He’s campaigning. Telling audiences what they want to hear to get their support. You’ve heard of it.
Before you tell me he was speaking to Israelis, remember that the conference he was speaking to (by satellite) was sponsored by the *American * Jewish Committee, a pretty influential organization whose support is good to have in a US election.
When can I take seriously what a politician says?
-FrL-
That’s a whole thread on its own, innit?
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you The Pandagon Papers. (Although it has apparently been disappeared, this was posted in the comments section of Edwards blog by a reader who thought the e-mails were legit. Enjoy.)
Ah.
But ya’know in today’s media omniprescent world any smart politician knows that they are always pandering to all of us at the same time. (Dean’s “Yehaw” was pandering to that small crowd too.) The public gets upset when a politician confirms their impression of him as an unprincipaled say whatever I think you want to hear slimeball.
Right, so here’s the point.
Either Edwards believed what he said, or he didn’t.
If he did believe it, then… what an ass!
If he didn’t believe it, then… what an ass!
So, whatever the case is… what an ass!
“He was campaigning” doesn’t make it better, it arguably makes it worse.
Remember, the title of this thread is “Johnathan Edwards is a fine presidential candidate,” meant in an unironic, approving sense. Hence the relevance of what I’ve posted about him.
-FrL-
I agree with you. I find that quotation very troubling, though I don’t know, precisely, what he was trying to say. It seems there are a couple of interpretations, but I’m not happy about any of them (that I’ve come up with, at least).
This just in: Amanda Marcotte resigned her position today as Edwards’ blogmistress.
I’m not sure if this was really Amanda’s call or if she was pressured into resigning by the campaign. I hate that it’s going to be seen as a victory by the Malkins and Donohues of the world.
But it’s probably for the best. The extra scrutiny this mess will bring to her every word will cancel out a lot of the benefit of hiring her in the first place.
I think you’d agree that Isreal would be more than a little concerned about Iran having nuclear weapons, right?
Is there anyone that wants to see Iran have nuclear weapons? What part of his speech did you have a problem with?
That pretty much sums it up, doesn’t it?
Actually it doesn’t. But maybe he’ll answer.
**jsgoddess **, I’m sorry if that came off as snarky. I tried to post twice before that and lost my posts.
What do you mean by saying “it doesn’t?”
I think her post does a fine job of summing the problems I had with Edwards’ speech.
-FrL-
Right, so far as that goes.
But I wish that the Edwards campaign had quietly given Marcotte a two-week paid vacation to some upscale Caribbean resort with lots of umbrella drinks and no Web connection, and accepted her resignation once she got back. Give the whole thing a bit more time to become old news, and all that.
Oh, fuck.
It’s not a win for no one. It’s a win for the brownshirts like Donohue, and those who would use them to further their political ends.
Donohue says he speaks for Catholics, and I don’t hear any bishops or cardinals gainsaying him. Where’s the Roman Catholic Church, while the brownshirts speak in its name? If they won’t stand up against hatred and bigotry in the name of the Church, then what a great church they are, huh?
As opposed to you standing up for hatred and bigotry in the name of Democratic politics?
The woman is a mean-spirited bigot. She has a history of posting vicious comments about people who don’t think like her. She’s off the team because she took heat for being what she is.
Boo hoo.
Again, I posted quotes from liberal Democratic Catholics who were also quite upset with this whole affair. Are they also brownshirts, or are they good people who felt genuinely insulted?
They don’t speak for the Roman Catholic Church. Only the hierarchy of the RCC does that.
The liberal Catholics you cited don’t claim to broadly represent Roman Catholicism, and as such no response is needed from the hierarchy to what they said. But Donohue makes that claim on behalf of his group. So is the RCC condoning Donohue’s claim that he acts on behalf of the faith, or not? Let’s have it.
A for-instance, please, or we take this to the Pit.
Please cite posts by McEwan that back your claim.
She’s off the team because people threatened her and her family with all sorts of violence.
Do you think that’s just a perfectly fair response to the expression of controversial opinions?
I loathe Donohue, but I would not dream of sending him threats of violence and death, even if I think he deserved a taste of his own medicine. And I would be aghast if the netroots chose that form of response to his hatred and bigotry.
Apparently you feel differently, and if so, that would certainly lower my respect for you.
Whick still makes it five times bigger than mine, which is a three-bedroom, two-bath home built for a family of five or six. John Edwards may be many things, some of them even commendable, but he ain’t “of the people.”
I’ll say it again – the 2008 presidential election is the Democrats’ to lose, and I’m confident we’ll find a way to do that.
Oh bullshit. He came from a lower-middle-class background, and is fully familiar with the struggles that come with living in that social class. As he has said many times, he wants to ensure that America remains the land of opportunity, where people from the lower classes have a fair opportunity to succeed as he has done.
It is silly to punish the man for being successful. Must he take a vow of poverty? Or do you think he’s forgotten what it was like for his parents trying to make ends meet?
I see his wealth as a positive. Seems to me it makes him incorruptible. You can’t buy a man who has all the money he needs.