It’s a conspiracy, says John Edwards
John Edwards, also known as Mr. Two Americas and the $1200 haircut man, has declared “they want to shut me up.” Mr. Edwards is referring to his message about ending the war and universalizing health care.
That’s nice. He advocates retreat on the War on Terror and socializing heath care.
No word as to who “they” are, but I am guessing the vast Right Wing Conspiracy.
More from the most sensitive man in America:
This stuff’s not an accident. Nobody in this room should think this is an accident. You know, I’m out there speaking up for universal healthcare, ending this war in Iraq, speaking up for the poor. They want to shut me up. That’s what this is about. “Let’s distract from people who don’t have health care coverage. Let’s distract from people who can’t feed their children…. Let’s talk about this little silly frivolous nothing stuff so that America won’t pay attention.”
They will never silence me. Never.
If we don’t stand up to these people, if we don’t fight em, if we don’t beat them, they’re going to continue to control this country. They’re going to control the media. They’re going to control what’s being said. They do not want to hear us talking about health care for everybody.
July 27th, 2007 at 6:55 pm
He got his ass handed to him over gay marriage at the YouTube debate. Now the GOP is running scared from that format. Can’t get loyalty oaths from people sitting in their dens with a video camera…
July 27th, 2007 at 7:23 pm
John Edwards is also known as Silky Pony, the Breck Girl, and the TV Preacher.
July 27th, 2007 at 7:50 pm
IMAO has a bunch of John Edwards fun facts:
My favorite:
“Fluffy bunnies have John Edwards slippers”
July 27th, 2007 at 8:00 pm
“Fluffy bunnies have John Edwards slippers”
That’s cold.
July 27th, 2007 at 10:21 pm
“At Democratic debates, John Edwards always complains about Hillary leaving the toilet seat up.”
I love it! LOL!
July 27th, 2007 at 10:36 pm
Well as someone who might be considered a member of the VRWC, I like the idea of this dude continuing to talk. Hillary could do for talking more about her ideas, too. Like, “We’re going to take your stuff.”
That doesn’t make Edwards less of a girl or Hillary any less of a hideous beast woman-man-thing, though.
July 28th, 2007 at 7:56 am
Iraq /= WOT. Ergo, withdrawing from Iraq /= retreat from WOT.
July 28th, 2007 at 8:39 am
The worse thing is that there are people actually buying his save the poor act.
But he could be talking about the liberal media establishment in general, and the hillary war machine in particular. After all, they are the backbone of the Hillary campaign.
July 28th, 2007 at 9:14 am
It’s not the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. It’s the Society To Elevate America’s Karma (STEAK) a militant splinter group of the Vast Left Wing Conspiracy founded by Hillary and secretly funded by Tyson Foods.
July 28th, 2007 at 9:47 am
More from IMAO:
At Democratic debates, John Edwards always complains about Hillary leaving the toilet seat up.
John Edwards wishes he were Superman – mostly for the tights.
John Edwards believes in global warming because “Whew, is it getting hot in here or what? You boys wanna take them shirts off?”
John Edwards uses the “No More Tears” shampoo but cries anyway. Not because it stings, but because he gets wistful at the thought of his hair losing its perfect form while he washes it.
Before attending law school, John Edwards briefly considered becoming a gynecologist so that he could do self-exams.
That is some cold stuff.
July 28th, 2007 at 1:07 pm
The whole “Two Americas” idea was lifted from Stalin apologist W.E.B DuBois. (Surprise!) Of course, America’s Silken Savior probably never bothered to learn that DuBois wasn’t lamenting that there were two Americas, but calling for the creation of two Americas as a form of internal black separatism. You can’t blame the intellectual lightweight for not knowing this, really. After all, the slogan just sounds so good.
July 29th, 2007 at 10:49 am
OK, I understand that a very wealthy man cannot possibly advocate for the poor, but why is that? Does is apply as well to the Republican candidates?
July 29th, 2007 at 11:14 am
It has nothing to do with his wealth per se, but with his own lack of sacrifice. If elected, Edwards would undoubtedly raise taxes, making the rest of us sacrifice things that are much more essential to our families than his $400 haircuts and 28,000 square foot mansion. If he wants to lead the war on poverty he can start by leading by example. Instead, he’s helping himself to poverty funds and taking large speaking fees to talk about poverty.
Edwards is also over-promising to a ridiculous degree. He’s going to make people in wheelchairs walk again, cure Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s and juvenile diabetes (link) and eliminate poverty in a generation. And that’s just the beginning!
July 29th, 2007 at 11:38 am
How would an enormously wealthy candidate like Mitt Romney approach the problem in a way that would require a sacrifice? I have heard that one plan is to provide every low-income family in America with a discount coupon for a pair of bootstraps. Made in China, of course.
July 29th, 2007 at 11:57 am
“It has nothing to do with his wealth per se, but with his own lack of sacrifice.”
So is Edwards a Chickenhawk?
July 29th, 2007 at 12:09 pm
So is Edwards a Chickenhawk?
There is no hawk in surrender. Edwards is an ostrich. Al-Qaeda approved.
Of all of the Democratic candidates I am surprised both of you defend John Edwards. Obama has more qualifications and Hillary has more balls. By far the least attractive Democratic candidate and the people where he lives cannot stand him.
Is there a bigger hypocrite in this country than John Edwards? If you think Edwards is paranoid now, wait until February. He will be in his full narcissist glory then.
July 29th, 2007 at 1:50 pm
So, enough of sidestepping. I’ll grant that at least for the time being Edwards is doing the same thing as Mr. Kerry did, which is allowing his opposition to frame him as a pretty boy. This is the same tactic as swiftboating, which was to recast the argument into palatable triviality that could be palatable to the most vulnerable and uncritical of voters.
Now, how about the answer to my question on how wealthy candidates should work for the interests of the poor in a way that necessitates some of their own sacrifice?
July 29th, 2007 at 5:11 pm
No, Semi, Edwards is not being Swiftboated, but thanks tor trying.
The only thing that Mitt Romney has in common with John Edwards is that they are both males. And they are wealthy.
The problem with John Edwards is his legacy of hypocrisy. Channeling the final thoughts of dying babies is a disqualifier. He is not qualified to lead. If you believe in him make a case for him.
July 29th, 2007 at 7:19 pm
“Channeling the final thoughts of dying babies is a disqualifier.”
True, it is akin to diagnosing neurological states via videotape.
July 29th, 2007 at 7:28 pm
As a longtime member of the VRWC, I have to say that it has never occurred to me to try to silence John Edwards because I have always regarded him as being such an inconsequential fop that I have never listened to anything he has ever had to say.
July 29th, 2007 at 11:13 pm
Edwards is an ostrich. Al-Qaeda approved.
Ok, that’s over the line.
And I too would like an answer to the question: how should a very wealthy candidate work for the poor in a way that involves sacrifice?
And please give examples of how current wealthy Republican candidates (e.g. Romney & McCain) have done that.
July 30th, 2007 at 12:51 am
That question is perhaps as hard to answer as that of cheerleading for the war while one’s peers do the fighting and dying.
I want to see some recruiting from Hannity, Limbaugh, Ingraham, Boortz, and the well-known ill-mannered weasel, Mark Levin. And throw in a few country singers, too. But don’t hold your breath waiting for them to help with the problem of repeated deployments.
OK, one more opportunity to answer the question for Rachel and me?
July 30th, 2007 at 12:52 am
p.s.- Sometimes a butterfly can sting, too. Kudos.
July 30th, 2007 at 7:39 am
And I too would like an answer to the question: how should a very wealthy candidate work for the poor in a way that involves sacrifice?
Non-sequitur, as usual. Typical change the subject move.
I could care less about Romney & McCain. We were discussing Edwards who is the biggest phony in the race.
But please go on about Edwards’ “sacrifice”. Does he screw his face up and show how much that sacrifice hurts? Like he does in the courtroom?
July 30th, 2007 at 8:34 am
“And please give examples of how current wealthy Republican candidates (e.g. Romney & McCain) have done that.”
Thing is, they aren’t campaigning as the guys who will solve poverty in a generation. They aren’t talking about the two Americas. They aren’t the ones who said “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. I think he would be appalled, actually.”
Hence, there’s no “do as I say and not as I do” hypocrisy. (At least as far as poverty. They’re politicians, though, so I’m sure they’re hypocritical about something else.)
July 30th, 2007 at 3:15 pm
Predictably the question will go unanswered and the discussion will be nudged off to the side, transformed into something else. Mr. Edwards needs to address this head on, asking his critics what it is about a wealthy candidate, no matter which party he or she represents, that makes it impossible to advocate for the poor in some way that involves personal sacrifice.
As with environmental activism, such as that practiced by Mr. Gore, critics look for perhaps the only vulnerability, which is the claim of hypocrisy.
I grew up in a poverty-ridden area of the Appalachians, Harlan County, Kentucky, and I can say from experience that no one can advocate better for the poor than one who has managed to rise above obscurity and economic deprivation. Absent advocation by one of their own who has made it, the poor have no capacity to effect beneficial change by their own hands and minds.
July 30th, 2007 at 5:09 pm
Dude, this is what Edwards said: “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 has a 28,000 square foot mansion on 100 acres and he’s calling everyone else selfish. Oh, I know, he’s saying “our” but he doesn’t mean it, or else he wouldn’t be living in a 28,000 square foot mansion on 100 acres.
Meanwhile, one of those poor people in the other America lives next door, and Edwards describes the neighbor’s place as slummy.
July 30th, 2007 at 5:38 pm
Semi, Edwards is a serial bad neighbor. He has a history in North Carolina, Washington, and his new estate in North Carolina as being a very poor neighbor. I doubt you would care for him if he was your neighbor.
If I knew nothing about him and just watched him do his preacher routine I can see how people might be drawn to him. But his legacy paints a very different picture.
Is this a philosophical issue or do you like Edwards the candidate?
July 30th, 2007 at 5:47 pm
Using the Kerry “swiftboating” as an example of bias similar to what is being done to Edwards is absolutely appropriate. They are similar actions and responses and they do expose bias.
I admit it. I am biased against liars and hypocrites. Kerry’s problems weren’t swiftboats, his problem was people that knew him witnessed what he did as opposed to what he said he did. Same with Edwards and Al Gore, for that matter. But Gore isn’t running for the presidential nomination, Edwards is.
I don’t care about his wealth, nor do I think it is an impediment to efforts to help others. His character is an impediment to his doing anything for anybody else. Here again, look at what he does, not what he says he does. You would have thought that as Kerry’s running mate, he would have learned the lethality to a campaign of exhibiting hypocrisy that cannot be hidden.
So even if you make a case that all of them are hypocritical to some extent, you also have to take into account that Edwards is too stupid to learn, unless he is talking to dead babies.
July 30th, 2007 at 10:31 pm
Yup, the Republicans aren’t talking about poverty. I’ve seen no evidence that they give a damn about it. So that makes them better than Edwards, who at least has put the subject on the table?
As for changing the subject, #9, I think a discussion about how to address poverty in American – and who may or may not have some ideas about it – is worth considerably more of our time and effort than just slamming John Edwards (or Mitt Romney, or anybody else).
Your values may differ.
July 31st, 2007 at 12:49 am
#9, at this point I like Russ Feingold. I won’t elaborate, since I think his capability speaks for itself. I do have some reservations, however, about that Harvard thing. What we need are some leaders who have grown up in trailer parks, gone to state schools, and pushed a mop or run a 7-Eleven cash register late into the night to get a diploma.
And who have been raised to serve their country instead of their friends.
July 31st, 2007 at 7:17 am
And who have been raised to serve their country instead of their friends.
True. Very few of them though.