As he sought the Democratic Party's presidential nomination in 2004 and later as John Kerry's running mate, John Edwards talked about poverty more than any other candidate.
But when he spoke on the campaign trail about what he referred to as the "two Americas," he told a conference on poverty here this week, "people called it a downer."
Now Mr. Edwards, a former senator from North Carolina and a presumed contender for his party's 2008 presidential nomination, has made curbing poverty the centerpiece of his work and his political approach.
This is his true passion, he said in an interview, and he thinks that voters may be more responsive in the coming years, both because the middle class is becoming less secure and because of a shared sense of fairness.
Mr. Edwards was the organizer and the most assiduous note-taker at the poverty conference, sponsored by the Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity at the University of North Carolina, an organization that he founded and directs.
The meeting drew more than 200 scholars and leaders of private antipoverty agencies to discuss issues like the problems of the working poor and the effects globalization has on labor.
The challenge, Mr. Edwards and other speakers said, is not just to devise better ways to fight poverty but to find strategies with broad appeal.
Some of the scholars offered, if not cheerful data, themes that they said might grab the attention of middle-income Americans. Many of the same economic trends that hurt the poor, the experts said, are also creating "a harsh new world of economic insecurity for middle-class families," in the words of Jacob S. Hacker, a political scientist at Yale.
Mr. Hacker described a decline in shared safety nets, like health insurance, that leave more families confronting medical crises or job losses without assistance.
Rising costs for housing, health care and other necessities have affected middle-class families as well as the poor, said Elizabeth Warren, an expert on family bankruptcy and a law professor at Harvard. Even with more mothers now working outside the home, Ms. Warren said, families have more debt, fewer reserves and more volatile incomes than they did a few decades ago.
Several scholars lamented the racial and class disparities in family assets, including home equity and other savings, a topic that receives less attention than those disparities in income. Income is used to get by, they said, but assets provide a safety net and a means to climb ahead. Helping low-income people buy homes and using tax credits to encourage savings accounts were among the potential answers put forth.
In interviews, several scholars said they were grateful for the chance to discuss research and issues, though they said they knew that Mr. Edwards was most likely banking ideas for a political campaign.
Former Democratic vice presidential candidate John Edwards gave a stump speech in the Hill District yesterday, saying Wal-Mart, the retail giant, underpays its workers.
The speech was part of a nationwide tour by a group called Wake Up Wal-Mart, which is demanding that the company provide better pay and more health care for its more than 1 million employees.
Just like the millions of Americans who turn to their neighborhood Wal-Mart for their holiday shopping needs, Wal-Mart announced today that former Sen. John Edwards is seeking to be one of the first to get a Sony PlayStation3, one of the most coveted holiday gift items this Christmas season.
Yesterday, a staff person for former Sen. Edwards contacted a Wal-Mart electronics manager in Raleigh, North Carolina to obtain a Sony PlayStation3 on behalf of the Senator's family. Later that night, Sen. Edwards reportedly re-told a homespun story to participants of a United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) union-sponsored call about how his son had chided a fellow student for purchasing shoes at Wal-Mart.
Wal-Mart welcomes Sen. Edwards to visit his local Wal-Mart store and explore the extensive line of home electronics as well as the Metro7 line shoes for men and boys.
The Company noted the PlayStation3 is an extremely popular item this Christmas season, and while the rest of America's working families are waiting patiently in line, Senator Edwards wants to cut to the front. While, we cannot guarantee that Sen. Edwards will be among one of the first to obtain a PlayStation3, we are certain Sen. Edwards will be able to find great gifts for everyone on his Christmas list--many at Wal-Mart's "roll-back prices."
This might be a good non-story for partisan republicans...except Edwards never asked for somebody to use his name to get a PS3. His wife mentioned wanting one in front of a staff member who mentioned it to a volunteer who then went out to try to get one.
I find it more believable than say a friend of the family arranging a safer slot in the National Guard during Vietnam.
BTW Edwards has been outspoken critic of Walmart, as much as you may want to believe the truthiness of it G-man, why would he solicit the chain he's criticised often?
In "Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy", Hoover Fellow Peter Schweizer reveals the glaring contradictions between the public stances and real-life behavior of prominent liberals including Michael Moore, Ted Kennedy, Al Franken, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi and Ralph Nader – among others.
Among the eye-opening revelations of "Do As I Say":
Filmmaker Michael Moore insists that corporations are evil and claims he doesn't invest in the stock market due to moral principle. But Moore's IRS forms, viewed by Schweizer, show that over the past five years he has owned shares in such corporate giants as Halliburton, Merck, Pfizer, Sunoco, Tenet Healthcare, Ford, General Electric and McDonald's.
Staunch union supporter Rep. Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) has received the Cesar Chavez Award from the United Farmworkers Union. But the $25 million Northern California vineyard she and her husband own is a non-union shop.
Ralph Nader is another liberal who claims that unions are essential to protect worker rights. But when an editor of one of his publications tried to form a union to ameliorate miserable working conditions, the editor was fired and the locks changed on the office door.
Self-described socialist Noam Chomsky has described the Pentagon as "the most vile institution on the face of the earth" and lashed out against tax havens and trusts that benefit only the rich. But Chomsky has been paid millions of dollars by the Pentagon over the last 40 years, and he used a venerable law firm to set up his irrevocable trust to shield his assets from the IRS.
Air America radio host Al Franken says conservatives are racist because they lack diversity and oppose affirmative action. But fewer than 1 percent of the people he has hired over the past 15 years have been African-American.
Ted Kennedy has fought for the estate tax and spoken out against tax shelters. But he has repeatedly benefited from an intricate web of trusts and private foundations that have shielded most of his family's fortune from the IRS.
Barbra Streisand has talked about the necessity of unions to protect a "living wage." But she prefers to do her filming and postproduction work in Canada, where she can pay less than American union wages.
Bill and Hillary Clinton have spoken in favor of the estate tax, and in 2000 Bill vetoed a bill seeking to end it. But the Clintons have set up a contract trust that allows them to substantially reduce the amount of inheritance tax their estate will pay when they die.
Billionaire Bush-basher George Soros says the wealthy should pay higher, more progressive tax rates. But he holds the bulk of his money in tax-free overseas accounts in Curacao, Bermuda and the Cayman Islands.
And, of course, a few weeks ago we learned that Mark Foley, who spent a good part of his career railing against homosexuals, was one.
In short, there's no dearth of hypocrisy in politics.
Edwards probably figured having a staffer make the call would help keep anyone from finding out. Oh wellll.....
Quote: First Amongst Daves said: Stupid. He should have got it from another retailer.
That is why I think it was probably a case of an over eager person who tried pleasing their boss. It's not surprising that upon hearing Edwards wife saying they wanted one that somebody would try procure one & win some brownie points. Considering the scrutiny that figures like Edwards faces I doubt he would have ordered someone to go try using his name at Walmart.
Quote: Matter-eater Man said: Considering the scrutiny that figures like Edwards faces I doubt he would have ordered someone to go try using his name at Walmart.
As noted above, how is this any more unlikely than Mark Foley hitting on male pages while being an overtly anti-gay congressman?
Quote: Matter-eater Man said: Considering the scrutiny that figures like Edwards faces I doubt he would have ordered someone to go try using his name at Walmart.
As noted above, how is this any more unlikely than Mark Foley hitting on male pages while being an overtly anti-gay congressman?
Because he probably would have used another retail chain if he was going to use his name for clout. Foley got away for years with his many trips to "Pagemart" in part because of over eager help from the GOP.
You're assuming the staff wasn't calling all over to various stores and simply couldn't find one at any other store either. However, according to the news, the game's been sold out at all sorts of stores.
You're also assuming that an Edwards staff member wouldn't be conversant enough with his or her boss's policies to know that calling WalMart was verboten. That seems a rather unlikely, given that staff volunteers are normally volunteers because they support a candidate's positions on issues.
Given that, its more likely that a staffer would only call WalMart on orders from above.
There's also this to consider: Edwards has been attacking Wal-Mart in part upon the theory that it underpays its employees. It only stands to reason that Edwards, believing WalMart employees to be underpaid, would believe them to be unskilled and/or uneducated. Otherwise, why would they work at WalMart?
As such, it stands to reason that Edwards would assume that anyone who answered the phone in the toy department (or wherever) would be an underpaid, unskilled, uneducated, employee. Why wouldn't Edwards figure that a line employee at WalMart, eager to make a sale, wouldn't know of Edwards' anti-WalMart platform and wouldn't know enough to alert management to his apparent hyprocrisy?
If anything, its at least as feasible that Edwards would assume a WalMart employee wouldn't know who he was as it is for you to assume that an Edwards staffer wouldn't know his boss didn't want them shopping there.
the slapstick of the Edwards misstep should not obscure the really big picture, the fatal flaw in his "Two Americas" spiel. Many thousands of Americans evidently have $600 to spend on a video game machine. What's more, this Christmas is expected to usher in the year of the flat-panel. With price points dropping below the $1000 mark, high-end TVs are moving down-market fast with Wal-Mart leading the way.
Contrary to the Edwards' pitch that labor-hostile companies are leaving American workers destitute, somebody is making some money out there in America. More importantly, they are making it in many, many cases without a union card. This reality will very hard for union-funded Democrats like Edwards to ignore as the 2008 presidential campaign unfolds. Hewing to the union rules, clear evidence of prosperity, like perhaps a shortage of $600 game machines, will have to be swept out of the campaign.
In any event, maybe the best thing for Wal-Mart to do is stop chortling and go ahead and give John Edwards a PS3 and a couple games. Throw in a flat-panel too. Maybe that way he'll reacquaint himself with American prosperity and abundance and be a better candidate for the experience.
Quote: You're assuming the staff wasn't calling all over to various stores and simply couldn't find one at any other store either. However, according to the news, the game's been sold out at all sorts of stores.
Actually all we know is that one Edwards person tried getting a game system for Edwards by calling a Walmart. There isn't any evidence of your assumption that he had his staff calling various stores.
Quote: You're also assuming that an Edwards staff member wouldn't be conversant enough with his or her boss's policies to know that calling WalMart was verboten. That seems a rather unlikely, given that staff volunteers are normally volunteers because they support a candidate's positions on issues. Given that, its more likely that a staffer would only call WalMart on orders from above.
That still doesn't make sense. Edwards would have to know such a request for something so in demand wouldn't end with him getting a game thing from Walmart. Whoever took the call would have to bump that decision higher on up the Walmart food chain.
While I'm sure volunteers support Edwards on the issues but would be very surprised if he didn't have a few that shopped at Walmart. It's more likely a young volunteer, over eager to please his boss overstepped.
Quote: There's also this to consider: Edwards has been attacking Wal-Mart in part upon the theory that it underpays its employees. It only stands to reason that Edwards, believing WalMart employees to be underpaid, would believe them to be unskilled and/or uneducated. Otherwise, why would they work at WalMart?
As such, it stands to reason that Edwards would assume that anyone who answered the phone in the toy department (or wherever) would be an underpaid, unskilled, uneducated, employee. Why wouldn't Edwards figure that a line employee at WalMart, eager to make a sale, wouldn't know of Edwards' anti-WalMart platform and wouldn't know enough to alert management to his apparent hyprocrisy?
When somebody is underpaid it's because the employer isn't paying their workers what their true value is. You may think Walmart employees are worth less but Edwards hasn't said anything to support such reasoning. He's been fighting for those workers to be paid for their value.
It's also unreasonable to suggest that an employee would be happy to sell such a high demand item. Everyone knows that you could turn around an sell one of these for big bucks. More likely these units were watched like a hawk & well acounted for. Such an unusual sale would need to be cleared further on up the Walmart system.
Quote: If anything, its at least as feasible that Edwards would assume a WalMart employee wouldn't know who he was as it is for you to assume that an Edwards staffer wouldn't know his boss didn't want them shopping there.
Since the whole story hinges on Edwards willing to use his name & position to get something, that doesn't make sense.
Quote: Matter-eater Man said: While I'm sure volunteers support Edwards on the issues but would be very surprised if he didn't have a few that shopped at Walmart. It's more likely a young volunteer, over eager to please his boss overstepped...Since the whole story hinges on Edwards willing to use his name & position to get something, that doesn't make sense.
So, basically, your defense of Edwards boils down to the conceit that its so hard to get good unpaid help these days?
Quote: the G-man said:... So, basically, your defense of Edwards boils down to the conceit that its so hard to get good unpaid help these days? ...
Nope, just repeatedly pointing out the flawed logic in this story of Edwards ordering a volunteer to procure a sold out game system from Walmart, the place he's been an outspoken critic of.
I would like to point out that purchasing something from Wal-Mart is a tad different than a middle-aged man having hitting on teenaged male pages in an attempt to satisfy his boy-lust.
If a politician would risk his career over something as frowned upon (and potentially illegal) as "hitting on teenaged male pages in an attempt to satisfy his boy-lust" its not that surprising that another politician would take a much lesser risk by shopping at WalMart.
As I pointed out though, for Edwards to order one of his guys to call up Walmart to throw the Edwards name at them doesn't make sense. Edwards status as an outspoken Walmart critic wouldn't have gotten him what he wanted.
We're left with Walmart saying one of Edwards people used his name. Edwards says he nor his wife told no one to do that. Unless the volunteer has said otherwise, this allegation really has no evidence to suggest that Edwards is lying. (unlike Rove outing agents secretly to reporters)
If a politician would risk his career over something as frowned upon (and potentially illegal) as "hitting on teenaged male pages in an attempt to satisfy his boy-lust" its not that surprising that another politician would take a much lesser risk by shopping at WalMart.
Foley knew to stay away from the Walmart pages & may have had a bit of GOP help in covering up.
Quote: Matter-eater Man said: ...unlike Rove outing agents secretly to reporters)
You're trying to change the subject to Rove?
Why not just admit you've lost?
Seriously... MEM... its okay to--once in a while--admit that people on "your" side make mistakes.
For example, I'm perfectly comfortable with the fact that Foley was hypocrite, even though he was a Republican. Same with the guys that got caught cozying up to Abramoff.
Really, its not so bad. You don't have to be a blind partisan 24/7, MEM. Once in a while you can put down the talking points.
so Bush misuses 9/11 and its victims to get us into a terrible war which he mismanaged and has fractured a region and cost hundreds of thousands of lives and billions of dollars, throwing the country deeper in debt. and g-man defends him. someone uses john edwards' name to get a $400 game console from wal-mart. and g-man calls for his head.
What is the big deal?!? It's called picking your battles. PS3 is hot this season, EB Games/ Gamestop didn't even recieve enough to cover their preorder reserve customers, let alone walk-in customers; anybody else is going to scour any available retailer, regardless of personal views, to get one. Who knows what exactly caused it, but I don't think less of Edwards; you sometimes have to team up with opponents to get what you want, then you can go back to hating each other. The Republican Congress did this with Bill Clinton and the welfare reform issue in the '90's, after all....
Quote: Matter-eater Man said: ...unlike Rove outing agents secretly to reporters)
You're trying to change the subject to Rove?
Why not just admit you've lost?
Seriously... MEM... its okay to--once in a while--admit that people on "your" side make mistakes.
For example, I'm perfectly comfortable with the fact that Foley was hypocrite, even though he was a Republican. Same with the guys that got caught cozying up to Abramoff.
Really, its not so bad. You don't have to be a blind partisan 24/7, MEM. Once in a while you can put down the talking points.
Ah so now we've come to the part where you once again declare I'm a blind partisan despite the times I've admitted that people on "my" side make mistakes or that my party isn't perfect.
What you skipped over to make an untrue personal attack (talk about changing the subject) was...
Quote: As I pointed out though, for Edwards to order one of his guys to call up Walmart to throw the Edwards name at them doesn't make sense. Edwards status as an outspoken Walmart critic wouldn't have gotten him what he wanted. We're left with Walmart saying one of Edwards people used his name. Edwards says he nor his wife told no one to do that. Unless the volunteer has said otherwise, this allegation really has no evidence to suggest that Edwards is lying.
Now I'll admit that partisans such as yourself have a nice little story that makes Edwards look bad as long as you don't linger on the details or evidence.
Quote: Matter-eater Man said: Ah so now we've come to the part where you once again declare I'm a blind partisan despite the times I've admitted that people on "my" side make mistakes or that my party isn't perfect.
Ah, yes, your courageous attack on John Kerry's windsurfing, wasn't it?
The University of North Carolina hired Edwards to head its new Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity a couple of years ago, but that hasn't impressed the Education Trust, which gave the university a "D" grade on educational opportunities for the poor and minorities.
I guess Edwards has been too busy scouring the Wal-Marts of America for the latest gaming devices to fix the problem.
But maybe all that time he's spending in Iowa will give him some insight on how to do his job.
National Review asks: "Could Chris Matthews make his man-crush on John Edwards any more obvious?"
This week he devoted an entire hour of Hardball to interviewing the former vice-presidential nominee, at one point defending him from his wife by accusing her of busting his balls.
Today, while discussing 2008 with the Politico.com's Roger Simon and Washington Post political analyst Chris Cillizza, Edwards came up again when Matthews asked whether a recession would lead Democratic candidates to try a populist message
Quote:
SIMON: The [Democratic] Party hates [the populist] message.
MATTHEWS: You know why? Because the contributors hate it. The people with the money say, "That's us we're talking about."
CILLIZZA: And Chris, one note: The people with the money includes John Edwards. I mean, this is a multimillionaire trial lawyer making the argument that, you know, "I understand your concerns." He did come up from very little in terms of family wealth, but he is not exactly someone who at this point in his life shares the concern of —
MATTHEWS: You're getting too analytical, Cillizza. You're getting very analytical. You're going through each one of these resumes like you're taking applications to Harvard here.
Maybe its just me, but I thought reporters and (especially) political commentators were supposed to be analytical, not just blindly fond of candidates.
Maybe Matthews was just concerned that Cillizza was being too hard on Edwards after the ball busting his wife gave him.
John Edwards made it official today with his speech in New Orleans announcing his candidacy.
Edwards will probably be able to count on strong union support, and he's polling well in Iowa, where he had a surprisingly strong second place finish in 2004.
But with unemployment at only 4.5 percent, it's hard to see his "two Americas" speech gaining much traction.
Also, the campaign is already a comedy of errors. Not only was there the embarrasing incident of him trying to score a Wii from Wal-Mart the same day he criticized the company, but the timing of his announcment came from yet another "staff mistake":
Edwards' announcement was made in the wake of President Gerald Ford's death and after his campaign accidentally launched his campaign Web site a day early, then shut it back down.
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.”
In other news, the war on terror is over, apparently, since it doesn't seem to be one of the top five priorities.
I can hear someone arguing that that isn't a fair criticism - that "ending our addiction to oil" and "providing moral leadership" by drawing down troops are parts of the war on terror. But do those steps really address the threat of al-Qaeda?
Ending oil imports would probably reduce funding for terror groups, but it wouldn't eliminate it.
And I doubt all the "moral leadership" in the world would persuade al-Qaeda. If anything, that kind of "moral leadership" is just another example of "calling for surrender."
On This Week yesterday, John Edwards said: “But the genocide, global poverty, the spread of HIV/AIDS, the atrocities that are occurring in northern Uganda, there are a whole range of places that America would have basically universal support if we showed some leadership.”
The same day, the Washington Post reported: "The president has tripled direct humanitarian and development aid to the world's most impoverished continent since taking office and recently vowed to double that increased amount by 2010 — to nearly $9 billion."
Slate passes around some real estate poop on John Edwards, notorious PlayStation 3 enthusiast and spokesmen for all of us who have been banished to trailer park section of the "Two Americas."
Edwards has just sold his Georgetown mansion for $5.2 million. That's almost $1.5 million more than what he paid for it back in 1998.
Quote: Captain Sammitch said: I'm glad he's so able to speak for all of us commoners.
As opposed to how Bush/Cheney do?
Simple reality. You can't go far in politics today unless you have enough money and/or come from enough money and/or can weasel your way into enough money to be out of touch with the rest of us. That sad truth transcends party lines. Most anywhere else in the world, you just get ahold of some guns and convince enough of your buddies to come along for the ride, and you're a legitimate political entity.
John Edwards may be running for president again in 2008, but his latest effort is hardly a repeat performance of the 2004 campaign that catapulted him to the Democratic vice presidential nomination.
The former North Carolina senator says circumstances have changed, America has changed, and he has changed.
"In 2004 I spent a lot of time thinking about how I could be the best candidate possible," he said in Buffalo Saturday. "Now I think about being the best president I could be."
He has taken his campaign to the next level, he said, by moving beyond identifying problems to identifying solutions.
"My thinking as a leader has evolved," he said. "Identifying a problem is not good enough, but taking action to solve it is key"
Wow, this "solutions" thing is going to revolutionize politics! And you thought Edwards was just another pretty face.
John Edwards... hawk? At least he is when speaking in Israel:
In his speech, Edwards criticised the United States' previous indifference to the Iranian issue, saying they have not done enough to deal with the threat.
Hinting to possible military action, Edwards stressed that "in order to ensure Iran never gets nuclear weapons, all options must remain on table."
On the recent UN Security Council's resolution against Iran, Edwards said more serious political and economic steps should be taken. "Iran must know that the world won’t back down," he said.
Addressing the second Lebanon war , Edwards accused the Islamic Republic of having a significant role, saying Hizbullah was an instrument of Iran, and Iranian rockets were what made the organization's attack on Israel possible.
Edwards also discussed Syria's recent calls for peace with Israel, saying that "talk is cheap," and that Syria was not doing enough to prove it was serious.
The former senator also said that Syria has been a great source of destabilization in the area, from its support of Hizbullah and Hamas, to its relationship with Iran, and for this it should be held accountable.
I have to admit, however, its refreshing to hear this from any Democratic presidential contender.
I just wish we would hear more details on what those "serious political and economic steps" ought to be. And exactly how Edwards would hold Syria accountable.
Left-wing blogger Amanda Marcotte of the vociferously anti-war web site Pandagon has been named by the John Edwards campaign as their new blogmaster.
The extent of Ms. Marcotte's responsibilities at the Edwards site, and the nature of the political operations she will be undertaking as a member of the Edwards campaign, have not yet been detailed publicly.
Naturally, my flight out of Atlanta has been delayed. Let's hope it takes off when they say it will so I don't miss my connecting flight home.
In the meantime, I've been sort of casually listening to CNN blaring throughout the waiting area and good fucking god is that channel pure evil. For awhile, I had to listen to how the poor dear lacrosse players at Duke are being persecuted just because they held someone down and fucked her against her will--not rape, of course, because the charges have been thrown out. Can't a few white boys sexually assault a black woman anymore without people getting all wound up about it? So unfair.
Putting aside her potentially libelous comments about the lacrosse players, is it really a good idea to be calling the major cable network that isn't Fox "pure evil"? Not exactly the way to endear oneself to CNN, I would think.
Looks like Edwards, for all his money, has once again failed to hire good help.
Wow. Edwards has just shown very poor judge in character. There goes any hope that I'll support him if I don't like the Republican candidate, assuming he is the Democratic candidate, which he won't be.
You can probably write off the presidential aspirations of John Edwards:
Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards said Sunday his plan for universal healthcare would require higher taxes and cost up to $120 billion year.... ''Yes, we'll have to raise taxes. The only way you can pay for a healthcare plan that costs anywhere from $90 [billion] to $120 billion is there has to be a revenue source,'' the former North Carolina senator said.
Most Democrats want to raise your taxes, but they're usually smart enough to lie about it.
I think we live in an age where, though the general public doesn't like it, most people understand that with everything that's gone on over the last few years, we're going to have to raise taxes. You're right, admitting that he'll have to raise taxes probably won't win him any points, but this isn't a Biden.
Most Democrats want to raise your taxes, but they're usually smart enough to lie about it.
"Read my lips, no new taxes." (and then he raised them). "Let's tell the truth. Mr. Reagan will raise taxes, and so will I. He won't tell you. I just did." "Your taxes will be at the level they were at under President Clinton."
So basically Democrats have a better track record of honesty on tax increases. Bush jr. has lowered taxes, but mainly for the wealthy with token refunds for working families. I guess your point is that it's better to lie and win, then be honest and lose?
I don't know. I remember Dean saying he'd raise taxes in 2004. Kerry attacked him on it and that was when Dean started falling behind in the primaries.
Quote: the G-man said: I don't know. I remember Dean saying he'd raise taxes in 2004. Kerry attacked him on it and that was when Dean started falling behind in the primaries.
but your point was that democrats usually lie about raising taxes. Thank you for providing another example of a democrat being honest about it. Now, please provide Dean's tax plan and compare it to Kerry's so we can see whether Kerry's attack on him (if it was higher taxes than Kerry wanted) was justified. Please also provide the figures on the surplus we had on Clinton versus the debt we have under Bush and then explain in your oh so wise way how putting the nation into debt is truly worth the token sum given to working families and the huge breaks to the rich.
Actually, our posts crossed. The "I don't know" comment was directed at MEM and Perkins saying that people would accept a tax increase. I was saying I don't know if that is the case.
Quote: the G-man said: In "Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy", Hoover Fellow Peter Schweizer reveals the glaring contradictions between the public stances and real-life behavior of prominent liberals including Michael Moore, Ted Kennedy, Al Franken, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi and Ralph Nader – among others.
Among the eye-opening revelations of "Do As I Say":
Filmmaker Michael Moore insists that corporations are evil and claims he doesn't invest in the stock market due to moral principle. But Moore's IRS forms, viewed by Schweizer, show that over the past five years he has owned shares in such corporate giants as Halliburton, Merck, Pfizer, Sunoco, Tenet Healthcare, Ford, General Electric and McDonald's.
Billionaire Bush-basher George Soros says the wealthy should pay higher, more progressive tax rates. But he holds the bulk of his money in tax-free overseas accounts in Curacao, Bermuda and the Cayman Islands.
And, of course, a few weeks ago we learned that Mark Foley, who spent a good part of his career railing against homosexuals, was one.
In short, there's no dearth of hypocrisy in politics.
Edwards probably figured having a staffer make the call would help keep anyone from finding out. Oh wellll.....
I believe Moore owns stocks so he can vote in those companies to help his agenda.
George Soros is a hypocrit. After all, he earned his money by lowering the value of the currencies of two welfare states, Sweden and UK. God I hate him.
Quote: Karl Hungus said: Please also provide the figures on the surplus we had on Clinton versus the debt we have under Bush and then explain in your oh so wise way how putting the nation into debt is truly worth the token sum given to working families and the huge breaks to the rich.
I've already made you look like a fool over this several times in your "Bushconomics" thread.
Quote: the G-man said: John Edwards... hawk? At least he is when speaking in Israel
I have to admit, however, its refreshing to hear this from any Democratic presidential contender.
That was two weeks ago.
Now, here is John Edwards speaking to liberal American Prospect reporter Ezra Klein yesterday:
Klein: So, I just want to get it very clear, you think that attacking Iran would be a bad idea?
Edwards: I think would have very bad consequences.
Klein: So when you said that all options are on the table?
Edwards: It would be foolish for any American president to ever take any option off the table.
Klein: Can we live with a nuclear Iran?
Edwards: I'm not ready to cross that bridge yet. I think that we have lots of opportunities that we've ... We're not negotiating with them directly, what I just proposed has not been done. We're not being smart about how we engage with them. But I'm not ready to cross that bridge yet. And I think the reason people react the way they do -- I understand it, because, when George Bush uses this kind of language, it means something very different for most people. I mean when he uses this kind of language "options are on the table," he does it in a very threatening kind of way -- with a country that he's not engaging with or making any serious diplomatic proposals to. I mean I think that he's just dead wrong about that.
Is this a flip flop? Or is Edwards just being slippery?
When he's talking to an Israeli group, he emphasizes the supreme danger Iran presents and implies strongly that military action is a real possibility, while barely even mentioning the idea of engagement and economic aid. When he's talking to a liberal American magazine, he emphasizes engagement and economic aid and downplays the possibility of military action as vanishingly unlikely during an Edwards presidency.
Quote: the G-man said: Left-wing blogger Amanda Marcotte of the vociferously anti-war web site Pandagon has been named by the John Edwards campaign as their new blogmaster.
Looks like Edwards, for all his money, has once again failed to hire good help.
In response to John Edwards' refusal to fire two staffers for "intolerant" Web postings, the president of the nation's largest Catholic civil rights group said he will launch a campaign next week to point out "the double-standard that [Edwards] is the kingmaker of."
Bill Donohue, president of the conservative-leaning Catholic League and the first to call on the Democratic presidential candidate to fire the bloggers, said that he is not satisfied with Edwards' decision to scold — but not can — the staffers.
By not firing Andrea Marcotte and Melissa McEwan, Donohue said, Edwards is promoting anti-Catholicism. He said the 2008 Democratic contender's actions should be viewed in the same way it would be seen if Edwards had not fired a staffer who had used the 'n'-word.
Despite saying the postings "personally offended me," Edwards decided not to fire Marcotte, who writes for the Pandagon blog, and McEwan, who runs the Shakespeare's Sister blog, for comments they made on those sites.
Looks like we won’t have Amanda Marcotte to kick around any more. She’s bailing out of the Edwards campaign, nobly crushed under the massive, well-financed pressure of the “right-wing noise machine” who just can’t stand to see a woman be successful.
Quote: the G-man said: Left-wing blogger Amanda Marcotte of the vociferously anti-war web site Pandagon has been named by the John Edwards campaign as their new blogmaster.
Looks like Edwards, for all his money, has once again failed to hire good help.
In response to John Edwards' refusal to fire two staffers for "intolerant" Web postings, the president of the nation's largest Catholic civil rights group said he will launch a campaign next week to point out "the double-standard that [Edwards] is the kingmaker of."
Bill Donohue, president of the conservative-leaning Catholic League and the first to call on the Democratic presidential candidate to fire the bloggers, said that he is not satisfied with Edwards' decision to scold — but not can — the staffers.
By not firing Andrea Marcotte and Melissa McEwan, Donohue said, Edwards is promoting anti-Catholicism. He said the 2008 Democratic contender's actions should be viewed in the same way it would be seen if Edwards had not fired a staffer who had used the 'n'-word.
Despite saying the postings "personally offended me," Edwards decided not to fire Marcotte, who writes for the Pandagon blog, and McEwan, who runs the Shakespeare's Sister blog, for comments they made on those sites.
So the Catholics are mad because Edwards chose to forgive them and turn the other cheek when he was personally offended?
According to Edwards, "perhaps the Greatest Short-Term Threat to World Peace' is...Israel:
There are other emerging fissures, as well. The aggressively photogenic John Edwards was cruising along, detailing his litany of liberal causes last week until, during question time, he invoked the "I" word — Israel.
Perhaps the greatest short-term threat to world peace, Edwards remarked, was the possibility that Israel would bomb Iran's nuclear facilities. As a chill descended on the gathering, the Edwards event was brought to a polite close.
Really? Israel is the biggest threat?
Not Ahmedinijad?
Not al-Qaeda?
Not a coup attempt in Pakistan?
Not a complete breakdown in Iraq?
Wow. Edwards must be taking diplomacy lessons from Jimmy "too many Jews" Carter.
Quote: Pig Iran said: edwards already screwed up..by being an anti-semite.
I don't know. Right now, his only goal is winning the primary. And is that out of the question in a party that still respects Jimmy "Too Many Jews" Carter, Jesse "Hymietown" Jackson and Al "Blood Sucking Jews" Sharpton?
Quote: Pig Iran said: well.......it's a surprise 4 out of 5 jews are democrats...
Not really. Under the broad definition that some people are willing to slap the label of anti-semite on, many of them probably would be considered to be "anti-semite" to.
Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards says Jesus would be appalled at how the United States has ignored the plight of the suffering, and that he believes children should have private time to pray at school.
"I think that Jesus would be disappointed in our ignoring the plight of those around us who are suffering and our focus on our own selfish short-term needs," Edwards told the site. "I think he would be appalled, actually."
Thank goodness the Democrats aren't like those bad old republicans, trying to mix church and state or anything.
Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards says Jesus would be appalled at how the United States has ignored the plight of the suffering, and that he believes children should have private time to pray at school.
"I think that Jesus would be disappointed in our ignoring the plight of those around us who are suffering and our focus on our own selfish short-term needs," Edwards told the site. "I think he would be appalled, actually."
Thank goodness the Democrats aren't like those bad old republicans, trying to mix church and state or anything.
Well I know a lot of christians say the same things about us ignoring the plight of the poor, and that's a fine message if it gets people helping each other. I do oppose such religious talk from politicians, unfortunately Reagan started it by bringing the christian right in to politics so you can't really unring that bell. I'm opposed to any form of organized school prayer. not necessarily out of contempt for the practice of prayer (a kid praying on his own is fine) but more that if there is an organized prayer than any kid that chooses to sit it out or prays to a different god will feel ostracized.
John Edwards is defending the energy efficiency (or lack thereof) of his new mansion:
"The house was built from the beginning, both in its location for passive solar and the use of active solar, to help provide some of the energy for the house," said Edwards, in an interview with The Associated Press. "It doesn't provide all of the energy, but it provides some."
Edwards said he hired a design expert during construction of the home to suggest energy efficiency options.
"We actually had an expert come in and design how to make it energy efficient," said Edwards. "He came in and said this is the way to set up the systems. He came in and figured out how to make it efficient."
Edwards also said his family was taking efficiency to the smallest detail.
"Elizabeth, I saw her climb up, I literally saw her with piles of fluorescent light bulbs changing them out," said Edwards. "We are also committed to making the house carbon neutral."
That is, as efficient and neutral as one can heat and air condition 28,200 square feet of living space.
And they didn't move in that long ago. Why didn't they start out with the fluorescent bulbs? No Hired Help to Change the Light Bulbs?
Sadly Elizabeth Edwards' cancer is back and has spread to her bone. On the bright side, the doctors are optimistic that it will be treatable, and it is largely confined.
Politics aside, let's hope for the best for her health.
Presidential candidate John Edwards said yesterday he is reimbursing his campaign $800 for his "hair"-brained Beverly Hills coifs.
The Democratic Edwards, who has taken fire for playing to the poor on the campaign trail while living a first-class lifestyle, charged two $400 haircuts from Tinseltown mane maestro Joe Torrenueva to his campaign, federal records show.
The payouts touched off a furor among middle-class voters in the heartland - people Edwards is counting on to propel his campaign - and prompted one Iowa newspaper to survey local barbers, one of whom called the $400 price tag "preposterous."
News of the first-class pampering for Edwards, who already has a reputation in political circles as a pretty boy, touched off a new round of mockery.
A popular YouTube clip shows the candidate obsessively combing his locks to the tune of "I Feel Pretty."
That kind of reminds me of clips of GOPers combing there hair in Farenheit 9/11. Hair stuff seems to be a rather petty issue to judge a candidate on IMHO. Anyone out there really feels this is an issue?
Quote: Uschi said: No, I only wanted the ones people gave a shit about. Just over a year and a half to elections, no better time to make it easier to look at the issues.
Romney, Thompson and Gore are all popular and, in some cases, more popular in national polls than the candidates you "pinned", even though the latter two haven't even announced.
Furthermore, at this early stage of proceedings, it is impossible to know who will inevitably win either party's nomination. For example, in 1992, Bill Clinton came out of nowhere, beating a crowded field.
So if your goal is to allow the readers easy access to the positions, or other information, about potential nominees, you have probably failed.
But, its okay. I realize that you're not very well read about U.S. politics, since that would tend to undermine your attempt at creating a "bad girl anarchist" image for yourself.
Quote: Uschi said: No, I only wanted the ones people gave a shit about. Just over a year and a half to elections, no better time to make it easier to look at the issues.
Romney, Thompson and Gore are all popular and, in some cases, more popular in national polls than the candidates you "pinned", even though the latter two haven't even announced.
The threads have 12 or less pages. PEOPLE (ie, people here) don't care.
Quote: Furthermore, at this early stage of proceedings, it is impossible to know who will inevitably win either party's nomination. For example, in 1992, Bill Clinton came out of nowhere, beating a crowded field.
So if your goal is to allow the readers easy access to the positions, or other information, about potential nominees, you have probably failed.
So what? I'm not a lying deleter.
Quote: But, its okay. I realize that you're not very well read about U.S. politics, since that would tend to undermine your attempt at creating a "bad girl anarchist" image for yourself.
Heh, no. Since when am I anarchist? I am ALSO aware that I am not well-read about US politics, hence the haphazard pinning of four popular candidate threads. I don't follow politics because all the bullshit confuses the hell out of me. They all lie, they all cheat, and they all pretend they don't. Fuck it, I don't have the patience or ability to sift through and figure out what exactly every single person is probably going to do. If they're a politician, I hate them. End of story.
The bottom line here is that, if people do care, the thread rises to the top and there is no need to pin it. If they don't care, pinning it is a waste of time.
Personally, I think its pretty silly to be pinning up topics for an election thats about 18 months away.
But if you really, really, feel the need to pin something up there, why not start a topic called, I dunno "Meet the candidates," put in links to all the threads about ALL the candidates, pin it and lock it. That way, anyone who comes here can do there, find the thread on, say, Barack Hussein Obama or Rudy Guiliani without searching.
The hedge fund that employed John Edwards markedly expanded its subprime lending business while he worked there, becoming a major player in the high-risk mortgage sector Edwards has pilloried in his presidential campaign.
He's been out there ripping the subprime mortgage sector because it's high risk. He's been pillorying it and the hedge fund that employed him expanded its subprime lending business while he was there.
But, like Sgt. Schulz, rather than be a man and say (for example) that he was just a lawyer advising a client, he falls back on the "I know nothink" defense
Edwards said yesterday that he was unaware of the push by the firm, Fortress Investment Group, into subprime lending and that he wishes he had asked more questions before taking the job.
This is a crock. The first thing he says is he went to the hedge fund to learn about poverty. This is a crock.
He had no clue what was going on at this hedge fund? He was its ADVISOR. If you were an adviser, you teach. If you are an adviser, you advise. But he said he went there to learn about poverty," then while he was there he had no clue that this firm was expanding its subprime business while he's out there ripping the subprime market all to hell.
Well, now let's be honest here. If you are selling subprime loans to mobile-home owners, the odds are that the majority of them are going to be in that category that Edwards calls "the Second America." They're "less affluent," shall we say.
Between this and ripping Wal-Mart while sending "the hired help" there to shop for his kids, Edwards' reputation as a man of the people is really taking a hit.
Quote: Matter-eater Man said: Giuliani fee for speaking at tsunami charity...Can't say what is worse, him charging a fee to a charity or them paying it. That type of thing really gives charitable groups a bad name.
John Edwards has an example to teach University of California at Davis students how to avoid poverty — charge $55,000 for a speech.
That's how much the 2008 Democratic presidential candidate negotiated for his fee to speak to 1,787 people at the taxpayer-funded school in January 2006, according to financial disclosures.
According to Joe Martin, the public relations officer for UC Davis' Mondavi Center, the fee for a speech entitled, "Poverty, the Great Moral issue Facing America," was worth it to school officials.
Martin told The San Francisco Chronicle that the center paid Edwards because at the time "he wasn't a (presidential) candidate and from our point of view, he was a speaker of interest that people in the community were clearly interested in ... we feel it's our mission to present those speakers."
The speaking fee, which amounts to about $31 per audience member, was the highest Edwards earned in nine appearances last year at colleges and universities. In all, he earned $285,000 for the nine speeches.
Personally, I see nothing wrong with candidates charging speaking fees. However, I know that it outrages certain posters here when it happens.
It was an easy question G-man. Your call of hypocrisy is based on them being the same thing. Do you think a Katrina victim would feel the same about the big bucks Rudy made off of Katrina compared to Edwards charging a speaking fee? What you claim is splitting hairs is actually a big difference to me.
Quote: Matter-eater Man said: It was an easy question G-man. Your call of hypocrisy is based on them being the same thing. Do you think a Katrina victim would feel the same about the big bucks Rudy made off of Katrina compared to Edwards charging a speaking fee? What you claim is splitting hairs is actually a big difference to me.
I'd have to side with MEM on this. An academic institution has a different mission than a charity. Edwards, whether you agree with him politically or personally, contributed to the interest of the university, which is not to give relief to victims of a natural disaster. A charity, whose purpose is to raise funds for people/causes, spending money on a speaker is completely different from an academic institution, whose purpose is more to educate, inform, and/or spark thought, doing the same.
Quote: Captain Sammitch said: This is almost too painful to read anymore.
Perhaps you should flit on over to the Hillary thread & declare her a bitch. That seems to usually cheer you up.
Not even stating the obvious in an amusing fashion would do much to clear the digital flatulence of your mindless partisan drivel from my message-board nostrils.
The Washington Times reports that Edwards even creeps out John "Lurch" Kerry:
Bob Shrum, the famed consultant to a string of failed Democratic presidential candidates, including Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004, seems determined to embarrass his former client and current presidential hopeful John Edwards in the forthcoming book "No Excuses: Confessions of a Serial Campaigner," the New Republic's Michael Crowley writes at www.tnr.com
Mr. Shrum's book "repeatedly portrays Edwards as a hyper-ambitious phony," Mr. Crowley said.
For example, Mr. Shrum says Mr. Kerry had qualms about choosing Mr. Edwards to be his presidential running mate in 2004, but grew "even queasier" after Mr. Edwards said he was going to share a story with Mr. Kerry he had never told anyone else — that after his son, Wade, had been killed, he climbed onto the slab at the funeral home and hugged his body and promised that he would do all he could to make life better for people.
"Kerry was stunned, not moved, because, as he told me later, Edwards had recounted the exact story to him, almost in the exact same words, a year or two before — and with the same preface, that he'd never shared the memory with anyone else. Kerry said he found it chilling, and he decided he couldn't pick Edwards unless he met with him again."
Mr. Shrum says that, in the end, Mr. Kerry "wished that he'd never picked Edwards, that he should have gone with his gut" and selected former Rep. Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri.
In his new memoir, "No Excuses: Concessions of a Serial Campaigner," [Robert Shrum, the veteran Democratic strategist,] recalls asking Edwards at the outset of that campaign, "What is your position, Mr. Edwards, on gay rights?"
"I'm not comfortable around those people," Edwards replied, according to Shrum. He writes that the candidate's wife, Elizabeth, told him: "John, you know that's wrong."
Funny. You would think someone who spends as much time around hairstylists as Edwards does would be very comfortable around homosexuals.
In his new memoir, "No Excuses: Concessions of a Serial Campaigner," [Robert Shrum, the veteran Democratic strategist,] recalls asking Edwards at the outset of that campaign, "What is your position, Mr. Edwards, on gay rights?"
"I'm not comfortable around those people," Edwards replied, according to Shrum. He writes that the candidate's wife, Elizabeth, told him: "John, you know that's wrong."
Funny. You would think someone who spends as much time around hairstylists as Edwards does would be very comfortable around homosexuals.
So how much time do you think he spends with hairtstylists? I mean getting an expensive haircut doesn't require that much more time than a cheap haircut. Also, what did you think when Anne Coulter called him a faggot? Or when Bush and the GOP tried to pass a law banning gay marriage? Wouldn't that be more detrimental to gays than Edwards not feeling comfortable about gays (note he didn't say anything about gay rights)?
Ray is probably referring to Bush & the GOP's attempt to amend the constitution. They may have gotten to if Clinton hadn't nipped their wedge issue in the bud.
Quote: the G-man said: So...it was okay for Clinton to ban gay marriage because that "nipped [a republican] wedge issue in the bud"?
I think the point he's making is that Clinton signed it into law, blocking the GOP from doing a constitutional amendment. It's easier to repeal a law than an amendment. Sort of choosing the lesser of two evils.
Quote: How do you sleep at night, Chris?
Seriously. Do you swallow Lunestas like M&Ms? Or just guzzle a pint of vodka?
Wow. Sorry if you feel persecuted or see this as gay bashing. I support your right to marry the man of your dreams, G-man.
Quote: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man said: ...Clinton signed it into law, blocking the GOP from doing a constitutional amendment. It's easier to repeal a law than an amendment.
And, by the same token, its easier to PASS a law than an amendment. Much, much, easier.
Therefore, Clinton, with a stroke of a pen, did in one day what it would have taken Bush years to do, if at all. He effectively banned gay marriage.
Apparently, therefore, banning gay marriage is okay with Chris as long as a democrat is the one that bans it.
Quote: the G-man said: So...it was okay for Clinton to ban gay marriage because that "nipped [a republican] wedge issue in the bud"?
I think the point he's making is that Clinton signed it into law, blocking the GOP from doing a constitutional amendment. It's easier to repeal a law than an amendment. Sort of choosing the lesser of two evils.
Yeah it pretty much took it away from the GOP. They've tried reworking it but Clinton pretty much made gay marriage a non-issue.
So something that hurts your fellow gays is okay as long as it helps elect democrats.
For your own safety, Chris, you might want to not brag about this one down at the local gay bar. Not everyone is going to be impressed by your hypocrisy.
Seriously. I can't help but note that you aren't denying the hypocrisy in your statements. I guess I'm not surprised. If there's one thing you've been consistent about, its excusing, or even applauding, actions by democrats that you would condemn from Republicans.
I guess I just hoped when it involved your own rights that you wouldn't be such a whore for the party.
Which brings me back to my earlier question: what sort of sleep aid do you use? I can't believe that you are so self-deluded that you actually can live with yourself.
Quote: Matter-eater Man said: I explained it, Ray explained it. If you want I can certainley repost it again.
Quote: Matter-eater Man said:
Quote: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man said:
Quote: the G-man said: So...it was okay for Clinton to ban gay marriage because that "nipped [a republican] wedge issue in the bud"?
I think the point he's making is that Clinton signed it into law, blocking the GOP from doing a constitutional amendment. It's easier to repeal a law than an amendment.
Sort of choosing the lesser of two evils.
Yeah it pretty much took it away from the GOP. They've tried reworking it but Clinton pretty much made gay marriage a non-issue.
Right.
You and Ray are both perfectly OK with Democrats voting for anti-gay legislation, so long as it steals conservative votes away from Republicans, in a total abandonment of pro-gay/liberal principles.
Quote: Matter-eater Man said: I explained it, Ray explained it. If you want I can certainley repost it again.
Quote: Matter-eater Man said:
Quote: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man said:
Quote: the G-man said: So...it was okay for Clinton to ban gay marriage because that "nipped [a republican] wedge issue in the bud"?
I think the point he's making is that Clinton signed it into law, blocking the GOP from doing a constitutional amendment. It's easier to repeal a law than an amendment. Sort of choosing the lesser of two evils.
Yeah it pretty much took it away from the GOP. They've tried reworking it but Clinton pretty much made gay marriage a non-issue.
Right.
You and Ray are both perfectly OK with Democrats voting for anti-gay legislation, so long as it steals conservative votes away from Republicans, in a total abandonment of pro-gay/liberal principles.
We get it.
I guess it's clear how you & others want to portray it. I can't speak for all gay people but I prefer having a law that gives individual states the right to decide the gay marriage issue than having anti-gay language written into the constitution. If there was a case of having neither I would of course prefer that but we all know that the GOP wouldn't leave the issue alone. For the last 6+ years I've watched the party try to get our constitution changed. That didn't happen because of Clinton. If there had been no Defense of Marriage Act there would have been more people willing to put anti-gay language into our constitution.
Quote: Matter-eater Man said: I explained it, Ray explained it. If you want I can certainley repost it again.
Quote: Matter-eater Man said:
Quote: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man said:
Quote: the G-man said: So...it was okay for Clinton to ban gay marriage because that "nipped [a republican] wedge issue in the bud"?
I think the point he's making is that Clinton signed it into law, blocking the GOP from doing a constitutional amendment. It's easier to repeal a law than an amendment.
Sort of choosing the lesser of two evils.
Yeah it pretty much took it away from the GOP. They've tried reworking it but Clinton pretty much made gay marriage a non-issue.
Right.
You and Ray are both perfectly OK with Democrats voting for anti-gay legislation, so long as it steals conservative votes away from Republicans, in a total abandonment of pro-gay/liberal principles.
We get it.
I guess it's clear how you & others want to portray it. I can't speak for all gay people but I prefer having a law that gives individual states the right to decide the gay marriage issue than having anti-gay language written into the constitution. If there was a case of having neither I would of course prefer that but we all know that the GOP wouldn't leave the issue alone. For the last 6+ years I've watched the party try to get our constitution changed. That didn't happen because of Clinton. If there had been no Defense of Marriage Act there would have been more people willing to put anti-gay language into our constitution.
I did explained how I felt here G-man. I'm not interested in spending much time or thought in trading insults with some anonymous poster. Your simply not worth it. It wouldbe interesting to see if you had any type of argument that somehow explained how the GOP wouldn't have gotten anti-gay language written into the constitution like they've been trying to do if Clinton hadn't defanged the issue to most Americans. I don't really see a case there though and so instead we get the "MEM/Zick attacks".
Clinton didn't sign the law because of the 'eevile' GOP threatening to pass a constitutional amendment. He supported it because he was against gay marriage:
Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act into law during his re-election campaign in 1996 and vehemently opposed same-sex marriage
In a June 1996 interview in the gay and lesbian magazine The Advocate, Clinton said: " I remain opposed to same-sex marriage. I believe marriage is an institution for the union of a man and a woman. This has been my long-standing position, and it is not being reviewed or reconsidered."
And, yet, because he's a democrat, you rationalize it as a good thing, and even out and out lie about his motives.
Quote: John Lennon sang You live with straights who tell you you was king Jump when your momma tell you anything Ah, how do you sleep? Ah, how do you sleep at night?
I never said Bill Clinton was for legalized gay marriage. I think he's against amending the constitution so it contains the anti-gay language that most of the GOP wants in it. His wife Hillary as Senator has voted against FMA (federal marriage amendment) & is a vocal critic of it. I'm unaware of anything he's said publicly that contradicts her stand against FMA.
You once again ignore what the GOP has been trying to do, what it would have done if there hadn't been a DOMA in place.
No, Mr. Adler, my argument is that its incredibly hypocritical of you and Zick to oppose a gay marriage ban when its a Republican initiative and support it when its a Democrat one.
Quote: the G-man said: No, Mr. Adler, my argument is that its incredibly hypocritical of you and Zick to oppose a gay marriage ban when its a Republican initiative and support it when its a Democrat one.
i never supported it, i said clinton chose the lesser of two evils. things in the real world are a bit more complex than george "with us or against us" bush would believe.
Quote: the G-man said: Lesser of two evils=gay marriage ban but by a Democrat
You keep leaving out what the Republicans would have done to the constitution G-man if Clinton hadn't had DOMA in place. You can understand how I prefer the anti-gay marriage language in a law instead of the constition right?
you give the Republican way too much credit.......no one would actually ammend the constitution for that. Just like no one would ever really ammend the constitution to make abortion illegal.....they just say that to appease the extreme right.
You know what I never understood about the gays and this issue is why not give in and call it a civil union and get all the benefits instaed of fighting and getting nothing in some cases. That's just stupid.
Wow, so you guys are going to be completley insincere about what your party has been doing trying to get the constitution changed. (I'll be posting how close they've come later) Thought you would try to maintain some degree of credability.
In order to amend the constitution it would require both houses of Congress to approve by two-thirds votes a resolution calling for the amendment. Then the proposed amendment must then be "ratified" or approved by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states.
The Senate hasn't been two-thirds GOP at any time during our lifetimes. Therefore, how can you claim with a straight face that the republicans were "close" to amending the constitution?
The answer, of course, is that you're a lying hypocrite, Chris.
Quote: Matter-eater Man said: Wow, so you guys are going to be completley insincere about what your party has been doing trying to get the constitution changed. (I'll be posting how close they've come later) Thought you would try to maintain some degree of credability.
Changing the subject with baseless counter-accusations.
Which still doesn't hide the contradictions in what you've posted, about Clinton passing legislation to block gay marriage. (The very same legislation you demonize Republicans for advocating, not enacting.)
That's not an attack on you personally, by the way, as you allege. That's addressing the issue.
Quote: Matter-eater Man said:
I did explained how I felt here G-man. I'm not interested in spending much time or thought in trading insults with some anonymous poster. Your simply not worth it.
Presonal insults are implying or stating that someone is a Klansman or a Nazi, or implying that they're otherwise a racist, against what they've clearly posted to the contrary.
Personal insults are implying someone's ignorant, or demented for having their stated views, or in need of psychological treatment, rather than addressing the issue raised.
Or other ad hominem tactics, aimed at the person, and not the issue discussed.
And I'd say that liberals posting here have a lot more linkable examples of using such tactics here, than any of the conservatives posting on RKMB.
Quote: the G-man said: He knows that the Constitution would never be amended. He knows that Clinton was openly opposed to gay marriage.
so if you believe it will never be amended, then are you admitting that your side was just using the amendment as a political tool in the campaign?
I'd argue that while appealing to their conservative base, Republicans were also appealing to moderate, conservative and religious Democrats, so they could get the defense-of-marriage Constitutional amendment passed, with the majorities required, that G-man described.
At the very least, Republicans raised the issue to give it exposure, and raise social consciousness of the full ramifications of what states legalizing gay marriage would entail. (i.e., legalization of gay marriage in one state, such as Massachusettes, would leverage, through inter-state commerce and law, recognition of gay marriage in states that would never willingly legalize or even passively recognize gay marriage. Which a Constitutional ban of gay marriage was suggested to counterweight and prevent from occurring)
Quote: the G-man said: In order to amend the constitution it would require both houses of Congress to approve by two-thirds votes a resolution calling for the amendment. Then the proposed amendment must then be "ratified" or approved by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states.
The Senate hasn't been two-thirds GOP at any time during our lifetimes. Therefore, how can you claim with a straight face that the republicans were "close" to amending the constitution?
The answer, of course, is that you're a lying hypocrite, Chris.
What I've been saying for the last couple of pages on this thread is that if we didn't have a law like DOMA, there would have been enough national support for a change in the constitution. You won't acknowledge that many in your party have been trying to make that become a reality. The Federal Marriage Ammendment may have been voted largely along party lines but even with the DOMA law in place a couple of Dems still voted for the amendment. Contrary to what you say the Senate doesn't need to be 2/3rds GOP to pass something like FMA. If there hadn't been DOMA the GOP would have been able to get FMA passed as more Dems would have voted for it.
BTW, it just seems so stupid that your attacking me personally for what I see as being a very reasonable position. I'm not for DOMA but I recognize that it's spared us gay people from having our constitution changed. I really don't want the constitution ammended to include anti-gay marriage language. That is hardly bashing my fellow gays as you have titled your posts. Your willingness to press such an untrue & personal attack on me is really unfair IMHO.
Quote: "Media Matters"; by Jamison Foser A rich man in a poor man's shirt Imagine how the media would react if a multimillionaire, East Coast, big-city, thrice-married presidential candidate who was a progressive Democrat said his most recent music purchase was opera, his favorite fitness activity, golf, and added that he doesn't drive -- he navigates. Or if a progressive Democratic candidate who had launched his political career by marrying into a wealthy and politically connected family, then promptly running for Congress, revealed that he has pet turtles named "Cuff" and "Link." Or if a progressive Democratic candidate who was the son of a governor, who has a net worth of around $200 million, whose own campaign staff was concerned he is seen as not tough enough and that his hair looks too perfect ... imagine if such a candidate said that if he weren't running for office, he'd probably be chief executive of an auto company and whose staff boasted that the difference between him and the president is "intelligence." The media would have an absolute field day, yammering endlessly about how the candidate is too "soft" and is an elitist, an arrogant know-it-all with a misguided sense of entitlement who is hopelessly out of touch with the rugged regular-folk who live in Michigan and enjoy NASCAR and country music and drive pickups. There would be a real danger of Chris Matthews literally exploding on live television, unable to contain his incredulity that such a clueless candidate could possibly think a Pennsylvania steelworker would care what he has to say. (Then, with the Klieg lights turned off, Matthews would head off to one of the glitzy balls that he frequents, maintaining his place on Washington Life's "Social List" -- or perhaps he'd take a quick trip to relax by the pool of his vacation home nestled among the dunes of Nantucket. Railing against cultural elites on behalf of the Working Man is tiring, after all.) But when the three leading (for now) Republican presidential candidates reveal their fondness for opera (Giuliani), have their pets named after fashion accessories (McCain), and boast that if they weren't running for president, they'd probably be running an auto company (Romney), it passes without notice. So when longtime lobbyist and Hollywood actor Fred Thompson -- a man who once rented a red pickup truck in order to campaign in Tennessee as a man of the people -- indicated this week that he would seek the Republican presidential nomination, we knew how the media would describe him: Authentic. Folksy. Let's back up a moment: Thompson didn't even drive the rented pickup, as The Washington Monthly reported in 1996: Finishing his talk, Thompson shakes a few hands, then walks out with the rest of the crowd to the red pickup truck he made famous during his 1994 Senate campaign. My friend stands talking with her colleagues as the senator is driven away by a blond, all-American staffer. A few minutes later, my friend gets into her car to head home. As she pulls up to the stop sign at the parking lot exit, rolling up to the intersection is Senator Thompson, now behind the wheel of a sweet silver luxury sedan. He gives my friend a slight nod as he drives past. Turning onto the main road, my friend passes the school's small, side parking area. Lo and behold: There sits the abandoned red pickup, along with the all-American staffer. The pickup was, literally, a rented prop designed to help a wealthy actor/Washington lobbyist/trial lawyer play the role of salt-of-the-earth populist. But Chris Matthews and the Beltway pundit crowd don't encounter many actual working-class voters as they stroll the dunes of Nantucket. A wealthy lobbyist/actor who rents a red pickup truck to play the role of a regular guy strikes them as "authentic" and "folksy." Mark Halperin wrote this week that Thompson won his first Senate race "after driving his trademark red pickup truck all over Tennessee." It wasn't "his" and he didn't "drive" it, of course, but the illusion of authenticity is all that matters to the pundit class. Thus a wealthy lobbyist in a rented pickup is folksy and authentic. (A Nexis search for "Fred Thompson and (Thompson w/20 folksy)" returns 40 hits since January 1. Several mention the red pickup; only Wonkette bothered to mention it was rented. The Washington Post assured readers that "[t]he signature red pickup truck from Thompson's Senate campaigns will be dusted off.") On Hardball last night, Chris Matthews and Pat Buchanan swooned over Thompson: MATTHEWS: I like the fact of how he responded the other day to Michael Moore. He's got a cigar. Of course, he can't light cigars in his home. Nobody can with their wives around. But he sat there with the cigar. But it was refreshing to me to see a politician with a cigar. [...] BUCHANAN: Well, you're right. There's this great naturalness to this fellow, and he was not -- he's not programmed in any way and he's fresh as he can be. I think he moves right into the front tier. [...] MATTHEWS: I can tell you, as a reporter, covering him back when he ran against Jim Cooper in that uphill race in Tennessee -- I called him up. I said -- I was doing like a column then -- and I said, "Can I see you?" He didn't have a title then. "Can I see you, Fred?" He says, "Yeah." He said, "Where do you want to meet for breakfast?" He says, "Where are you staying?" I said, "At this hotel." I was staying at, like, a three-star hotel. He says, "OK, I'll meet you there for breakfast." No flacks, no staff, no pomposity. He shows up. ... He seems like the real thing to me. Matthews previously gushed over Thompson's "movie star" looks and "daddy" image. Salon.com's Glenn Greenwald details more media fawning over Fred Thompson: [T]he illusion of manliness cliches, tough guy poses, and empty gestures of "cultural conservatism" are what the Republican base seeks, and media simpletons like [Newsweek's Howard] Fineman, Halperin and Matthews eat it all up just as hungrily. That's how twice-and-thrice-divorced and draft-avoiding individuals like Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh become media symbols of the Christian "values voters" and "tough guy," "tough-on-defense" stalwarts. And it's how a life-long Beltway lobbyist and lawyer who avoided Vietnam, standing next to his twenty-five-years-younger second wife, is held up by our media stars as a Regular-Guy-Baptist symbol of piety and a no-nonsense, tough-guy, super-masculine warrior who will protect us all. Read the rest here. And what of another wealthy Southerner who used to be a trial lawyer? One who doesn't rent props to hide his good fortune? The pundits channel Holden Caulfield and declare John Edwards to be a big phony. Just this week, Bill O'Reilly ("I have no respect for him. He's a phony and is in the tank for special interest to damage this country. Edwards is going nowhere, but deserves to be called out."), Dennis Miller, and Tucker Carlson ("Is Edwards an appalling phony, I guess is my question?") described Edwards as "phony." The rich trial lawyer/lobbyist who rents a red pickup, not to drive, but to use as a prop? The media tell us he's folksy and authentic. And the rich former trial lawyer who doesn't hide his good fortune? He's a phony. If you don't think that makes any sense, think about the apparent rationale that leads journalists to conclude that Edwards is a phony: his policy proposals to fight poverty. He's rich and wants to fight poverty, so they say he's a phony hypocrite. As we have explained, that simply isn't what "hypocrite" means -- it isn't as if Edwards is running around saying everybody should be poor, then going home at night and swimming in gold coins like Scrooge McDuck. That would be hypocrisy -- and that isn't what Edwards advocates at all. He wants to combat poverty. Hypocrisy is generally considered one of the most damaging qualities a politician can exhibit. Political reporters certainly behave as though that is the case. And yet they demonstrate an absolutely stunning lack of understanding of what hypocrisy actually is. And because they can't take 15 seconds to visit Dictionary.com, the media obsess over Edwards' wealth. San Francisco Chronicle columnist Carla Marinucci wrote last week: Democrat John Edwards has eloquently established his credentials as an advocate for the poor with a presidential campaign focused on the devastating effects of poverty in America. But the former North Carolina senator's populist drive has hit a series of troubling land mines: a pair of $400 haircuts, a $500,000 paycheck from a hedge fund, and now a $55,000 payday for a speech on poverty to students at UC Davis. The problem now facing the Democratic presidential candidate is whether the pileup of headlines, including the latest regarding hefty fees from university speeches reported Monday by The Chronicle, threatens to obliterate Edwards' dominant campaign theme. This was, to be kind, a bit disingenuous. Perhaps Marinucci was too modest to mention it, but that report by the Chronicle about Edwards' "hefty fees from university speeches" was written by ... Carla Marinucci. So we have a reporter who writes an article about a candidate, then two days later writes that "the pileup of headlines ... threatens to obliterate" the candidate's message -- without mentioning that she was responsible for one of those headlines that she uses as an example. Marinucci, continuing directly, wrote: The former senator, who has been portrayed as the champion of the poor and the son of a humble mill worker, now faces the possibility that voters will have a different image: that of a millionaire trial lawyer who talks one way and lives another. But Marinucci didn't indicate a single way in which Edwards "talks one way and lives another." Presumably, she's talking about the (not really) hypocrisy of being wealthy while fighting poverty. Later, Marinucci seemed to equate Edwards "problem" with Al Gore's 2000 campaign: Former Vice President Al Gore regularly was the subject of stories suggesting he was an exaggerator and often fudged facts; the theme became so prevalent that opponents accused him of boasting that he "invented the Internet'' -- a statement he never made. Marinucci's statement that Gore's "opponents accused him of boasting that he 'invented the Internet' " conveniently whitewashed the role the media played in that smear against Gore. It wasn't just Gore's opponents who falsely accused him of boasting that he invented the Internet, it was the media as well. Indeed, Carla Marinucci was a frequent participant in the smear, both by writing it in her own words and by uncritically quoting Republican attacks on Gore: Marinucci, 5/10/99: "Vice President Al Gore has visited Silicon Valley dozens of times. He has raised millions of dollars from technology leaders. He has been such a presence on high-tech issues that he recently took credit for 'creating the Internet.' [...] 'We know that Al Gore invented the Internet,' said [Republican presidential candidate John] Kasich, in a not-so-subtle dig at the vice president's self-proclaimed tech leadership. 'What we can offer is to keep the government's mitts off this town.' " Marinucci, 5/20/99: "'Well, it's true I did not invent the Internet,' said [Republican presidential candidate Dan] Quayle, in a dig at Vice President Al Gore, who recently made the claim after he was asked about technology. 'But I did invent spellcheck.' " Marinucci, 6/16/99: "[Democratic presidential candidate Bill] Bradley's connections with real people included their questions ('How's it going down in Silicon Valley?'), comments ('You know that Gore invented the Internet') and more questions ('Who are you again?')." Marinucci, 6/18/99: "'Gore does have an advantage over me -- I did not invent the Internet,' quipped [Republican presidential candidate John] McCain, chairman of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, referring to a statement the vice president made during a recent TV interview." Marinucci, 6/19/99: "McCain also tried to make the case that Gore -- who has made 55 trips to California and numerous fund-raising and political stops in Silicon Valley -- doesn't have a lock on the hearts of high-tech leaders. 'Although I didn't invent the Internet,' he said, in a dig at a remark Gore made during a recent interview, 'I have a keen appreciation for the incredible impact that this is having on America and the world.' " Marinucci, 6/30/99: "In a clear dig at Vice President Gore, the Democratic front-runner who once took credit for creating the Internet and has pledged to 'keep the prosperity going,' Bush said that Democrats 'no more invented prosperity than they invented the Internet.' " Marinucci, 11/8/99: "'(This) is not your father's Republican Party,' said the [Republican National] committee's deputy chief of staff, Larry Purpuro, who said [then-RNC chair Jim] Nicholson is now mulling plans to open an Palo Alto office for the party's Silicon Valley interests. 'Al Gore may have invented the Internet -- but Republicans are making it work.' " Marinucci, 9/21/00: " 'Al Gore just can't talk straight,' said California GOP Chairman John McGraw in a statement. 'He claims he invented the Internet (and) inspired Love Story, and his latest whopper takes the cake,' he said. 'Time and time again, Gore proves he'll say or do anything to get elected.' One Sunnyvale GOP protester echoed the sentiment with a sign: 'Internet inventor, doggy drugs: what's next?' " But now Carla Marinucci claims it was merely Gore's opponents who lied about him. In fact, Carla Marinucci lied about Al Gore, and Carla Marinucci uncritically quoted Republicans doing so without telling her readers the truth. Carla Marinucci and countless other journalists like her. And now Carla Marinucci writes articles that equate media coverage of John Edwards with what she acknowledges were false claims about Al Gore (though she doesn't acknowledge her own role in those false claims) ... even while she herself writes articles that contribute to that coverage of Edwards ... and, though she equates the coverage of Edwards with the false attacks on Gore, she doesn't suggest that there is something wrong with the coverage of Edwards, but with Edwards himself. And while repeatedly suggesting that Edwards' wealth in some way conflicts with his policy proposals -- and that headlines about the purported conflict threaten to "obliterate" his campaign theme -- what has Marinucci told her readers about what, exactly, Edwards proposes to do about poverty? Not a damn thing. She hasn't written a single word this year about Edwards' actual poverty proposals. Just about how "headlines" (on pieces she wrote, by the way) about his wealth threaten to overshadow his policy message. And just as they portray wealthy conservative candidates who rent pickup trucks to fit in with rural Tennesseans as folksy and authentic while declaring Edwards a phony hypocrite, the media largely ignore the wealth of conservative candidates when writing about their policies, even though they frequently manage to work a reference or 12 to Edwards' wealth into stories about his policy positions. Take Rudy Giuliani, for example. The media suggest in their coverage of Edwards that the candidates' personal finances are a relevant and important part of news reports about their policy proposals. This week, the Associated Press reported that Giuliani "blasted [Hillary] Clinton's proposal -- which she had pitched Tuesday in New Hampshire -- to let President Bush's tax cuts for top earners expire while citing his own support for eliminating the estate tax and reducing the capital gains tax." Now, Rudy Giuliani is a very wealthy man. His tax policy proposals -- extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, eliminating the estate tax, and reducing the capital gains tax -- would save himself money. Perhaps a great deal of money. Yet Giuliani's wealth wasn't mentioned in the AP article. He is proposing policies that would line his own pockets, and the pockets of very few other people. Yet the media make no effort to estimate how much he would personally profit from his proposals. Nor do they even mention the fact that, as a very wealthy man, he would profit at all. Yet John Edwards proposes raising taxes on himself and very few others, and the media treat it as scandalous hypocrisy. Coming from a group of people who think a lobbyist in a rented pickup demonstrates folksy authenticity, this nonsensical approach to the candidates' finances and policies perhaps shouldn't surprise us. But it should trouble us. Media Matters
G-man also clearly isn't nonpartisan. He talks about Edward's haircut about as much as I talk about Rudy's 3 marriages & not seeing his kids. Who's got the biggest character issues?
And Ray please stop indulging GOPers with their "Hillary has a penis" fantasy. Make them spend at least some of their campaign donation money on Viagra instead
NYT: Main beneficiary of Edwards' non-profit is Edwards himself RAW STORY Published: Thursday June 21, 2007
In order to keep his public profile up after the 2004 presidential election, John Edwards, no longer in the senate, started a non-profit organization called the Center for Promise and Opportunity. The organization had the stated goal of "fighting poverty" and since 2005 has raised $1.3 million.
But, "unlike a sister charity created to raise scholarship money for poor students -- the main beneficiary of the center's fund-raising was Edwards himself, federal tax filings show," the New York Times is reporting. ...
NYT: Main beneficiary of Edwards' non-profit is Edwards himself RAW STORY Published: Thursday June 21, 2007
In order to keep his public profile up after the 2004 presidential election, John Edwards, no longer in the senate, started a non-profit organization called the Center for Promise and Opportunity. The organization had the stated goal of "fighting poverty" and since 2005 has raised $1.3 million.
But, "unlike a sister charity created to raise scholarship money for poor students -- the main beneficiary of the center's fund-raising was Edwards himself, federal tax filings show," the New York Times is reporting. ...
he's a bad Dude MEM.....that is why I can't stand any Dem when they go on and on about the poor....they don't give a shit about the poor at all....neither do the GOP politicians. All they care about is power. 2 Americas indeed. I am hoping Hillary or Richardson get the nomination....they seem like the most moderate and I could definitely live with them over Edwards or Obama.
NYT: Main beneficiary of Edwards' non-profit is Edwards himself RAW STORY Published: Thursday June 21, 2007
In order to keep his public profile up after the 2004 presidential election, John Edwards, no longer in the senate, started a non-profit organization called the Center for Promise and Opportunity. The organization had the stated goal of "fighting poverty" and since 2005 has raised $1.3 million.
But, "unlike a sister charity created to raise scholarship money for poor students -- the main beneficiary of the center's fund-raising was Edwards himself, federal tax filings show," the New York Times is reporting. ...
he's a bad Dude MEM.....that is why I can't stand any Dem when they go on and on about the poor....they don't give a shit about the poor at all....neither do the GOP politicians. All they care about is power. 2 Americas indeed. I am hoping Hillary or Richardson get the nomination....they seem like the most moderate and I could definitely live with them over Edwards or Obama.
so this is how democracy dies. in thunderous applesauce.
"I'm going to be honest with you—I don't know a lot about Cuba's healthcare system. Is it a government-run system?" -John Edwards, making every verbal gaffe of George W. Bush's look trifling.
"I'm going to be honest with you—I don't know a lot about Cuba's healthcare system. Is it a government-run system?" -John Edwards, making every verbal gaffe of George W. Bush's look trifling.
obviously you haven't heard 1/10000th of Bush's daily 20 gaffes and idiotic statements, nor seen Bush molest the German President (if he was an ordinary guy he would've been arrested).
Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards says a tabloid story that he had an extramarital affair is untrue.
''The story is false. It's completely untrue, ridiculous,'' Edwards told reporters Thursday after he was asked about the National Enquirer report.
The supermarket newspaper reported that the former North Carolina senator had an affair with a woman who worked on his campaign. It did not identify the woman, nor did it name the source of the information for its report.
Dan McLaughlin openly says what a lot of folks are thinking:
the National Enquirer is retailing a story of Edwards supposedly cheating on his cancer-stricken wife with a filmmaker who was paid a lot of money by the Edwards campaign for work that never saw the light of day. The Huffington Post is likewise pushing the filmmaker angle as a "questions are being raised" story without explicitly mentioning the alleged affair. As with the Kerry story in 2004, the tale is plausible enough that it is of course possible that it is true, but the nature of the disclosures so far - and their sourcing - are more suggestive of a political hit piece that can't be verified but also can't be denied by Edwards without giving the whole ball of mud some credence.
So if it's a politically motivated hit job, and the people who logically stand to benefit are Hillary and Obama, that's where the media should be looking for the culprits...
Interestingly enough, the Enquirer's lawyer, David Kendell, just happens to be connected to, you guessed it, Hillary Clinton:
he began representing President and Mrs. Clinton in November 1993, in what was ostensibly a small savings and loan matter involving Whitewater Development Company, Inc. He went on to represent the Clintons in a variety of matters, including Independent Counsel, Senate, House of Representatives, FDIC, RTC, and bar counsel investigations, civil litigation, and the 1998-99 impeachment proceedings...His clients have included The Washington Post, Newsweek, National Enquirer (where he supervised prepublication copy review for over a decade and a half)...
I'd still like to know how this woman came to be paid $114,000 by Edwards' PAC to make web videos that were never used, but I realize that's a less sexy story, no pun intended.
Since there isn't a presentable source I don't care what a tabloid alleges.
As for linking it to Hillary, she wouldn't really be motivated since Edwards is way behind her in the polls. Hillary haters however do have a motivation for making her a potential culprit. This has also become an established MO for attacking Clinton.
I think G-Man probably sees it as hitting 2 birds with one stone.
Yeah I can understand how that type of stratagy is tempting for a Rudy supporter
Anyone think this type of tabloid stuff should be major news items? If there was solid sourcing for the allegations then I believe it's fair game but wiithout it's not.
A new InsiderAdvantage/Majority Opinion poll out of Iowa shows John Edwards leaping from third to first place in Iowa
The Democratic poll, taken from Dec. 16-17 of 977 Democrats who said they intend to participate in the caucuses, showed Edwards with 30 percent, followed by New York Sen. Hillary Clinton with 26 percent and Illinois Sen. Barack Obama with 24 percent.
The poll, which is an automated survey taken overnight, suggests the former North Carolina senator - who has been steadily trumpeting his anti-special interest, populist message - is resonating in Iowa. Other recent polls showed Obama overtaking Clinton, and Edwards stuck in third.
However, when the InsiderAdvantage poll’s sample group was narrowed to 633 Democrats most likely to caucus, Obama retained a 1-point lead. That poll gave Obama 27 percent, Edwards 26 percent and Clinton 24 percent. The tighter sample group had a margin of error of 3 percent, while the broader group had a margin of error of 2 percent.
Perhaps not coincidentally (given the tabloid's connections to the Clintons, noted above, and Edwards vaulting ahead of Hillary in at least one poll), reports are surfacing that "at least two news outlets are preparing to break new details" on the story the National Enquirer printed a few months ago alleging that John Edwards cheated on his wife with a campaign volunteer.
This little piece of stupidity pops up in right wing circles with regularity as it concerns John Edwards. That since he's rich, he can't possibly be in a position to help the poor. It's as if the people propagating this sound byte can't see past their own sociopath mindset and actually believe that anyone with means would actually look out for those less fortunate. Case in point:
To show just how low the bar can be lowered, Tucker decides that John Edwards’ large house makes for good political discussion. Never mind the fact that both John and Elizabeth came from modest means and built their wealth, they’re hypocrites because they’re liberals — you just can’t own a huge house and still care about people who are less fortunate — therefore, he’s not fit to be president.
What’s even more frustrating is to see Bob Franken and Slate’s Melinda Henneberger play along with this foolishness. Henneberger says that while Elizabeth Edwards is a wonderful person that everybody loves, she’s the one who wanted the huge house and boy, that really runs counter to the message that she and her husband are trying to put out on the campaign trail. Since Edwards’ campaign speeches have been about how we need to find ways to balance the great disparities between the very rich and those less fortunate and make sure that those who are less well off have the same opportunities to succeed as the wealthy, I’m missing where that goes off message.
It’s reported that Rachel Maddow is taping a pilot for a new show for MSNBC and I can only hope that she succeeds and replaces Tucker Carlson.
I guess it’s just dandy that Bush owns a big ranch in Texas and made millions of dollars off of the sale of the Texas Rangers, but John Edwards couldn’t possibly want to help people because he has a big house. Arggg.
So using that logic, only poor people may seek to help those who are poor?
What about FDR?
What about the Kennedy's?
LBJ?
what about philanthropists now and thru the ages??
It's kinda bullshit this argument I CONSTANTLY hear from people on the right, that if you're rich, then you must be insincere about helping poor people or you're somehow unqualified. If you use a car or have ever sat in a plane to get somewhere then anything you do concerning the environment is hypocritical.
It's as if they're trying to DISCOURAGE doing ANYTHING.
Let the status quo be, why bother? It's a head in the sand mentality and i'm pretty tired of it.
It's kinda bullshit this argument I CONSTANTLY hear from people on the right, that if you're rich, then you must be insincere about helping poor people or you're somehow unqualified.
Actually, I would say that the knock on people like Edwards is that there's a disconnect between their rhetoric and the reality of their actions.
Case in point: is just watched "This week" with George Stephanopolis and George Will. They played a clip of Edwards promising that, if elected President, there would be no one in his administration who'd worked as a corporate lobbyist or had financial ties to corporations.
It was an appealing populist message to democrat voters, they noted. However, Will pointed out, given Edwards past ties to corporate hedge funds, he arguably was disqualifying himself from his own administration.
Just as socially conservative Republican candidates render themselves vunerable to charges of hypocrisy if they betray "family values" by having affairs or being closted gays, populist Democrats who make money in ways they begrudge others come across as insincere or dishonest.
So using that logic, only poor people may seek to help those who are poor?
What about FDR?
What about the Kennedy's?
LBJ?
what about philanthropists now and thru the ages??
It's kinda bullshit this argument I CONSTANTLY hear from people on the right, that if you're rich, then you must be insincere about helping poor people or you're somehow unqualified. If you use a car or have ever sat in a plane to get somewhere then anything you do concerning the environment is hypocritical.
It's as if they're trying to DISCOURAGE doing ANYTHING.
Let the status quo be, why bother? It's a head in the sand mentality and i'm pretty tired of it.
we should help the poor and we should make sure that everyone can have some kind of health insurance.....but many democrats are indeed insincere about this. Edwards is full of shit. His idea of helping the poor is to tax the hell out of and squeeze the middle class and upper middle class dry till we are all poor except for the elite super rich class that he is a part of. If politicians really cared they would star regulating how much banks could charge on mortgages.... how much apr the credit card companies could charge.......tax the hell out of the oil companies and other fortune 500 companies......put limits on much ceos bonuses are and how much they can be paid....etc. etc.
Also don't let douchebag personal injury lawyers drive up the costs of insurance premiums when they win damges that are incredibly excessive and only end up hurting the whole country specifically the little guys that they are supposedly trying to protect like Edwards did.... he's a douchbag allright! *deep breath*
Another example of Edwards' actions seeming perhaps hypocritical: The New York Times printed an article about the "independent political groups [who] are using their financial muscle and organizational clout as never before to influence the presidential race, pumping money and troops into early nominating states on behalf of their favored candidates."
According to the article, Edwards seems to be trying to have it both ways, criticizing the groups, while accepting their assistance:
Mr. Edwards, in particular, has made tightening such rules a cornerstone of his campaign, putting him in a delicate position as he denounces expenditures coming indirectly from some of his closest supporters, like locals of the service employees’ union.
On the campaign trail, Mr. Edwards has called on the groups, known as 527s for the section of the tax code they fall under, to stop running advertisements supporting him. But he has said he will not ask them directly
Mr. Edwards is also benefiting from more than $1.5 million from the Alliance for a New America, which has primarily been running a radio campaign in Iowa. While most of the money has come from service union locals, one big donation of $495,000 that came in last Friday was given by a longtime Edwards supporter.
And it turns out that Edwards himself set up one of these independent groups:
Mr. Edwards’s One America committee[is] a 527 committee he set up to fight poverty.
Don't get me wrong. As a supporter of free speech I'm on record as opposing the regulation of these groups on First Amendment grounds. But if Edwards is going to make attacking these groups a cornerstone of his campaign he should be working a lot harder to distance himself from them.
…but the media ignores the candidate, does it really happen?
Glenn Greenwald looks at the media narratives that can’t say enough about McCain’s “rise from the dead” but ignores John Edwards’ rise completely.
Quote:
Aside from the fact that these endless prediction games completely overwhelm any substantive discussions, their guesses — which are really wishes — are almost always dreadfully wrong and plainly designed to advance their concealed agenda for which candidates they like and dislike. Why is any of that something that reporters ought to be doing at all? Is there any distinction between what a “reporter” does and what a “pundit” does covering this campaign? There doesn’t seem to be any.
As but one example, consider this new daily tracking poll today from Rasumussen Reports. At least according to this poll, it is true that there has been one candidate who has been genuinely surging in the last week or two among Democratic voters nationally — John Edwards [..]
Yet to listen to media reports, Edwards doesn’t even exist. His campaign is dead. He has no chance. They hate Edwards, hate his message, and thus rendered him invisible long ago, only now to declare him dead — after he came in second place in the first caucus of the campaign.
…I appreciate that on the major issues of health care, the environment, and the economy, you have framed the issues for what they are - a struggle for justice. And, you have almost single-handedly made poverty an issue in this election.
You know as well as anyone that the 37 million people living in poverty have no voice in our system. They don’t have lobbyists in Washington and they don’t get to go to lunch with members of Congress. Speaking up for them is not politically convenient. But, it is the right thing to do.
I am disturbed by how little attention the topic of economic justice has received during this campaign. I want to challenge all candidates to follow your lead, and speak up loudly and forcefully on the issue of economic justice in America.[..]
I believe that now, more than ever, we need a leader who wakes up every morning with the knowledge of that injustice in the forefront of their minds, and who knows that when we commit ourselves to a cause as a nation, we can make major strides in our own lifetimes. My father was not driven by an illusory vision of a perfect society. He was driven by the certain knowledge that when people of good faith and strong principles commit to making things better, we can change hearts, we can change minds, and we can change lives.
So, I urge you: keep going. Ignore the pundits, who think this is a horserace, not a fight for justice. My dad was a fighter. As a friend and a believer in my father’s words that injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere, I say to you: keep going. Keep fighting. My father would be proud.
I don’t know about you, but if I got a letter like that, it would be framed and on my wall where every visitor could see it.
Nice letter for Edwards. I didn't catch the SC debate tonight but read about it from various sites & I'm going to guess that he will probably come out of it looking pretty good. It sounds like there was quite a bit of unattractive fighting between Obama & Hillary.
John Edwards nailed the problem with his campaign. He should have singled out Chris Matthews as the guy has nothing but contempt for anything that might interrupt from endlessly discussing nothing but the novelty that is 'the woman VS the black man'. God love him, John Edwards smacks the media who insist on making the Democratic presidential race a two person one and treating him as if he doesn’t exist:
That Hannity bit at the end was priceless. Almost the entire audience says Edwards won and his only question for them is wanting to know who they think did better, Hillary or Obama.
I felt Edwards came off as a whiny bitch personally. I think the media treats it like a 2 person race because it is indeed a 2 person race. He doesn't have a chance.
Originally Posted By: The New Adventures of Old PJP
I felt Edwards came off as a whiny bitch personally. I think the media treats it like a 2 person race because it is indeed a 2 person race. He doesn't have a chance.
Yeah, that comment about a two person race seemed like whining.
With that being said, it's too bad for the Democrats (and good for the rest of the country) that they didn't get behind the Breck boy. I've seen clips of him speaking to rallies and similar events and he is a very good speaker outside of the Democrat debates. I'd actually be more afraid of my guys running against him as the 2008 nominee than either Clinton or Obama.
LETTERMAN: You know what I've noticed about Bill O'Reilly? And he's a marvelous communicator. But he doesn't really care very much about telling the truth.
EDWARDS: Yeah I've noticed.
LETTERMAN: Very entertaining. And I like when he's on the show. But if you say one thing...
EDWARDS: Most of what he says is full of crap.
LETTERMAN: I like how you think, Senator.
The audience was visibly (audibly) shocked, then slowly breaks into a good applause once they realize it's okay to tell the truth about O'Reilly.
Does anyone younger than 50 even know what Breck is?
BTW, thank you for underscoring my belief in Edwards as being the only really viable candidate.
Viable how? You obviously don't mean that he's winning.
He's one of the Dems that I gained some respect for, with his anti-corporate-special-interest populist message. Sorry to see him drop out, as long as he was a candidate, he could participate in debates, he could raise the issue of pushing back corporate influence.
And again, I don't see him as completely gone. As discussed before, he seemed in one primary debate to be aligning himself with Obama, and auditioning for Obama's vice president.
For the young'uns here, Breck is a shampoo, another reference to Edwards' pretty hair.
I doubt he'll be the VP nominee. He couldn't even win his own state for Kerry last time. Rumor has it that if Barack Hussein Obama wins he will make Edwards his attorney general, however.
John Edwards met secretly with Hillary Clinton and will meet with Barack Obama about a possible endorsement.
Edwards has been “in talks” with Clinton and Barack Obama “for weeks” about an endorsement but has not yet said who he will endorse or when he will do it.
The former North Carolina senator met with Clinton on Thursday and will meet with Obama on Monday. The campaign official described him as “very torn” in reaching a decision about which candidate to back.
Edwards dropped out of the race last month after placing third in the South Carolina Democratic presidential primary. He said at the time that he had spoken to both of his former rivals and each had pledged to carry his anti-poverty message with them on the campaign trail and into the White House if one became president.
Clinton campaign officials would not comment on what took place at the sit-down or how it went, calling it a private meeting. But Clinton herself brought up Edwards’ name twice on Saturday during an event in Lewiston, Maine. First, she praised him on health care, then in a question and answer session, she told an ex-Edwards supporter that she and Edwards have a lot in common.
As I mentioned a few weeks ago, Edwards in the televised ABC debate a month or so ago aligned himself with Obama as a fellow "agent of change", in opposition to Hillary who he described as part of the Washington 2-party establishment. So to me it would be unnatural for Edwards to at this stage endorse Hillary Clinton. That would be a pretty clear backroom deal, inconsistent with Edwards' previous rhetoric.
Endorsing Obama would be consistent with what Edwards said prior, even though that would apparently be a backroom deal as well.
Although, after seeing both Ted Kennedy and Caroline Kennedy give unprecedented endorsement to Barack Obama as the heir-apparent to JFK and Martin Luther King Jr., and having the people of Massachussetts still give the state's Democratic primary victory to Hillary Clinton over Obama, I don't know how much difference Edwards' endorsement would make, one way or the other.
Even as John Edwards was trying to appear sincere and apologetic in public, behind the scenes he was cynically attempting to manipulate the media in order to minimize the damage. He’s reportedly furious with ABC News for breaking the story of his extramarital affair early on Friday, instead of waiting for the Olympics opening ceremonies to start.
I, personally, don't think the fact he had an affair is that big of a deal, especially now that he's out of the race. However, it would appear to be yet-another example of his being a hypocrite:
John Edwards on Bill Clinton in 1999: “I think this President has shown a remarkable disrespect for his office, for the moral dimensions of leadership, for his friends, for his wife, for his precious daughter. It is breathtaking to me the level to which that disrespect has risen.”
Yes, it's a shame he didn't stand up for Family Values like Newt Gingrich did.
or Larry Craig. or David Vitter. or Ted Haggard. or Bill O'Reilly. or Mark Foley.
Darn those promiscuous Democrats for getting better-quality tail!
Did you even read my post before you started wanking and crying over it?
I said that I didn't care that Edwards had an affair. I only said it made him look like a hypocrite because he attacked Bill Clinton for doing the same thing.
as far as I know none of those guys were screwing around behind there wife who was dying. i could care less about the political side of it, i didnt care that bill was screwing monica(though perjury was another matter), but the fact that the guy would cheat on a dying woman says he is a piece of shit.
Originally Posted By: The New Adventures of Old PJP
I felt Edwards came off as a whiny bitch personally. I think the media treats it like a 2 person race because it is indeed a 2 person race. He doesn't have a chance.
Yeah, that comment about a two person race seemed like whining.
With that being said, it's too bad for the Democrats (and good for the rest of the country) that they didn't get behind the Breck boy. I've seen clips of him speaking to rallies and similar events and he is a very good speaker outside of the Democrat debates. I'd actually be more afraid of my guys running against him as the 2008 nominee than either Clinton or Obama.
I don't like hating people but I hate John Edwards. he is a piece of shit scumbag good riddance.
Originally Posted By: The New Adventures of Old PJP
Originally Posted By: the G-man
Originally Posted By: The New Adventures of Old PJP
I felt Edwards came off as a whiny bitch personally. I think the media treats it like a 2 person race because it is indeed a 2 person race. He doesn't have a chance.
Yeah, that comment about a two person race seemed like whining.
With that being said, it's too bad for the Democrats (and good for the rest of the country) that they didn't get behind the Breck boy. I've seen clips of him speaking to rallies and similar events and he is a very good speaker outside of the Democrat debates. I'd actually be more afraid of my guys running against him as the 2008 nominee than either Clinton or Obama.
I don't like hating people but I hate John Edwards. he is a piece of shit scumbag good riddance.
Edwards Affair: Wife in 'Anguish'. Friend of Elizabeth Edwards reportedly says she was 'furious' and in 'excruciating anguish' after former senator's affair
News of his extramarital affair with a former campaign worker could put John Edwards at serious risk of losing the position or appointment he currently holds, or may be planning to hold, or to contend for, if he hasn't lost it already, sources reported Tuesday.
"This will be a major blow to the retired-lawyer-former-senator- slash-presidential-candidate-and-nonprofit-foundation-founder's chances of being named attorney general or appointed to another cabinet position, assuming Obama gets elected in November and chooses Edwards over someone who has been directly involved in politics during the past four years," Georgetown University political science professor Samuel DeCanio said. "I don't know if he'll ever be able to recover and return to…the work…volunteering…job he was doing before this."
It now seems unlikely that Edwards will reclaim his old Senate seat in January, if that is even possible, and a number of critics have called for his resignation from the honorary university post he likely holds if he is not already chairman of a national committee of some kind. A growing number have even claimed he should retire altogether from either public or private life.
"John Edwards needs to step down from or refuse to accept the position immediately," Republican National Committee deputy chairman Frank Donatelli said. "He's in a lot of trouble if he still needs to be elected to something."
Added Donatelli, "I just hope our tax dollars aren't going to him somehow."
At press time, it was unclear whether Edwards could be impeached, or whether he would have legal grounds to sue someone if he were.
Failed presidential candidate John Edwards, whose political action committee paid more than $100,000 to his mistress' company, acknowledged Sunday that federal investigators were looking into how he handled his campaign funds.
Edwards' political action committee has been under scrutiny for making payments to a woman with whom he had an affair. Edwards admitted the affair with Rielle Hunter in August after months of denying tabloid reports about the relationship.
"I am confident that no funds from my campaign were used improperly," Edwards said in the statement. "However, I know that it is the role of government to ensure that this is true. We have made available to the United States both the people and the information necessary to help them get the issue resolved efficiently and in a timely matter."
Failed presidential candidate John Edwards, whose political action committee paid more than $100,000 to his mistress' company, acknowledged Sunday that federal investigators were looking into how he handled his campaign funds.
Edwards' political action committee has been under scrutiny for making payments to a woman with whom he had an affair. Edwards admitted the affair with Rielle Hunter in August after months of denying tabloid reports about the relationship.
"I am confident that no funds from my campaign were used improperly," Edwards said in the statement. "However, I know that it is the role of government to ensure that this is true. We have made available to the United States both the people and the information necessary to help them get the issue resolved efficiently and in a timely matter."
Well there is a chance that he used funds properly but given the circumstances I suspect this is going to not go well for him.
my belief in Edwards as being the only really viable candidate.
Now I see why whomod liked him so much: Disgraced former presidential candidate John Edwards reportedly beat his cancer-stricken wife during a horrific marriage-ending fight.
my belief in Edwards as being the only really viable candidate.
Now I see why whomod liked him so much: Disgraced former presidential candidate John Edwards reportedly beat his cancer-stricken wife during a horrific marriage-ending fight.
Andrew Young (the guy who was John Edwards' political aide, who initially took credit for being the father of Edwards' mistress' child) has a new book out, and has been talking in detail about Edwards' unethical behavior throughout the campaign. It's pretty amaazing that this guy could be so devoted and loyal to Edwards that he'd take the rap for Edwards. Also amazing that Young's wife, knowing the truth, would go along with and be a part of the cover-up. And Elizabeth Edwards, even knowing about the Edwards' infidelity to her, was a willing part of it as well.
I guess getting slapped around was the last straw.
Poltico: Does the press really vet presidential candidates?
The revelations about Edwards, contained in two best-selling books, have undermined one of the favorite conceits of political journalism, that the intensive scrutiny given candidates by reporters during a presidential campaign is an excellent filter to determine who is fit for the White House.
While the media “usually does well” in vetting candidates, said presidential historian Michael Beschloss, “Edwards is a good case” in which it didn’t.
And that failure is worrisome in a changed political world where politicians - be they Barack Obama or Sarah Palin - can burst upon the national stage and seemingly overnight become candidates for higher office.
The media, according to Beschloss, now has “a much bigger responsibility than it used to.” In the past, he said, the political establishment “would usually have known the candidate for a long time, and if there were big problems, they probably would have known about those, and tried to make sure those people wouldn’t be nominated.”
That did not happen with Edwards, even though as a Senator he had run for president once before, in 2004, ended up on the Democratic ticket as John Kerry’s running mate, and was a known quantity to many top Democrats.
The failure to follow up aggressively on the reporting by the National Enquirer, which has nominated itself for a Pulitzer Prize for its Edwards coverage, has served as fodder for conservatives and others convinced the media has a double standard when it comes to vetting Democrats and Republicans.
"I feel sorry for the liberals who were duped by Edwards,” said Cliff Kincaid editor of the right-leaning watchdog organization Accuracy in Media. “They were the real victims of the failure to vet Edwards.”
“Now we know that Edwards was a phony in more ways than one,” Kincaid added. “Our media, especially progressives in the media, were in love with Edwards because of his liberal views. But he wasn't in love with them. He was in love with someone else—and it turns out it wasn't his wife.”
Federal prosecutors have issued a fresh round of subpoenas for a probe into John Edwards' campaign finances, an attorney for the two-time presidential candidate said Wednesday.
The subpoenas indicate signs of life for an investigation that hasn't publicly shown activity for a year. Edwards mistress Rielle Hunter and former aide Andrew Young made appearances at the federal courthouse in Raleigh a year ago to testify before a grand jury.
Young says he testified about vast sums of money that changed hands to help keep Hunter in hiding.
Grand jury probes what Edwards knew about spending: A federal criminal investigation targeting John Edwards is examining how much the two-time presidential candidate knew about money used to cover up his extramarital affair and out-of-wedlock child and whether he had other practices that pushed the bounds of campaign finance laws
I think it was pretty overt and obvious without even an investigation that Edwards was guilty of what he was accused of. And last I looked, was convicted of diverting campaign funds in a very linear way to cover up the affair with his mistress and the child he had with her, while married. If you've forgotten, she was filming a documentary for the campaign, so clearly all their travel expenses doubled as both campaign expenses, as well as funding hotels and expenses for his personal liasons.
No one needed to trick Edwards into a perjury trap when he wasn't really guilty of anything. Edwards WAS guilty. Unquestionably.
Just as Bill Clinton boldly lied, and almost dared anyone to catch him in his lies. It wasn't a matter of trapping Bill Clinton, he was arrogant enough to think he could defiantly float any Clintonian deception and no one could ever catch him. Bill Clinton WAS guilty of sexually harassing/assaulting/raping Cathleen Willie, Juanita Broaddrick, Paula Jones and others. Bill Clinton boldly lied, evading whether or not he had sex with Monica Lewinsky. He evaded and deceived, saying he didn't have intercourse, but in truth he did in fact have oral sex with her. He evaded, saying that he didn't have oral sex with her, but in truth he did in fact receive oral sex from Lewinsky. And she had the semen-stained blue dress to prove it. Clinton wasn't tricked into perjuring himself in a lawyer's trap. He boldly lied, and arrogantly thought he could get away with it.
And because he actually assaulted Paula Jones, he had to pay $850,000.
Because Clinton actually broke the law he was sworn to uphold as both a lawyer and a president, he was fined $90,000, and the American Bar Association took away his law license. (Temporarily, for 5 years as I recall. But I believe he never renewed it because he makes well over $100,000 per speaking event, so he never really needs to practice law again. )
AGAIN: unproven, the nature of the payment. It could have been Cohen making the payment completely on his own, as he has stated.
In any case, it's a huge stretch to make that it was somehow a campaign violation. It occurred 11 years before the campaign, and was not a payment made with Trump campaign funds.
It was a rich guy who had sex with a pornstar, and didn't want Stormy Daniels to go public, because he has a wife and children, a situation any number of married well-off men find themselves in. As I recall, Trump and Stormy Daniels met at a golf tournament, that they are both celebrities, and the $130,000 paid was for a business non-disclosure agreement, that is certainly not unheard of in the business or entertainment world, particularly when both are famous. Again, for (if the porn star mercenary can be believed) a consensual one-night liason. Given Trump's lifetime PUBLIC image with women, even admitted in one of his own books, does anyone think an affair would hurt Trump politically, given what Trump voters already knew about him?
You're trying to manufacture smoke where there is no fire, M E M.
Attorney Michael Cohen said: "Neither the Trump Organization nor the Trump campaign was a party to the transaction with Ms. Clifford, and neither reimbursed me for the payment, either directly or indirectly," Cohen said. "The payment to Ms. Clifford was lawful, and was not a campaign contribution or a campaign expenditure by anyone."
So there's no proof that it was campaign related. Cohen says it was something he did entirely independently.
Meanwhile there's all those mountains of ACTUAL evidence against Hillary Clinton, who has ACTUAL collusion with the Russians over the "Russia Dossier", Fusion GPS, 33,000 deleted e-mails that were deleted to hide her guilt, her illegal private server that allowed the Russians and the Chinese to hack her e-mails and know White House communications as they occurred in real time on a variety of top secret national security matters. That's for openers.
But because of Meuller's Soviet-style investigation that serves his Deep State/DNC masters, equal justice under the law, and actually looking at the facts, takes a distant backseat to weaponizing law enforcement against Trump, using whatever contrivance is available. In this case, Trump's still unproven one-night affair with a porn star.
