This Week: Edwards Scares The Punditocracy...
By Nicole Belle Saturday Dec 29, 2007 3:35pm
Download | play 
Download | play (h/t Heather)
...otherwise, why would they spend so much time trying so hard to dismiss him? When asked by host George Stephanopoulos which of the presidential contenders "handled" the assassination of Benazir Bhutto the best (a strange question in and of itself) George Will did not focus on Huckabee's lack of knowledge or Richardson's demand that Musharraf step down, but rather on the fact that John Edwards made a phone call.
GS: (The Bhutto assassination) was a major event, at least for a day, on the campaign trail. It seemed to freeze the campaigns. Who handled it well; who didn’t?
GW: Opinions differ. I would love to have been a fly on the wall of President Musharraf’s office when the aide came in. The country’s in flames, the army’s in doubt and the guy comes in and says, “We have holding on the line a former one term senator from North Carolina, calling from Iowa.”
Could Will be more dismissive and patronizing if he tried? Turns out, yes. Because as the discussion moved to the upcoming Iowa primary and whose message was resonating most, again, Edwards' message of populism was brought up. David Brooks immediately pulls a Noonan and discounts how "tough" Edwards can be, and George Will then subverts the whole definition of populism to pull as many conservative scare tactics as possible. How many strawman fallacies can you count?
Download | play Download | play
GW: Here you have the fundamental contradiction of populism. He doesn’t like Washington and Washington power. He also vows to increase the power of Washington. Populism has to do that. He’s going to increase the regulatory state and with it, he’s going to increase the stakes of politics and therefore the importance of lobbyists.
Why does George & Co. feel the need to dismiss Edwards? Could it be that in head-to-head match ups, Edwards is the candidate who fares the best?
Login or Register to post comments.
"Could it be that in head-to-head match ups, Edwards is the candidate who fares the best? "
Probably.
What did Edwards do in the senate?
Oh, and um... what was it? Oh yeah...
FRIST!
Edward's call was received wasn't it? Which would be more than could be said had David "Tweaker" Brooks or Bow Tie Guy called.
Jealous much?
sam @ 2:
More importantly, what is he doing NOW? I'm impressed. It can't be easy going up against the status quo and the corporatists. I hope I get the chance to vote for him.
Why does George & Co. feel the need to dismiss Edwards?
Because Ann Coulter isn't around to call him a "fag" ?? I'm just asking.
More than Will, Brooks makes fun of Edwards fighting corporate greed. I don't understand. Don't they know the cameras are on? Don't they know Americans are mad about that? Don't they know how insular they sound? Idiots.
Edwards called because Bush was reading My Pet Goat.
Ruthless People @ 4:
Lol....where does the tweaker coming from( i like it)...."...keep fighten that Korporate greed..."...what a tool this asshat is.
I think Will and Brooks are close to being driven to distraction, and are about to become a team, and announce for the presidency.
Just wait'll they hear what the pundits say about them!
That settles it. I'm sending Edwards a donation.
JudyLou @ 11:
Yay! I just sent mine.
methinks the lady doth protest too much
MSM isn't afraid of edwards in the least...how could they be? despite the new rhetoric, he's from the old guard...
a head to head match up of yet another couple of rich white boys promising to make big changes 'this time,' forget about what i did or didn't do in the past.....i think the repubs win that contest everytime, or it's a tie (and they own the voting machines and the supreme court).....
i'd argue that cnn poll is an anomaly
Why does George & Co. feel the need to dismiss Edwards?"
Because they are a bunch of smug corporate goons sharpening their knives for another feast on Democrats. If these guys were half as critical of Republicans they would not only be fired, but also blacklisted -- and everyone of the them knows it.
How they can look themselves in the mirror every morning is a wonder to me. They must have really good psychoanalysts ... or drugs.
The Corporatists are Terrified that Edwards will get the nomination. They are in fear of him. Edwards has my vote! I'm with him all the way. We must protect him and make sure he does not get Butto'd before the election!
Anyone that even mentions upsetting the beltway apple cart will be attacked or dismissed by these lackies - Paul, Edwards, Kucinich, Gravel, etc., etc.
I hate it when Edwards fans make a point of trying to sound like Paulbot conspiracy loons. The Village™ isn't dismissive of either Paul or Edwards out of fear; it's dismissive because that makes analysis of the horse-race much easier and the Village™ is a profoundly lazy place. The Village™ doesn't like anything even a little bit out of the mainstream of two-party leadership, whether crazy like Paul or sensible like Edwards, because they can't just copy-and-paste previous platitudes and call it analysis.
Never attribute to conspiracy what can be explained by stupid and lazy.
I find it humorous that John Edwards is still running. He is a hypocrite and weak. Where was his strength when voting for the Iraq war? Did he even read the NIE? He had his political adviser make the war/peace decision. "But he apologized"...so...tell that to the 3900 families who lost a loved one...tell them I am sorry for voting to authorize this war for political reasons. What a Joke!...Just like Hillary Clinton and all her supporters...lemmings. What about Obama? He is an empty suit. He is bought and paid for. He skips every critical vote and then claims to be different. I give him credit for having the foresight concerning the Iraq war...but he continues to fund this war.
If you progressives what real progress....vote Ron Paul. He isn't bought and is brave as hell for stating his beliefs without worrying about being Politically correct.
JudyLou @ 11:
I already sent him money a couple of months ago. Of course, what Edwards says is correct, unless your the top 5-10% of the country by income, then it just sounds strange and of course is "class divisive". George Bush and conservative philosophy isn't "class divisive" when they bankrupt the country while giving tax breaks to the rich. That's just good old conservative greed.
Edwards' chances have just improved tremendously!
Obama's 'dirty tricks' guy just seduced Hillary's 'dirty tricks' gal last night, and when the Iowa cops caught them in the back seat of a rental car in a public playground, they threw them both in the slammer. Miscegenation, you know, is a no-no in Iowa.
With both Hillary's and Obama's top agents out of action, Edwards is looking good.
These folks are just the most incredible assholes ever.
It's amazing that anyone watches them, but then assholes have a lot of audience appeal and identification.
Pax, Steve
Maybe they are pissing towards Edwards and hoping no one will notice that sorry lot of candidates the Republicans have to offer.
rob j
i agree with you... but add to stupid and lazy the notion of reasoned and intelligent...
edwards is a corrupted has-been....he was in dc, did nothing...voted for the war.
he lost to gwb in 04 (even the MSM must realize how profound an accomplishment that is, given gw's first term)...
they are applying smarts and good reason to dismiss his candidacy, ignore his rhetoric
There is an interesting post on something that happened before the assassination of Bhutto on TheZoo. Bhutto did an interview with David Frost in November 2007 where in the course of the interview, she mentioned someone who had murdered bin Laden. It was just a passing comment. Frost didn't even question her on it. It was like nothing had happened. The video interview (complete) was uploaded to YouTube by AlJazeera English. The BBC has the video of the same interview up on the BBC website. All of it EXCEPT for the sentence with bin Laden being murdered.. Why is that?
RealPolitik @ 18:
'RealPolitik' connotes voting for a potential ultimate winner.
"Here you have the fundamental contradiction of populism. He doesn’t like Washington and Washington power. He also vows to increase the power of Washington. Populism has to do that. He’s going to increase the regulatory state and with it, he’s going to increase the stakes of politics and therefore the importance of lobbyists. "
Here is an amazing thing. George Will on national tv lying to the face of public watching. Edwards has never said anything like this. He is talking about how corporations and their lobbyists have taken over Washington and hijacked the government which everyone knows is true. He wants citizens to have power in Washington and in their government. Will knows this but keeps hoping that the public will believe him.
I agree with most of what Edwards says, but calling the President of Pakistan while his country is melting down to offer advice on what to do next is a little batty. Probably didn't do that much damage but I thought it displayed a willingness to use even the most serious crisis for political gain, and I wasn't impressed.
Will was a bit of prick suggesting being anti-corporation is crazy talk, but if I remember, didn't David Brooks disagree and defend Edwards right after that?
.
..
...
Conspiracy=Informal Collusive Oligarchy
Is this not are press?
Their little club of 'understanding' that controls information to the people.
...
..
.
Ron Paul will be president in the 200 year anniversary of James Madison.
“To the press alone, chequered as it is with abuses, the world is indebted for all the triumphs which have been gained by reason and humanity over error and oppression”-James Madison
He would weep today.
the neocons and their bastard pundits like GW are afraid of Edwards because he will take away all their fucking fat white boy toys and get into their greedy avarice piggy banks.
RealPolitik @ 18:
I wouldn't vote for Ron Paul unless you had a gun to my head and the hammer was pulled back. Other than the Iraq war I don't agree with him on almost anything and talk about radical, Paul would have absolutely no safety net of any kind in this country and you would have unchecked corporations the likes of which haven't been seen for about a 100 years. This would be a miserable place filled with a few haves and many, many have nots.
lopaloo102 @ 23:
With all due respect (I love how that phrase is used), you are an idiot. He didn't "loose" to GW. The election was stolen. And he wasn't the presidential candidate. People vote for a PRESIDENTIAL candidate and rarely the vice presidential candidate (I.e. LIEberman). And he voted for the war based on lies the administration put out. You want more of the same? Fine. Vote for it. We will all loose.
edwards is a fat white boy
he won't take away anybody's toys
hope--
you want more of the same, put in another rich white boy who promises that, this time when he gets to DC, he'll do all the right things..
you want real change, put in a candidate who bucks the system, whether it's clinton, kucinich, or obama
lopaloo102 @ 33:
RealPolitik @ 18:
Obama! He doesn't show up for votes. Clinton! Not even going there. I'd only vote for Ron Paul to send a message. He's a loose canon. And Edwards doesn't "fund the war" because he doesn't hold any position of power from which he can do so.
Steve Humphreys @ 14:
That says it all
lopaloo102 @ 33:
Clinton....
....?
LMFAO
hope @ 12:
Thanks. For saving me some money, I was going to send him some, but since you both already did, well..............................
Preacher Boob @ 37:
Ahh, c'mon on. Join us, join us.
Well, they can't provide the typical chickenhawk calumny on his military record. Here's the deal. Every single potential Democratic Party nominee is a far superior choice for President than the slimy bunch of shysters, Gordon Gekko wannabes and outright nutcases the Republicans propose. George Will reminds me of the Diebold honcho that vowed 'whatever it takes'.
These people will lie their asses off, steal debate preparation materials, slander veterans. They care about a singular thing. Winning, to be in position to award no-bid contracts, and so much for Conservatism, small government and Grover Nordquist. They readily, slavishly, voraciously jettison whatever political philosophy they ever claimed, including supporting the ultimate sleazebag Rudy if they think he'll win. There may be a place for bipartisanship, but the wholly unprincipled really need not apply. And that's the whole Republican Party.
As far as Ron Paul is concerned, I think I stopped laughing when his campaign sent a flyer with a fake Social Security card for Juan Doe.
I want a candidate with good judgment. Edwards voted yes for several pieces of legislation that he now has to apologize about. I want someone that was right the first time.
I think Will suffers from a small Fallacie inside of his Head that he has mistaken
for a Brain.
cheney/bush: 'Who can we get to shill for us in the talk politics show for say....$10 a week? Reply: 'George Will'.
sam @ 40:
Really? Like whom? I'd rather have a candidate who apologizes for a misstep than one who continues to vote in a way a disagree with.
hope @ 12:
Just sent mine as well.....I was going to wait and see if he took Iowa, but what the fuck........he is what we NEED....I love O'bama, but we don't need to "get along" with the corporate scum, we need to kick their asses, route them and where appropriate lock them away and throw away the key............"getting along" means that we TOLERATE that they have moved us 7/10ths of the way to feudalism/fascism.....this is unacceptable.
V V
PS Dennisheads.....I love him too, he's a great man.....but you need to come to grips with the reality that we are a nation of American Idol/Dancing with the stars loving morons who in part will elect on the basis of whether or not someone looks like he was quarterback of the high school football team.......Dennis is slight and funny looking and confessed (and handled badly) to seeing a UFO......this disqualifies him. It is WRONG that this is the case, but that doesn't change the way things are.
Why does C&L have such a hardon for Edwards? Do they really think the country needs another born-again Baptist who thinks gays should be denied civil rights?
"Why does George & Co. feel the need to dismiss Edwards? Could it be that in head-to-head match ups, Edwards is the candidate who fares the best?"
That certainly could be the case. I think it is more likely however that Edwards' call was also a quick re-action to what had happened. That is what they are focused on. Edwards' call is just what you would expect from a President. That simple call, whether one agrees with that call or not, is a response. The other candidates only made simple statements. Some, like Fred Thompson probably didn't even do that. Fred more than likely just rolled over and went back to sleep while Mike Huckabee dug out his map to see where Pakistan actually is at.
And, I'm including the total loon Mike Gravell. At least he doesn't believe Noah loaded stegasauri on the Ark, nor married his cousin, or said Bernie Kerick was the guy for DHS, or had illegal immigrants mulching his peonies, or opened a bridal registry 30 something years after the fact. I mean, these guys are pathetic. And Americans might vote for them. And deserve what they get, good and hard.
Talcott @ 9:
Tweaker is a term used for meth users when they get juiced up so much they jerk, fidget and blink uncontrollably.
Brooks is juiced up on a drug more lethal than meth, Republicanism.
Joe O. @ 46:
I don't know. I may not be seeing the whole picture here, but I think the call was a "presidential" thing to do.
RealPolitik @ 18:
Get bent....Ron Paul is a fucking nutter.....where to begin....his racism problems, his intellectual inconsistency about abortion, his gold buggery.....and that you morons who want to "let the market sort it out" don't have the foggiest idea about the REALITY of how that would actually go down. I can't wait until the GOP picks a another nutcase (GO HUCKABEE) so you delusional morons will shut the fuck up.
V V
Edwards IS NOT the product that MSM wants to sell us this next year. Duh!
hope @ 49:
I agree. It was the "Presidential" thing to do and that is why I think George and Co. are focused on it. The other candidates apparently took no such action. In other words, they showed no initiative or leadership when Edwards did.
J @ 45:
Can you back up your assertion that John Edwards thinks "gays should be denied civil rights" with anything substantive.
Here's when I would like to be a fly on the wall:
"President Musharraff, there's a deeby little piss ant with a clownish bow tie and a bad hair piece on the line".
Mussharraff: "What, are you kidding me? It's past Halloween, hang up on him!"
"dweeby"
prospero @ 39:
I don't know where you live, but here in Southern California a Super Majority of people are very passionate(right or wrong)
about this issue, probably in a way that you disagree with.
The very simple fact is if we enforced the laws we have this would be a non issue.
If Homeland Security(eck it feels slimey even writing that... a name that approves of Empire)
or whatever Federal Agency like the I don't know Department of DEFENSE isn't moblized to do that
then any number of consequences occur.
Enforce the laws that support worker's wages.
I see soo much under the table cheapening of Labor becuase the migrants are illegal.
Getting legal is in THEIR best interest.
Getting legal is in other worker's best interest.
Enforce the law's that go after employer's
if their is no incentive to break the law
illegal migration would slow.
Ron's angle is(and if you haven't heard the man speak you are ignorant)
government handout's are the incentive...to which I disagree.
The majority of Latino's I meet are interested in working hard to make
a better life for themselves and their families. But since they are
illegal they get exploited.
I once mentioned something on this site about the irony of a half literate Texan questioning the authenticity of "intelligence" analysts, and being outside of his intellectual jurisdiction. well, here we go again.
George Will. 66 years old and about 130 pounds of bottle cap lenses and bow tie. Former professor of philosophy, and the priveliged son of a wealthy professor of philosophy. lifelong professional critic (read: "professional typist who doesn't even have to type lots of words per minute")
David Brooks. 43 years old and about 180 pounds of caviar and soft steak bred body fat, raised by a soft-handed family of old money in a gated community outside of Manhattan. a man whose greatest literary achievement is a tongue-in-cheek expose of the nouveau riche and their uncouth contribution to high society. a man who must be so selfish and lackluster in bed that he recently proclaimed that sex is becoming "more explicit everywhere, except in real life."
questioning the "toughness"...
of a 53 year old, 160-ish pound physically fit frame of a man raised by a mill worker, a stellar football player who scraped his way into college on a football scholarship, who eventually earned a double major. a man who has faced menacing hospital legal teams and won. a man who has maintained a positive demeanor and spirit of positivity in spite of living through the death of a firstborn, and supporting a wife diagnosed with cancer.
this goes beyond irony. these men are well outside of both their physical and intellectual jurisdiction, questioning the integrity of both Edwards' achievements and "toughness".
I'm still not sure whether or not I'd vote for Edwards, but these two men need to be called out for the wusses that they are, and need to be intimidated into shutting up when they start flapping their soft glossy lips about the "toughness" of a man who is clearly both their physical and intellectual superior. John Edwards has more "grit" than these two nancies will ever have the privelige of achieving.
How can you not know where Pakistan is? Don't you have maps in the USA?
hope @ 38:
Oh, OK. I guess that makes us a menage of contributors.
Edwin @ 58:
Yeah, but people have to look at them. Huckabee apparently didn't even bother to "cya".
hope @ 12:
I like Edwards. He is consitent and thoughtful. He seems to take it all in stride too; not just a showman for votes. I also
likelove Kucinich and Obama.*love Kucinich, like Obama
Preacher Boob @ 59:
Great! This is a menage I'm glad to be part of.
What a fucking idiot! I'm sorry, but I used to think George Will one of the smarter and more sane of the uber-conservatives (not saying much). But what a damn moron.
The evidence at the end of clip 2, where he appears to be flabbergasted that Edwards states he would increase government accountability while reducing the size of government (A CONSERVATIVE IDEA THAT GEORGE WILL BUILD HIS CAREER ON!!!). Yet suddenly George Will is a blubbering dipshit that cannot imaging how that is possible or desirable.
Well, George, look at your boy Bush that has DRASTICALLY increased the size of the federal government while ELIMINATING almost all competency, oversight, and accountability. All our regulatory apparatus exists -- we pay for it -- but now only serves to rubber-stamp corporate graft. Nice going, Mr. Will. Very nice. How does it feel to flush the foundation of your entire career away out of the fear of one, apparently honest, man?
The size of the Federal government is determined by budget. If Edwards reduces that budget, while increasing accountability, he has succeeded in his goal. Since most of our tax money goes to unnecessary pork and propping up failing corporate business models (courtesy K street), I can't imagine this will be very hard at all for Edwards to completely obliterate the incompetence of the last 3 republicans in the office, and look like a fiscally conservative paragon by contrast.
George Will is no longer a conservative from this day. Just another opportunistic whore to the camera in a sea of millions. I'm extremely disappointed in George Stephanopoulos for not challenging him on this stunningly obvious repudiation of all things conservative, and for continuing to have him as a "conservative" commentator, when he is in reality just another bought political operative for a single candidate.
Edwards announced today, 'Bill Clinton has a place in my White House'.
Intern?
I agree. I think they truly know that Edwards would kick A** over all candidates and he (I hope and pray) would practice what he preach, by taking down corporate power and greed. And their bosses wouldn't like that. And Edwards represents us common folk. Ya know, AMERICANS.
George Will is such an asshat. His political view depends on which way the wind is blowing, and his writing on baseball completely sucks. He's such a twerp.
"He’s going to increase the regulatory state and with it, he’s going to increase the stakes of politics and therefore the importance of lobbyists."
That's one of the most illogical, disingenuous, downright fucking STUPID comments I've EVER heard.
Edwin @ 61:
I really like Kucinich. I just don't think the rest of the country is ready to like him too. Obama, I want to like but he's definitely not showing me enough substance.
"Why does George & Co. feel the need to dismiss Edwards"?
I'll tell you why.
Because Edwards dares speak of poverty, and the poor.
That's why.
swarmofkillermonkeys @ 64:
Spot on, sir. Spot on!
burnt @ 57:
YEAH!!!
Haven't we ALL noticed by now that when Bush hides in Crawford... bad things happen? Uhmmm...
vote4KUCINICH @ 73:
That's a blessing. If he were in DC bad would be much worse.
vote4KUCINICH @ 73:
Yeah but I was trying to hang on to my fantasy that there'd be a happy new year.
A reminder to everyone to vote during your Caucus/Primary. It is the only time that each vote will be counted and the Electoral College will not decide for us.
Way to lay it down Burnt. Unfortunately this country is now controlled by greedy, self-entitled, flaccid jerk-offs, and I appreciate whenever someone points out how horribly hypocritical these twats are.
I would like to take a post thanksgiving dinner dump in David Brooks mouth.
Why do all those 'donation' posts seem like a 'con' job? Edwards is not fooling anyone. He's the biggest hyprocrite out there. His only notable accomplishment his six years in the senate is co-sponsoring the bill that had us invade Iraq. As a candidate, he's a 'joke.' He helped ZERO as Kerry's running mate and could not even help win his own home state. He has made himself rich chasing ambulances and sits in his huge house pretending he cares about the 'poor' when it's obviously just a scheme to try to win himself the Presidency, and for that, he will do or say ANYTHING.
rs @ 79:
Nice recitation of talking points. Anything of substance to add?
Edwin @ 58:
No we don't, didn't see the Miss Teen USA 2007 explained why here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj3iNxZ8Dww
RealPolitik @ 18:
Vote Ron Paul in '08-Because I want to be on the express train to feudalism
Vote Ron Paul in 'O8-because I feel confident in my ability to identify carcinogenic compounds in my food even without labeling requirements.
Vote Ron Paul in 08-because I don't understand that without regulation corporations actually AVOID the market competition that I think is going to make the world into a utopia.
Vote Ron Paul in 08-because I believe the things that corporate PR departments tell me.
Vote Ron Paul in 08-because I don't want my money going to buy stuff for lazy black people.
Vote Ron Paul in 08-because NOW the perfect power of the marketplace will make businesses behave themselves........even though it didn't before for the Ford Pinto, doors on DC-10's, sugar water being sold as apple juice by Gerber.........
V V
GW: Here you have the fundamental contradiction of populism. He doesn’t like Washington and Washington power. He also vows to increase the power of Washington. Populism has to do that. He’s going to increase the regulatory state and with it, he’s going to increase the stakes of politics and therefore the importance of lobbyists.
The above illustrates the problem with those that believe in 'invisible hands', etc. Washington is a place, not a being. The people in Washington have the power. The fundamental idea of democracy is that changing the people with power can yield a different use of that power. Populism is an idea. It is people who espouse populism that seek power. It doesn’t have to be increased power, but rather used for different purposes than those of unelected lobbyists . Increasing regulation may increase the power people in Washington have over some in the society, but, conversely decrease the power those being regulated have over the rest of society, yielding an overall decrease in the power some members of society have over others and there by increasing the general liberty. None of these people would pass a freshmen class in Rhetoric or Logic. Pathetic.
rs @ 79:
Donation posts? Like mine above:
Dear friend,
Thank you so much for your support.
I never accept any money from lobbyists or PACs, so our victory depends on people like you pitching in. And that's the way it should be.
Your contribution will enable us to reach out to voters in living rooms, town halls, and on the airwaves. You're helping us build support for transformational change in early primary states and across the country.
Everywhere I travel, Americans are ready to join you and me in the great work ahead. To bring our message of real change to voters, we need offices in cities, organizers on the ground, and outreach materials to send in the mail.
Yes, the work of a national campaign comes at a cost, but truly changing America offers a far greater reward.
Thank you again for making all of this possible.
Sincerely,
John Edwards
anonymous @ 72:
Excellent post, well said!
flaccid jerk-offs
Somehow, this seems oxymoronic. Or frustrating.
I thought Edwards disappeared when he should have gone ballistic about the Short Bus, I mean Swift Boat, slander. On the other hand, this ambulance chaser crap is almost as idiotic. He beat insurance companies and Big Medicine that had harmed people and figured they could get away with it. The idea that there is some cadre of trial lawyers victimizing benevolent Big Pharma and Humana and the Frankenstein Frist Family Trust is just too stupid for words. Plaintiff's attorneys take the cases on spec, facing massive attorney army's on retainer, for whom you're paying probably half of your insurance premiums. Characterization is nearly as odious as comparison, but it's really likely Edwards was defending the little guy.
prospero @ 85:
Well, given that these folks always seem to need to involve other people in their jerking off, it doesn't seem at all oxymoronic to me.
It seems to me that these entertainers (and let's face it that is all they are) were just as dismissive of a governor from Arkansas a few years ago. With the exception of Stephanopolous, who was at the time helping that governor to become the President of the United States.
I am positive that the voters in Iowa and New Hampshire are hanging on every word that George Will utters so they can determine how they will cast their vote. George Will and the rest of that crowd are what the Monty Python players would call the upper class twits. They don't really add anything to society, just sit around with their noses in the air pretending that somehow their opinions are somehow important to other people. They are fops and no more important to what is going on in politics than the ring announcer is in a boxing match. Nobody ever cares or remembers what they have said, no matter how snotty they said it, once it has been uttered. They've simply fulfilled their purpose of using up air time.
Edwards got beaten at the Vice-Presidential debate by Dick Cheney from all people.
If you cannot out-debate Cheney then you are not fit to be President
prospero @ 85:
Frustrating certainly. They never seem to deliver what they promise, no matter how much you try to shake them up. Not that it stops the media from trotting them out in public and propping them up as if they were upright members of the political class. Only to have them flop right back down again when under any pressure. GS has spent many hours trying to coax substance out of them, but so far nothing at all...
Embarrassing to watch, really.
Fil @ 89:
That's a subjective analysis of that debate. I've heard many people say Edwards won. Try again.
Fil @ 89:
A. It's really easy to win arguments when the fucking facts are "flexible" and able to be controlled by your side.
B. At that time Edwards was constrained by a bunch of bitch ass centrist democratic consultants.
V V
One of the emerging storylines of Campaign '08 is so-called hyperpartisanship, the bitter and increasingly divisive conflict between Democrats and Republicans that is said to be fueling cynicism - and apathy - among voters. In Iowa, Barack Obama proclaims that he will transcend partisan cleavages, while John Edwards vows to fight. Meanwhile, thw Washington Post reports that New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg will meet next week with prominent figures from both parties to encourage the 2008 candidates to form a "government of national unity." But lost in the cries of hyperpartisanship is the undeniable fact the Republican Party is almost exclusively responsible for it, aided and abetted by an "infotainment" media that has transformed politics into theater.
For the details, see:
"That's Entertainment: Hyperpartisanship and Politics as Theater."
kudos to Edwards for trying to stop the 26 years of Reaganomics. The gilded ageists can pound sand
It's noteworthy how the words "corporate" nor "corporate dominance", let alone "corporatocracy" never come up.
But of course "populism" means DC dominance. Not hard to figure who pays these bozos.
...
Edwards scares the corporations alright, but it's the kind of talk the rest of us want to hear. My husband and I have often wondered why someone considered in the top tier like Edwards has received about the same amount of attention as someone polling low like Kucinich. They have tried to silence him, that's why, but maybe the Internet and good old word-of-mouth is going around them.
hope @ 38:
guess ill have to just double my donation to the
tyree @ 98:
rs @ 79:
pathetic.
Under FDR, we witnessed a booming prosperity after a Conservative-induced depression. We fought and won World War 2. American patriotism was bursting at the seams. And we were more respected worldwide and had more close allies than at any point in our history. This was the high water mark of what American greatness can truly mean.
Of course Neo-Conservatives are going to sound ridiculous in trying to refute this. How could they not?
John Edwards is a great American.
These shows are good for nothing and accomplish nothing. These shows are nothing but b.s. sessions for the Washington pundits who know nothing at all anyway.
Its your own fault for watching these idiots....
It is time you all find a copy of Neil Postman's books on American media and culture....Geez people....stop watching these idiots babble on about b.s. and of course its not hard to predict what the likes of George Will or David Brooks will say. These two are easy to telegraph long before their mouths move.
Good day!
They really dont like him. Dennis Miller cant even give a coherent reason for his Edward rants. He just says, "I hate the guy". heh. They are all reading from the same fax.
Well, what's a Repug going to do?
bubba @ 103:
And there's something else Miller can give a coherent reason for? What is this mythical beast?
I like John Edwards. Dennis Miller, not so much.
george will is just another dirty filthy lying republican scumbag!
The wingnuts are afraid of Edwards.
Well, this cements Edwards in my list of top two contenders.
Moose said,
Moose, yes I can back it up. Edwards himself says he personally thinks gays should NOT BE ALLOWED TO MARRY. Go ahead and ask him yourself. Or take 3 seconds and Google a quote of him saying it.
So what do you think, C&L? Will you vote for someone who loves him some Jesus, and because the bible says so, he personally feels gay people should be barred from getting married?
hope @ 5:
I've always thought Edwards is the Democrats best bet...
to win the White House. I supported Edwards in 2004, although he wasn't my first choice Gen Clark was. After listening to his speeches and reading about his vision for America, I know he is the candidate that speaks for the people.
They should dismiss Edwards because he is a phony, do you guys actually believe he is going to inact all of these policies?? He just plays the blame game, its all big bad corp fault, get real, Socialism does not work john!! I'm so sick of useful idiot libs!
J @ 109:
All of the top 3 Democrats are against gay marriage. I think they support civil unions. I've thought about this and at least with Edwards there's a chance he may change his mind, actually I think all there may compromise.
chris @ 111:
I don't find Edwards anymore "phony" than Hilliary or Obama.
J @ 109:
And he's also said that he supports civil unions that are the civil equivalent to marriage. And he's admitted that his bias on marriage isn't rational.
So, how is he actually worse than any other plausible candidate? And how is he not a lot better than any Republican?
chris @ 111:
What exactly is a "useful idiot lib"? I don't think his supporters believe he's not going to have a fight on his hands in enacting any of his policies. So you're saying we should just give up now? (And, by the way, socialized medicine seems to work really well for the administration and all of our congressmen. Even the repubs don't seem in a hurry to give that up.
chris @ 111:
If you want socialism, look no further than the Repubs corporate welfare programs (billions to the oil companies), and tax programs whereby hedge fund manager billionaires pay less in taxes than the middle class.
And if you look at who supports them, you will find out who the really useful idiots are.
Edwards scares the hell out of the GOP. He's from the south, he's white and he's a man. In a perfect world Hilliary could win, but I truly believe that the GOP will use her gender against her and Obama can't win, because the GOP will use race against him. Do you really believe that America has come so far, as to overlook race and gender...I think not.
We live in a country that won't allow gays to serve in our military or get married. Yet. some still think that a African American man or a woman can win the presidency. As much as I would like that to happen, I'm a realist and there's too much at stake to let another Republican win the White House.
"...He’s going to increase the regulatory state and with it, he’s going to increase the stakes of politics and therefore the importance of lobbyists." George Will
In point of fact, corruption in politics and both the importance and number of lobbyists increases dramatically with every decline of the "regulatory state".
I am thrilled to have just gotten an email from the Edwards campaign noting that they are surging. It seems that Edwards is doing especially well in rural Iowa.
God, I hope Iowans aren't stupid enough to elect that guy. He doesn't scare the pundits. He delights them because of how easy it is to attack him.
Otay @ 116:
I agree with Otay. What have Repubs ever done to help on-the-street Americans?
And poor old chris, I think Edwards scares the likes of you so very much. Edwards presents the message of a 21st century FDR. The monied interests truly hated Roosevelt for betraying his class and saving capitalism from itself. There will be a time for someone like Edwards to bring sanity to government and fight the selfish right-wingnuts that steal from ordinary Americans.
John is my favorite Beatle. And
John is my favorite candidate.
Paul is okay
And both are better than George.
But John is my favorite.
Imagine!
Sprung from cages out on Highway 9...imagine!
In our minds, we're going to Carolina...imagine!
"I'd love to change the world" Party, Chapel Hill. All welcome!
Imagine!
Ain't hard to do...
Edwards Renaissance '08
For an Awesome Future!
RealPolitik @ 18:
The day Ron Paul gets elected President of the United States will be the same day that yodelling proboscus monkeys come flying out of our collective asses.
resetthathang @ 85:
I'll second ... er... 4th that!
A. Hyperlincoln @ 122:
Very clever!
George Will should go back to writing nostalgia pieces on baseball. He's just a Republican hack when he tries politics.
Da Spyda @ 123:
Which is quite fortunate. Because life with a monkey flying out of your ass would be considerably more comfortable than life under a Paul administration. We'd soon be back in the worst days of the black plague under Dr. "No mandatory vaccinations, no FDA, no public health measures, no regulation of health claims on food or 'alternative' medications, no Clean Water Act" Quack, er, Paul.
yellow dog @ 126:
Oh god no. Will's baseball writing is awfully dull and pretentious. That's bad enough when it's because the writer is a statistics guru who doesn't really know how to write, but Will is no statistician; it's inexcusable in his writing.
Will should write about butterfly collecting, or perhaps toilet art. But at all costs keep him away from baseball.
Because he is a viable candidate and he represents a threat to the malefactors of great wealth that pay George Swill's salary.
Although Will and Brooks march-in-step rightwingers, I do have a problem with calculated political moves like call Pakistan. Edwards holds no political position, what's the purpose.
I got pissed at him when earlier this year, he dissed the Dem. congress for not pulling the funding for the Iraq war, when his ass voted for it in the first place. He should've just shutup on this one.
J @ 109:
Personally, I agree that same-sex marriage should be legal... which is another reason to vote for Kucinich or even Gravel since they are the only 2 candidates who support this. Do you really think Edwards would veto a bill that allowed for same-sex marriage, I don't.
From the HRC/LOGO debate - Aug. 9th/07
Q: You've expressed your opposition to same-sex marriage, and you've raised your faith as part of the reason for your opposition. I'm wondering if you could talk a little bit about what is it within your religion that's leading you to this position?
A: Well, I have to tell you, I shouldn't have said that, because I believe, to my core, in equality. It makes perfect sense to me that gay and lesbian couples would say, "Civil unions, great; 1,100 federal benefits, great; give us these rights, we deserve these rights." And they're absolutely right about that. But it stops short of real equality. And the only thing I would say about the faith question is I think from my perspective it is wrong -- because we have seen a president in the last six-plus years who tries to impose his faith on the American people. And I think it is a mistake and I will not impose my faith belief on the American people. I don't believe any president should do that. I believe in the separation of church and state.
J @ 45:
Last weekend we were accused of being too complimentary to Ron Paul. Two weeks ago, we were accused of shilling for Barack Obama. Before that we were accused of being corporatists getting money from Hillary's campaign.
I think the lesson we've learned is no matter what we do, someone is going to whine that we're too nice to someone other than their candidate.
Shag @ 130:
Yeah, what's the deal with a presidential candidate having an opinion!? And we need someone who never admits they're wrong or changes their mind like, say,...gw! That's it--he never changed his mind about anything no matter what the facts were! Boy, we're gonna miss the glory days of gw certainty!
Shag @ 130:
No, I don't think he should shut up about it. Two wrongs don't make a right. I think every candidate should be riding our congresscritters' behinds, on many things. We need leaders, not wilting lilies.
I think "The Punditocracy" is scared of edwards. They're scared that they'll start laughing when they talk about him and get into trouble. He had 6 years to push a populism agenda and went the other way time and time again. I can't understand why any intelligent person would believe or support him now. For all the criticism of people like Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich at least you know where they stand by what they've actually done.
RealPolitik @ 18:
How about doing a little reading instead of repeating words you hear. You might be surprised at how bad a choice Paul would be.
Edwards is not in the Senate anymore, so your accusations of his not reading the NIE is just silly.
And most egregious of your rant is your lack of knowledge, Edwards doesn't take corporate money for his campaign, he has always worked for the underdog. He has the courage to admit his mistakes and look at issues and can change his mind which is what we need. Critical thinkers. The president lied to congress, remember? When it became apparent, Edwards changed, isn't that the right thing to do?
He was not born rich, and if you think anyone that is not rich can run for prez in this country, you are mistaken. Until we have pubicly funded elections, it's a given that only the rich will govern.
Maybe Edwards can prove he's a manly man by beating up George Will...
Naw, you're not supposed to hit a girl.
Washington power is a tool that can be used to help those in need or hurt them. George Will is just a tool, period.
George will's opinion's have become as dead and irrelelant as that God forsaken thing on the top of his head!
Thursday, December 27, 2007
Wait a Minute Mitt Romney has Mexican Roots?
When Tom Tancredo dropped out of the presidential race, he threw his support behind Mitt Romney. An article posted on AlterNet reveals Mitt's Mexican connection.
Mitt Romney's father George was born in Chihuahua, Mexico in 1907, the son of Gaskell Romney and Anna Amelia Pratt. Three generations of Romneys lived in Mexico because Miles Park Romney, a polygamist, moved the family there in 1884 as it became increasingly clear that the U.S. government would not tolerate polygamy in the Utah Territory. The 1882 Edmunds Act stripped polygamists of the basic rights of U.S. citizenship, denying them the right to vote, serve on juries or hold office. Not dissimilar to current immigration raids, U.S. federal agents hunted and arrested polygamists. Polygamists were forced to leave the country or risk jail.
Mitt's grandparent's crossed back into the U.S. during the Mexican Revolution. But that hasn't made this candidate any softer on the immigration issue.
Source : AlterNet
Image Source : NY Press
LibertyLover @ 124:
Exactly what I was thinking when I read this feature. Will and Brooks are pampered, namby pamby pundits who don't come out of their air conditioned studios and offices long enough to see what's really going on. They've never subjected themselves to the scrutiny that goes with running for public office, much less made the important decisions once elected. If I called each of them a pussy to their face, and offered them a free shot at my chin, they're such pussies they wouldn't take it, even with the cameras off.
I'm not a big fan of John Edwards since his enormous "everything's on the table" gaffe regarding Iran, but if this bunch of goons is trying to trash Edwards, that means he's the candidate they're most afraid of, thus, the one we should consider most useful for our country.
The normal corporate punduntry is apparently fearful of john Edwards as this post's vids display.
I am sure FOX is concerned because its media monopoly engulfing what media is left may be at stake for Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch. The thought that Edwards would not appoint one of the largest U.S> mine company owners with the worst Mine Safety record in the last decade to the Gov'ts Mine Safety position in charge of all U.S mine safety. Must scare the Everglades out of them.
Maybe John Edwards will try and stop any business tax breaks or corporate welfare to any company that in fact "lobbys" the Gov't. It is like circling money amongst thieves.
chris @ 111:
Sure it does. I'm so tired of idiots!
Nicole Belle @ 132:
True. Lessons learned.
Brooks and Will, a couple of halfwits. Who listens to them anymore? I couldn't hear a word they said they just looked so pathetic. A person like me laughs out loud when halfwits start squirmming in their chairs -like they did today. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Brooks and Will relevant? I don't think so - not anymore.
Cantor de Mambo @ 144:
Indeed. Like an awful lot of things, socialism may be best in moderation, but you really don't want to do without some of it. Sometimes I just get the feeling that the crowd shouting about "evil socialism" is just a bunch of mean drunks, some dry, some off the wagon, but all of whom believe that moderation is doomed to failure.
Actually I disagree somewhat with the blog text. I thought Will was really going to do his usual shtick and go whole hog rude condescending on Edwards about the phone call from Musharraf, but he kind of just stopped at the end of the first dialogue, almost seeming to be impressed that Musharraf actually felt he should indeed call Edwards and listen to what he had to say. Of course as noted, later on Will returned to his normal beligerence toward Edwards and his message . On the other hand, Brooks had completely changed his tune about Edwards response to Bhutto's death just from Friday night when on PBS/Lehrer he had put Edwards down by pulling some obscure tiny bit from something Edwards had said and acted like it was Edwards complete response. On ABC/This Week Brooks said Edwards was one of 5 Pres. candidates who had expressed sane realistic presidential-type policy ideas, unfortunately lying by saying they were all just essentially Bushes policy (heh). Brooks also corrected Will's mistaken characterization of Musharraf's phone call to Edwards. But I think one of the main differences I have with the blog text, and I have to say I normally despise "Bobo" Brooks with a passion, is that I really didn't find him to be negative towards Edwards this morning. And believe me, that's the first time I've ever seen that from Bobo. He said he was definitely seeing "late momentum" for Edwards and that "some sort of juice was in the air". I definitely got the feeling that he thought Edwards was going to win Iowa and when he talked about Edwards "toughness" I thought it was genuine. I've pretty well trained myself to look for phoniness from Brooks and I didn't see it. Call me a fool if you want to.
[Deleted. Off topic-Sitemonitor]
For what it's worth, the bobbleheads even got the events wrong. Edwards didn't call Musharraf, Musharraf called HIM. Edwards called the Pakistani ambassador, told him he'd like to speak to Musharraf. The ambassador apparently passed that message on, and Musharraf called him back. Edwards and Musharraf had met in Islamabad a few years ago.
I watched Edwards give this sequence of events himself at an event in Iowa today (watched on C-Span).
Login or Register to post comments.