April 2018

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30          

« Truthiness | Main | ConvergeSouth »

Aug 07, 2007

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

The CA

I'm not trolling. I really think the Edwards campaign is increasingly shameless, just like Jim & Tammy Faye when they were scamming people. Disagree if you will, but you don't have to accuse me of trolling.

Joe Killian

It's easy enough to say you think just about any politician is scamming the public -- but what is it you believe they're scamming them into believing? Do you believe that they don't actually care about the poor? I guess I'm just hazy on what the scam is supposed to be.

Mick

I think the comparison is harsh. I have always had a little icky feeling that JE was a politicians politician. His ever morphing smiling moderate to angry lefty does not change my mind. I do not think him EVIIIIIILLLLL. Just a typical pol.. the kind I dont really like. Well I guess that would include most though!

Dave Dobson

As Joe said, what are they shameless about? Where's the scam?

Edwards isn't a convicted felon, nor has he committed tax fraud, nor is he accused of rape. By comparing him to somebody who is, you're deliberately associating him with horrible behavior, even if you claim it's only about their personalities.

I'd be completely trolling if I said, "Rudy Guliani is reminding me more and more of Heinrich Himmler..." Even if I could come up with some minor similarity between the two, it's completely unfair.

The CA

Were Jim & Tammy Faye not shameless? So to are the Edwards. They don't have to be scamming anyone, even though the great disconnect between personal actions and public message by the Edwards campaign is a form of scamming.

Dave Dobson

You keep saying they are shameless and not saying what they should be ashamed of. Seems like you're shamelessly comparing them to felons. Ergo, you're like Jim and Tammy.

Patrick

The CA, what is the great disconnect between the personal actions of the Edwardses and the public message of the Edwards campaign?

The CA

Complaining about the rich/poor gap while living extravagantly and obscenely with $400 haircuts, to name a few. It's okay to be rich and want to help the poor, but for the Edwards' to make the rich seem evil and attack corporations (that he also got rich off of) as the centerpiece of your campaign, to lament the "two Americas"
while basking in excess yourself is just hypocrisy. That is a big disconnect between their public stance and personal actions. Same thing with the investments he made in hedge companies that he now rails against. Same thing with his rants about Rupert Murdoch and Fox, whom he also made money from. He complains about rich and poor, yet seems obsessed with his own greed- and shameless and two faced about how he acquires it. \

John Edwards is the candidate for suckers.

Joe Killian

That perspective seems really, really lefty to me.

Like 19-year-old lefty.

You can't like nice cars, live in a nice house, wear nice suits and also want to help the poor and lament the conditions that cause it? Your wealth doesn't cause your poverty -- but if you're smart and care, it can help you to alleviate it.

The CA

You can be a white guy and want to help minorities. You can't be a white guy and a member of the Klan and claim to want to help minorities.

You can be a Catholic and be opposed to anti-Semitism. You can't be a Catholic anti-Semite and claim to be opposed to anti-Semitism.

It's all in how you live your life according to your status. If you are rich and want to live an over the top lifestyle instead of getting a $10 haircut and donating the other $390 to the poor that you claim to care so much about, that's fine. Just don't preach about how concerned you are about the poor. It makes you look foolish.

Anthony

"instead of getting a $10 haircut"

So Edwards, who is in the public eye, should have gotten his hair cut at Great Clips? (Actually, I'm not even sure you can get a haircut there for $10). $400 may be excessive, but so is expecting a public figure to go to some random hole in the wall barber shop in whatever town he happens to be in.

I'm with Joe on this one.

Also, your Klan and anti-Semite analogies don't wash, unless Edwards is doing something to actively make people more poor.

The CA

Complaining that hedge funds are ripping people off- while investing in hedge funds yourself, is actively working against the people you claim to be helping.

Railing against Rupert Murdoch and encouraging others not to accept his money when you accept it yourself is just plain hypocrisy.

It's not that Edwards is rich, it's what he does with his money and how he gets it in contrast to what he preaches to others.

Jim & Tammy. Send us your money. It's for a good cause. We care about you. Help us fight evil and greed in the world. How much for that air conditioned dog house?

Joe Killian

I guess my thing is -- I can't believe anyone who considers themselves even kind of conservative would argue that it's anyone's damned business what people do with their money. Spend it -- it feeds the economy. Donate it (which Edwards does do, far more lavishly than you or I) and it's also good for society. But your wealth -- no matter what you do with it -- doesn't make other people poor. You're not helping poor people by wearing cheap sneakers rather than Nikes (though you could argue whether you're helping or hurting the poor -- and young, poor -- people who are making them overseas).

The suggestion that you're not doing enough if you buy some expensive thing rather than buying a cheap thing (or service) and donate the cash difference to charity is the sort of stupid, economically ridiculous argument that made me want to smack weed-reeking hippie kids when I was in college.

And even if it was a valid argument -- it shouldn't be administered selectively. Let's turn this laser-like interest in peoples' personal lives and wealth on the Republican party -- plenty of whom make poverty or representing working class people the center of their political careers. Or better yet, let's not. Because it's a dumb enough argument when lefties are making it. They don't need help from the Right or Libertarians whose underlying core political and social values should let them smell that argument before it even comes into view.

Dave Dobson

Sam, all your comparisons there are simplistic and false. You can invest in hedge funds while still thinking their managers should, you know, pay normal taxes on their salaries. You can live well while still knowing that poverty is a real problem for others. And with regard to Murdoch, there is nearly nothing so fundamentally American than making money off people you don't like.

Nearly every poor person I know wouldn't live how they do if they could afford not to. I'm not seeing why John Edwards has to put on some kind of destitution hair shirt to talk about policies that help people live better, more secure lives. I love your 19-year-old lefty analysis, Joe. I'm around a great many of them where I work - the idealism is completely endearing, but the lack of realistic analysis can be frustrating at times.

Capitalism, at its best, makes people work hard to improve their lives, and rewards those who do work hard. But I consider health care, education, food, and shelter to be fundamental human rights, regardless of income. We're a wealthy enough country we can make that happen, and Edwards is the one doing the most talking about that. These issues are far more important than who's ready to say they'd nuke Pakistan in some weird hypothetical situation. And also, to be fair, far more important than who should be permitted to own the Wall Street Journal.

Ed Cone

I think Joe and Dave have made many good points here, but that Murdoch thing was messed up. And even details that are OK can still be political liabilities...

The CA

Suffice it to say that we disagree, Joe & Dave. I just think Edwards has a tin ear on this issue and has done some really stupid things while making his "Two Americas" theme the centerpiece of his campaign. It's like campaigning on "family values" while cheating on your wife. Really bad timing. $400 haircuts while trying to identify with the poor just makes you look silly. $50 would have been just fine and he could have gotten probably the same cut.

Ed is sort of right on the Murdoch thing although the articles he links to don't address the money Edwards received from Murdoch that he refused to give back all the while advocating that others not take money from him. It just doesn't get any more blatantly hypocritical than that. That's like campaigning against blood diamonds while your wife sports a big one on her finger that you bought for her.

BruceMcF
Suffice it to say that we disagree, Joe & Dave. I just think Edwards has a tin ear on this issue and has done some really stupid things while making his "Two Americas" theme the centerpiece of his campaign. It's like campaigning on "family values" while cheating on your wife. Really bad timing. $400 haircuts while trying to identify with the poor just makes you look silly. $50 would have been just fine and he could have gotten probably the same cut.

If the haircut had not been put on the campaign tab by mistake, we'd have never heard about it, and something else would have been trumped up. That fact that a place in a nice part of Georgetown sells for enough to build a really big place and surrounding forest in North Carolina was already the target for fake outrage before the haircut every happened.

The point it to try to put across a lie and convince people to repeat it:

... but for the Edwards' to make the rich seem evil and attack corporations (that he also got rich off of) as the centerpiece of your campaign, to lament the "two Americas"

Its not about rich being "evil", its about the game being rigged in their favor ... and if you think it isn't, I got a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you.

And of course if he hadn't gotten rich from fighting big corporations as a lawyer, he'd never be in a position to fight them as a politician.

The comments to this entry are closed.