 to 2003
By Jonathan Larsen
"Countdown" producer
MSNBC
Updated: 10:43 a.m. PT Oct 13, 2006

More than five years after President Bush created the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives, the former second-in-command of that office is going public with an insider’s tell-all account that portrays an office used almost exclusively to win political points with both evangelical Christians and traditionally Democratic minorities.

The office’s primary mission, providing financial support to charities that serve the poor, never got the presidential support it needed to succeed, according to the book.

(snip)

“Tempting Faith’s” author is David Kuo, who served as special assistant to the president from 2001 to 2003. A self-described conservative Christian, Kuo’s previous experience includes work for prominent conservatives including former Education Secretary and federal drug czar Bill Bennett and former Attorney General John Ashcroft.

(snip)

He says some of the nation’s most prominent evangelical leaders were known in the office of presidential political strategist Karl Rove as “the nuts.”

“National Christian leaders received hugs and smiles in person and then were dismissed behind their backs and described as ‘ridiculous,’ ‘out of control,’ and just plain ‘goofy,’” Kuo writes.

(snip)

In fact, when Bush asks Kuo how much money was being spent on “compassion” social programs, Kuo claims he discovered the amount was $20 million a year less than during the Clinton Administration.


Continued @ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15228489/

[gatorboy]

13. FDR was an aristocrat.

'Nuff said.

[Hardrada]

93. The Aristocrats have a class act!

[Catherine Vincent]

14. I will say this about Edwards....

I would vote for him over Clinton and Obama if I had a choice.

[Snotcicles]

23. you'll have a choice, in the primaries. nt

[mikelgb]

16. he wants to exclude the 'poor' candidates from the debates

[democratsin08]

19. yea, not very democratic of him

lol. he does do good work though.

[GeorgeGist]

18. I assume that you and John Edwards missed the memo.

Simple economics show that excessive wealth is the number 1 cause of poverty.

http://www.real_reality.com

[Jim Lane]

32. You missed the salient fact

Whether wealth causes poverty depends on how the wealth was generated.

John Edwards became wealthy by helping injured victims recover compensation, typically from big corporations. Suppose we could go back in time and undo his career. His clients, who weren't rich people, would have to cough up the money they received; he would have to cough up the fees he was paid; and all that money would be transferred back to the fat cats who caused the injuries in the first place. Exactly how would this be a blow against poverty in the United States?

I admit I'm biased here. Although I'm backing Kucinich, I am, like John Edwards, a plaintiff's attorney. The reality is that many people are pushed into poverty because of accidents that leave them saddled with big medical bills and/or unable to work. Plaintiff's attorneys are occasionally able to help a few of them. Edwards has done that, and done it well. This criticism of him is a bum rap. Ask the people he's helped if they resent his work on their behalf.

[rucky]

20. Recommended!

A doctor doesn't have to be sick to help the sick.

A person doesn't have to be poor, gay, struggling, oppressed, etc etc to support those groups.

It's called EMPATHY, and it's in short supply.

[frazzled]

22. I disagree

The "hypocrite" defense seems to me something put out to deflect the real potential criticisms. I don't see any problem with the wealthy advocating on behalf of the poor. That has never been my issue with Edwards, who makes me uncomfortable nonetheless. Why?

Because he seems to me the consummate political construct, perhaps our inverted version of Romney. I don't particularly trust his newfound progressivism, just as Republicans don't particularly trust Romney's newfound conservatism. It's about looking at a career in full and not finding sufficient meat there to reassure that the political stance du jour is substantive. I don't see passion or conviction: I just see calculation. Perhaps I'm not looking at it right. But that's how it is for me.

And also because he did, at least in my opinion, such a poor job as a vice-presidential candidate last time around. Others may disagree, but to me he was a cipher and did nothing to balance the Kerry ticket. The son of a mill worker thing was the equivalent of those rub-it-directly-on-your forehead commercials.

And lastly, of course, there is the Iraq thing. And the fundraising ploys. I am sure he is just being a politician. I understand politicians being politicians. But there has to be something else there for me that I can hang on to. I just can't find that something else beneath the surface.

I respect others who disagree, but I doubt there's really anything that could be said to change my gut feeling about the basic character issue here.

[hfojvt]

44. Calculation or not

He's the only one, other than Kucinich perhaps, who is hitting the issues that I think should be hit.

I agree that he was not stellar as VEEP, but part of that to me, was that he was trying to be part of the Kerry ticket, instead of doing his own thing. But he also made a point to stop in Lawrence, Ks and that is a huge mark in his favor in my eyes.

[iamjoy]

79. Edwards Is Not Romney

Although I admit it may seem that way at first glance.

If you look at Edwards's voting record, it is not perfect, but I think it does trend progressive. The thing is, his most public votes have NOT been progressive, even if overall his voting record has been.

US Chamber of Commerce rated him 15% - that's considered anti-business. So much for being a corporate shill.

National Eduacation Assn rated him 83% - not steller but still considered pro-education. NEA are our friends.

Rated 17% by CATO (trade). CATO is libertarian, so in this case, I consider a low rating a good thing.

He was rated 100% by the AFL-CIO. That's pro-labor.

source: http://www.ontheissues.org/John_Edwards.htm

So, in my opinion, Edwards has always been a progressive, he just hasn't been as bold about articulating it as he is now. I can understand why some see it as fake. But really, is it much different than some one going on a date choosing their most flattering clothing to disguise physical flaws? If he gets the nomination, I expect him to move more towards the center in how he presents himself. But, that's not unlike the woman wearing the push up bra and low cut top when going out with the guy, but when it comes time to meet his parents will don a more respectable outfit.

OTOH - we have no indication of Romney being anything but a centrist in Massachusetts.

[The Count]

24. Nope. Try: sponsored IWR. Is silent about the 2004 steal. Voting record at odds

with what he preaches. Still talks like a neocon when it comes to Iran.

[1932]

82. Here's his voting record:

Voted NO on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime. (Mar 2004)
Voted NO on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions. (Jun 2000)
Voted NO on banning partial birth abortions. (Oct 1999)
Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record. (Dec 2003)
Voted NO on prioritizing national debt reduction below tax cuts. (Apr 2000)
Voted YES on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002)
Voted YES on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation. (Jun 2000)
Voted YES to Increase subsidies for women-owned non-profit business. (Mar 2004)
Rated 15% by the US COC, indicating an anti-business voting record. (Dec 2003)
Voted YES on $1.15 billion per year to continue the COPS program. (May 1999)
Voted NO on increasing penalties for drug offenses. (Nov 1999)
Rated B- by VOTE-HEMP, indicating a pro-hemp voting record. (Dec 2003)
Voted YES on funding smaller classes instead of private tutors. (May 2001)
Voted YES on funding student testing instead of private tutors. (May 2001)
Voted YES on spending $448B of tax cut on education & debt reduction. (Apr 2001)
Rated 83% by the NEA, indicating pro-public education votes. (Dec 2003)
Voted YES on removing consideration of drilling ANWR from budget bill. (Mar 2003)
Voted NO on drilling ANWR on national security grounds. (Apr 2002)
Voted NO on terminating CAFE standards within 15 months. (Mar 2002)
Voted NO on preserving budget for ANWR oil drilling. (Apr 2000)
Voted NO on confirming Gale Norton as Secretary of Interior. (Jan 2001)
Rated 0% by the Christian Coalition: an anti-family voting record.
Voted NO on cap foreign aid at only $12.7 billion. (Oct 1999)
Voted NO on establishing free trade between US & Singapore. (Jul 2003)
Voted NO on establishing free trade between the US and Chile. (Jul 2003)
Voted YES on granting normal trade relations status to Vietnam. (Oct 2001)
Voted YES on removing common goods from national security export rules. (Sep 2001)
Voted NO on expanding fee trade to the third world. (May 2000)
Rated 17% by CATO, indicating a pro-fair trade voting record. (Dec 2002) THIS WAS LOWEST CATO RATING FOR ANYONE RUNNING IN '04
Voted YES on banning "soft money" contributions and restricting issue ads. (Mar 2002)
Voted NO on require photo ID (not just signature) for voter registration. (Feb 2002)
Voted YES on funding for National Endowment for the Arts. (Aug 1999)
Voted YES on background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
Voted NO on more penalties for gun & drug violations. (May 1999)
Voted NO on loosening license & background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
Voted YES to require health insurance for every child. (Aug 2003)
Voted NO on $40 billion per year for limited Medicare prescription drug benefit. (Jun 2003)
Voted YES on allowing reimportation of Rx drugs from Canada. (Jul 2002)
Voted YES on allowing patients to sue HMOs & collect punitive damages. (Jun 2001)
Voted NO on funding GOP version of Medicare prescription drug benefit. (Apr 2001)
Voted YES on including prescription drugs under Medicare. (Jun 2000)
Voted NO on limiting self-employment health deduction. (Jul 1999)
Voted YES to let states make bulk Rx purchases, and other innovations. (May 2003)
Rated 100% by APHA, indicating a pro-public health record. (Dec 2003)
Voted YES to end government propaganda on Medicare bill. (Mar 2004)
Voted YES on adopting the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. (Oct 1999)
Voted YES on military pay raise of 4.8%. (Feb 1999)
Voted YES to federalize aviation security. (Nov 2001)
Voted YES to hiding sources made post-9-11 analysis impossible. (Jul 2004)
Voted YES to CIA depends too heavily on defectors & not enough on HUMINT. (Jul 2004)
Voted YES to administration did not pressure CIA on WMD conclusions. (Jul 2004)
Voted NO on repealing Clinton's ergonomic rules on repetitive stress. (Mar 2001)
Voted NO on killing an increase in the minimum wage. (Nov 1999)
Rated 100% by the AFL-CIO, indicating a pro-union voting record. (Dec 2003)
Voted NO on using the Social Security Surplus to fund tax reductions. (Jul 1999)
Voted NO on Social Security Lockbox & limiting national debt. (Apr 1999)
Rated 100% by the ARA, indicating a pro-senior voting record. (Dec 2003)
Voted YES on More tax cuts and tax credits for 98% of Americans. (Jul 2004)
Voted NO on $350 billion in tax breaks over 11 years. (May 2003)
Voted YES on increasing tax deductions for college tuition. (May 2001)
Voted NO on phasing out the estate tax ("death tax"). (Jul 2000)
Voted NO on across-the-board spending cut. (Oct 1999)
Rated 22% by NTU, indicating a "Big Spender" on tax votes. (Dec 2003)

[The Count]

92. Sponsored IWR, failed to vote against the federal abortion ban or media consolidation

Voted on the 2001 bankruptcy law and a few others he apologized for.
Somewhere I have a complete list, but I have the feeling it's time to stick a fork in him by now so I won't bother.

[1932]

96. "Somewhere I have a complete list" -- I gave you a very very long list.

You gave me ONE vote (and then you crticize him for two things on which he didn't vote either way).

And you call yourself "The Count"!!

And where is that list? In your paper files?

[1932]

97. "Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record. (Dec 2003)"

BTW.

[1932]

98. I'd rather have a CATO 17% Free Trade rated president regardless of IWR vote

than a no IWR voter with a high Free Trade rating, since the Iraq War is all about free trade, really.

[Liberty Belle]

25. I met him in San Diego and asked about protecting consumers;

He said we need a new consumer bill of rights and new predatory lending laws to protect us all.

I voted for him before, and I will do so again proudly. After hearing him speak publicly, watching him in a press conference work the media, and seeing him press the flesh with supporters at a backstage gathering, I was more impressed than ever with his intelligence, wit, and integrity.

[LostInAnomie]

35. He's got my vote.

Not that it matters since I'm in Indiana... but when our hella late primary takes place, he'll have my vote.

[Liberty Belle]

51. Edwards is likely to win Iowa and South Carolina, so

odds are high he will be on the ballot in your state, too.

[rodeodance]

26. I am not part of the 'us' you speak of.

[be inspired]

27. John doesn't bug me at all. I think he's wonderful.

This is a very good point that David Kuo is making, though. I suspect he is right about a lot of the people who criticize John.

[Decruiter]

28. I like John Edwards but I want him to tell me why he attended the Bilderberg

meeting.

New York Times

A Secret Conference Thought to Rule the World
By ALAN COWELL and DAVID M. HALBFINGER
Published: July 11, 2004

SINCE its first meeting 50 years ago, the Bilderberg conference, a secretive gathering of global power brokers, has inspired layer upon layer of conspiracy theories, which it has done little to dispute. Over the years, the deeds laid at the conference's devious door have included the creation of the European Union, the invasion of Iraq and the bombing of Serbia - all to service its most cherished goal: the creation of a world government.The conspiracy theories bubbled to the surface anew last week, after it was reported that a well-received speech by Senator John Edwards at the conference last month in Stresa, Italy, was one reason for his selection as John Kerry's vice-presidential running mate.
Is the Bilderberg confab now molding domestic American policy?
Roughly 130 delegates attend the invitation-only annual gatherings, named for the Dutch hotel where the first Bilderberg conference was held in May 1954, to debate issues surrounding the cold war.

http://www.oilempire.us/edwards.html#cooliris

With the latest bit about he and Hil's collaboration (being reported by Faux??), I would feel more comfortable if he were to bring John Perkins into his campaign. I like JE, I'm disturbed. I believe,.... well I'm just not going to say it yet. I need to stock up on more tin-foil and water first.

[wtmusic]

29. Nah, he bugs me because he's vain

And even staying away from the hypocrisy question, a $700 haircut says it all.

IMHO that kind of vanity gets in the way of dedication. He's worried too much about what other people think of him.

[cally]

30. Which national politician is not vain?

They all have to sell their looks and charisma in order to get elected. They are all vain. I don't think Edwards is any worse than others on this point. How much do you think * pays for a haircut? We already knows he pays/given for hand tailored shirts and suits.

[wtmusic]

31. Compare Edwards to Junior

and Edwards wins hands down. But we don't have to look very far to find lots of less-than-handsome presidents, who did a great job.

For me, I'll be giving my support to a candidate who has some semblance of humility. It means a lot.

[hfojvt]

45. it bothers me

when people don't make their decision on issues. I will take a vain person who talks about helping the poor and working class, over a humble person, whichever candidate that is, who ignores them/us.

[wtmusic]

46. Someone who talks about helping the poor?

How many meals does $700 buy?

[hfojvt]

56. Probably alot for a hardworking barber

but not really that many, and if the voters reject Edwards because his hair looks funny (and knowing them, they just might) none of his plans to help poor people will be enacted.

I have no desire to defend $400 haircuts, $600 dinners, $60,000 cars, or humongous houses. I think it's excessive and disgusting.

But I still like the proposals he talks about far, far better than either Clinton or Obama's proposals. Or Richardson, Biden, Dodd. Gravel sickens me with his bizarre tax 'reform'. I am not even sure Kucinich has a stump speech that resonates with me as much as the "Two Americas" theme. Talking the talk is vitally important. The first step on the eightfold path is 'right view'.

[PoconoPragmatist]

64. Find One In Recent History, Though

face it...looks and charisma help a candidate considerably. and lack of them will kill a candidate just as quick.

[connecticut yankee]

78. True --

If Dennis Kucinich looked like Edwards, people would probably take him more seriously.

I think DK is the best of the lot, but his looks kill him.

[Turn CO Blue]

38. I assert that all humans and cats are vain.

Some dogs, too.

[wtmusic]

47. Yes that's true

but I assert that Jimmy Carter is less vain than John Edwards.

[Turn CO Blue]

59. Hard to argue with that, but

the vanity of John Edwards up against some other people, say...Celine Dion, Russell Crowe, Madonna, George W. Bush -- my husband at times -- well, it just PALES in comparison.

[wtmusic]

61. You win

it was Russell Crowe that took game and match :D

[Turn CO Blue]

63. You're too funny!

[Hippo_Tron]

74. In a country that is as shallow and image obsessed as our...

$400 bucks is a great investment considering how many votes Edwards will get because of how he looks. As they say: if ya got it, flaunt it.

[judaspriestess]

33. He can bug me all he wants, this is who is getting my vote

I really really like John Edwards.

[Iris]

34. Isn't it supposed to be "lefties" who are jealous of the wealthy?

What really bugs them is that he came from a humble background and has made something of himself.

[Turn CO Blue]

36. Princess Diana was rich, royal, pampered AND cared about the poor

Most people gave her credit for her work with the poor in Africa while she was living and even more so after she died... While she also spent thousands on each designer gown, hosted elaborate parties, jetsetted all over the world, etc. etc.

Being wealthy does not mean soulless or lacking in compassion, yet that is a characterization that both the left (damned soft, rich Repub corporatists!) and the right (damned soft, rich educated effete liberals!) use to extreme.

[PoconoPragmatist]

65. Yup.

And many of those gowns were auctioned off, with the proceeds goping to charities that helped the poor.

[tblue37]

39. FDR was a rich politician. (eom)

[pioneer111]

40. Addressing Structural Issues

Great post, David, and a lot of truth. People don't want to deal with poverty. Sometimes they feel they are too close to it. One major health care issue and they may be there.

If they look at what Edwards says they would find that he wants to address structural conditions that keep people in poverty or cause more people to fall into it. He is not advocating for charity, although he does contribute to charity significantly. Edwards is looking at root causes to eliminate poverty and to strengthen and expand the middle class.

Edwards is my choice.

[Sapphire Blue]

41. Welcome to DU, pioneer111!

Transformational Change For America And The World - JOHN EDWARDS for PRESIDENT 2008

:woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo:

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:
:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:
:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

A true revolution of values

"I'm proposing we set a national goal of eliminating poverty in the next 30 years." - JOHN EDWARDS 08

Silence is Betrayal - JOHN EDWARDS 08

Moral Leadership - JOHN EDWARDS 08

Ending Poverty in America - edited by Senator John Edwards

[Madspirit]

49. Welcome to the MadHouse!...n/t

[huskerlaw]

42. He should keep on bugging people then.

He has my vote, mostly BECAUSE he's "bugging" people.

:applause:

[Sapphire Blue]

43. !

I believe he will! :hi:


Transformational Change For America And The World - JOHN EDWARDS for PRESIDENT 2008

:woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo:

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:
:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:
:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

A true revolution of values

"I'm proposing we set a national goal of eliminating poverty in the next 30 years." - JOHN EDWARDS 08

Silence is Betrayal - JOHN EDWARDS 08

Moral Leadership - JOHN EDWARDS 08

Ending Poverty in America - edited by Senator John Edwards

[PoconoPragmatist]

66. Good Point

The very fact that he is BUGGING PEOPLE tells me that he is speaking about the issues that REALLY MATTER...which is what most people do not want to think about, or be confronted with.

Just give them a feed bag to bury their heads in, and give 'em American Idol, and leave 'em alone, and they are happy. They don't care about the people who don't have the feed bag...or had it ripped away from them. They figure if they keep their heads down, then, by the grace of God, no one will notice them and rip THEIR feed bag away!

[huskerlaw]

70. Exactly!

This country NEEDS to be uncomfortable. We NEED to be forced to face the issues that have been swept under the rug for the past 7 years. And while the Iraq war is of the utmost importance, we also need to be aware that we're pretty fucked domestically too.

The more people he "bugs" the happier I am.

[Madspirit]

48. k&r...n/t

[Hamlette]

50. no, its because he spends money according to his station and background

and it won't hurt him.

Now, if he spent that money on a rich persons condo in Nuuuuw York City, or some other "elitist" way, he would be a poser.

People from backgrounds like his buy sprawling ranch houses. It's what most Americans aspire to.

I find it charming.

He's more true to his roots than Bush and his sprawling spread in Crawford.

[cgrindley]

52. He bugs me because...

he is a parasitic tort lawyer
his lifestyle is grotesque
and he managed to lose to Dick Motherfucking Cheney

Why should anyone deserve a second chance after that?

[PoconoPragmatist]

67. I Call Bullshit

One word. Ohio.

[fazoolius_2006]

90. Exactly

[Jed Dilligan]

53. I've said it before, and I'll say it again.

Poor people would think the man was :crazy: if he didn't spend his money on nice things.

There are a few hair-shirt liberals out there who will look down their nose at him, but not enough to swing an election.

I think Edwards hopes to get the poor to vote, in which case he and his hair and house are just fine as they are.

[Forkboy]

54. Doesn't bug me at all.

He's not perfect,but there isn't a single human who is.To me his negatives are far less than Hillary or Obama,and while I still prefer DK I would have no problem voting for Edwards at all.

[Duncan]

80. What Forkboy said.

Yep.

[B Calm]

55. Move over Hillary, I really believe Edwards will win the next election.

[catrose]

57. Doesn't bug me either

I'll vote for him. Elizabeth too--the only person brave enough to go head to head with Ann Coulter.

[Laelth]

58. Edwards/Obama

Now that would be my dream team! Nice argument from Kuo. Thanks.

-Laelth

[usregimechange]

60. Agreed!

[PoconoPragmatist]

62. Spot On!!

This is why I have been an Edwards supporter since 2003!!

Go Edwards!!

Edwards/Moore '08!!

[lonestarnot]

68. Nothing about him bugs me.

:applause:

[Warren DeMontague]

69. Only thing that has bugged me about Edwards lately were his comments Re: Gay Marriage.

Maybe he can borrow a clue from his wife.

[PoconoPragmatist]

71. Government Oughta Get Out Of The Marriage Business Altogether!!

It should be civil unions for everyone. That's it. For legal purposes...that's it. Marriage should be left up to individual churches to perform for whomever they wish to perform it for...and for those couples who desire it.

Man and woman get legal "civil union" from government.
If they so choose, they may go to the church of their choice and get a "marriage" - assuming the church is willing to perform the ceremony and bless the relationship.

Same goes for gay couples.
There are churches that would not perform ceremonies for gay couples...nor should they be forced to. Chances are pretty good they'd never get asked to, anyway...because I cannot imagine any gay person wanting to be affiliated with a church that does not validate him/her as a person...and who does not respect the sanctity of his/her personal relationship.

There are churches out there who WOULD perform a marriage ceremony for a gay couple...and, more than likely...the gay couple probably already belongs to that particular church.

My own Unitarian Universalist church would, undoubtedly perform a gay marriage. My brother's Southern Baptist church likely would not. And that's perfectly okay. can't imagine a gay person wanting anything to do with the Southern Baptists, anyway.


SO...you get couples who are, regardless of gender...in civil unions. These couples may then, if they so choose, and the church is willing...get "married" in a CHURCH CEREMONY that has nothing to do with government or legal standing.

Now, who's being hurt by that solution? No one.

If you want to know what REALLY "cheapens" marriage it is the 50 percent divorce rate in this country, the single moms forced to work two and three jobs because of deadbeat dads who abandon their responsibilities, and often get away with it....and jokes like Brittney Spears and Jason Alexander. THAT is what really cheapens marriage!

Those who oppose gay marriage just want to have a leverage to force others to libve in a manner that does not make THEM uncomfortable. And they irrationally fear that, if gay marriage becomes legal...then everyone will go gay, and there goes the human race!! Get fucking serious!! I ask any heterosexual here if they would suddenly go gay just because they could all of a sudden marry their golf buddy.

It's a fucking stupid debate that just needs to go away. The government needs to get out of the marriage business, and leave that to churches. The government needs only to grant civil unions...which would be treated as any other legal contract between two consenting adults, regardless of the gender of the consenting adults.

Now how fucking hard is that??


And anyone who does not want to personally acknowledge a couple as "married" or even "united"...well, who gives a flying fuck what they think? They can think what they wish. It is only the legal standing that matters.

[Warren DeMontague]

72. Here's the thing, okay. Because I see what you're saying. But that's what we already have, they just

call the government granted civil unions "Marriage". Churches already don't marry people they don't want to marry. For instance, divorced people can get legally married, but they can't get married in a Catholic Church.

So, while I understand it as a solution, what you're suggesting is, stop calling the license you get from city hall "marriage" to keep the homophobes happy that "those people" can't get "legally married". Fuck 'em, I say. And you're never going to sell it by telling millions of straight people that they can't get "married" anymore--- unless they do it in a church. I'm not religious AT ALL. But I'm certainly married. My being "married" and not merely "civilly united" has no basis in religion.

No, I grok your argument and respect the logic, but what needs to be done IMHO is to simply legalize GAY MARRIAGE. As a legally binding civic institution that two people enter into, just like straight marriage- from a legal perspective- is. Equal rights. Period. And don't call it something else just because that makes the fundies happy. People -like the Catholic Church- are perfectly capable of distinguishing between legal marriage and religious marriage, for straights. They need to bite the bullet and grasp it for gays and lesbians as well.

[PoconoPragmatist]

95. Ahhh....But NOW Maybe You Understand The REAL Strategy Here...

Let me spell it out for you...


And you're never going to sell it by telling millions of straight people that they can't get "married" anymore---


But that's just the idea!! Let them know what it is like to be told you CAN'T get married!! Maybe then they will have a little more empathy. After all...if John wants to marry Steve, or Brenda wants to marry Michelle....PLEASE TELL ME EXACTLY WHO THE FUCK THAT HURTS??

The homophobes just do not want gay people to be able to legitimize their relationships at all, which is why they are even against civil unions. They could no longer sell their bullshit that gay people are all promiscuous.

And if Jack wants to become Jill, and then marry Brent...or Barbara...WHY THE FUCK SHOULDN'T SHE BE ABLE TO??

Again, who the fuck is it REALLY hurting? answer: no one. but who gets hurt when these rights are denied?

See, most people take their rights for granted, until they are faced with a situation in which THEIR rights are abridged. Then, maybe they gain empathy for others whose rights are abridged.

[etherealtruth]

75. "In talking about poverty he makes us confront the poor"

Keep talking John ...

He refuses to allow us , as a society, to abdicate our responsibilities to the most frail and vulnerable among us.

Keep talking John ...

[Time for change]

76. In making poverty a major issue

in 2008 as he did in 2004, he has demonstrated a great amount of courage.

For those who criticize him for this, one might as well say that Lincoln was "playing politics" when he expressed his anti-slavery views.

[sellitman]

77. Bravo!

Edwards isn't my first choice , but the right wing swill on him shouldn't be repeated here on DU. We should be above that.

[JacquesMolay]

81. The system hates John Edwards ...

... which is why I always listen to him when he talks. I do think that he's hurt himself with some of his actions - the hair thing and the investments. But I think the media goes to lengths that they don't go to with other candidates, to attack him with trivia.

[PoconoPragmatist]

86. Ask Yourself WHY That Might Be...

that the media goes to greater lengths to attack him than with other candidates? D'ya think it just MIGHT be because they percieve his message and agenda as THREATENING TO THEIR SELFISH INTERESTS??

[JacquesMolay]

91. 'Xactly.

n/a

[nankerphelge]

83. Here's why I won't vote for him...

Edwards has 'never heard of PETA'

DERRY, N.H. -- Responding to a question at a bookstore here, John Edwards said he has never heard of PETA, the animal rights group.

"I can honestly say I have never heard of PETA," said Edwards. "They don't want people to eat meat? Well I am not in favor of that."

The PETA acronym stands for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. The group works to prevent abuse of animals on factory farms, in laboratories and the clothing and entertainment industries.

Edwards, who has positioned himself as one of the most progressive Democratic candidates, is in New Hampshire for two days of campaigning.

[PoconoPragmatist]

87. Single-Issue Voters Will Kill Us....

Look at the whole package...and educate the best candidate on this issues that are important to you. Don't just dismmiss someone who has a great agenda...just because they do not embrace YOUR pet issue. Vote for the best guy and educate them on your issue.

Just as an example...Edwards would not be my first choice where it comes to civil rights for GLBT folks. But I'm willing to try to educate him on that issue...and look at the economic and health-care issues he presents as being very important.

Quit being a single-issue voter, and vote for the best PACKAGE...and work to educate that best package on issues of importantce to you.

[madmunchie]

84. What a nice neat package you've put this into!

Too bad you didn't include this horrible lack of talent when it comes to judgements made (and voted on) while he was a Senator - his one and only "public service" stint in which he spent part of that campaigning for POTUS.

He makes a pretty speech, he has pretty hair, he has a good story BUT his track record is one of the worst of the candidates running.

I will look for a candidate that has better judgement and more experience.

[PoconoPragmatist]

88. In Other Words

Another Washington insider...who has skeletons in their closet, has sold out to the special interests, and is adept at saying one thing during the election, and doing something else once they are in office.

Exactly, then...who do YOU suggest as being the best candidate we have available for President in 08 - THAT IS CURRENTLY RUNNING??

Do not say Al Gore...he is not currently running.

Do not say Hillary, because I will :puke:

[madmunchie]

99. That is not what I said and I will hope for whomever I choose, whether they are running or not

YES, Gore, Clark, Feigold.....I'm hoping against hope that one of them will enter. If not Kucinich is my #1 choice. If it comes down to Edwards or Clinton, I might look at an Independent candidate, because I don't trust either one of them with Edwards being at the bottom of the list. His previous record (or lack thereof) shows horrible judgement and well, Clinton is too political and (for your benefit) too inside, although that is what the Republicans deserve, Hillary being POTUS would absolutely KILL them.

[havocmom]

89. He bugs people because he is rich? He did that himself. Must bug the trust-funders

One would think his wealth would serve as hope and inspiration for other people to work hard, work smart, then remember the common people when you claw your way up to a comfortable place.

He could be like Paris or george and just live off the family fortune, being a wastrel and making life hell for those of lesser means. That would bug me.

If he can afford to pay a lot for a haircut, that's good too. He puts money back into circulation. The person who cuts his hair goes shopping. That money feeds into the capitalist system which makes employment possible for others. What is the problem with THAT?

He bugs the really fat cats who want to keep all the cream up at their end of the milk bottle.

Tough shit for them.

[PoconoPragmatist]

94. Damn, I Like That Colloquialism!!

May I use that, please??

"fat cats who want to keep all the cream up at their end of the milk bottle"

I sincerely like that analogy!!

And I like your respponse to that attitude, too...tough shit for them!!

Looking at our society, our system, our country, our politics, everything...it becomes clear that cream does not always rise to the top anymore...but crap still floats!

[LisaL]

101. Hey, to be fair, Paris is making her own money.

She gets paid for her appearances at parties and such.

[redwitch]

100. I voted for him in the last primary.

He makes me feel hopeful that America could be fixed. I would be happy if he was our choice for '08.

[Snotcicles]

102. Delete- sorry repeat. nt