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.
