Edwards Re-Emerges
One of the few and unexpected pleasures of covering the early 2004 presidential primaries was discovering John Edwards.
When I headed off to Iowa in the closing week of the caucuses, I knew little about him. I had sort of written off Edwards as one more DLC-type Southern Dem, a kind of Clinton Lite. What a surprise he turned out to be. As Howard Dean began to crater, and John Kerry was becoming the default repository of wary Democrats, Edwards starting streaking upward.
Seemingly from out of nowhere, Edwards began to surge. His Iowa campaign rallies crackled with excitement and enthusiasm. His numbers soared. His stump speech, thumping away at the injustice of an American divided in two — between rich and poor– struck a nerve, especially among younger voters.
Edwards finished second in the Iowa caucuses, just a hair behind Kerry. I had said at the tme that Edwards had so much momentum that if the caucus vote had been delayed one more week, Edwards would have easily won (and maybe the whole course of 2004 would have been different).
Looks like I wasn’t so crazy to make that prediction. A poll taken by the Des Moines Register a few weeks ago indeed showed Edwards as the first preference among Iowa Democrats. Though he’s been out of the national spotlight, Iowans remember him well, and fondly, from two years ago.Â
This week Edwards inched back toward a national candidacy with a wonderful speech before the National Press Club. I call it wonderful because it is devoted almost entirely to the challenge of eliminating poverty, about bridging the yawning and growing gap between the two Americas. This is an issue, frankly, that no other potential candidate from either party is dealing with — at least not as the central thrust of his or her campaign.
Under the fog of Clintonism, Democrats droned on endlessly about “fighting for the middle class,” now one of the most hackneyed cliches in our political lexicon. No one talks about the poor. Except Edwards. I hope he mounts a serious run. We need his voice.
June 26th, 2006 at 3:16 am
Edwards mentions the problem of energy independence in passing — with a rather ecotopian flight of fancy that we could rid ourselves of dependence on fossil fuels sometime soon. I’d settle for independence from fossil fuels produced under despotic rule, but maybe that’s hairsplitting.
He mentions housing vouchers in the interest of improved economic integration. After living in Seattle for about 3 months this year, and never feeling a strong need for a car, and seeing a very wide economic spectrum on the streets in large part because of downtown housing subsidies, I think this is a good idea.
However, I think Edwards might reasonably add public transportation vouchers.
It’s hard to afford a car if you’re poor. You usually have to buy a used one, and thus pay higher maintenance costs. Getting the poor more employed, and housed closer to, or within, the commercial centers of cities where there is a higher density of jobs, and getting them out of their cars, could help solve some of our problems of energy independence — less gasoline burned on the way to work. At the same time, it could help solve problems of high crime rates — since the more pedestrians on a street, the lower the crime rate, all other things being equal. The poor also suffer disproportionately from street crime, so it’s a particular bonus for them. Finally, an employer who isn’t paying to partially support an employee’s car doesn’t have to pay that employee as much, and that keeps prices down, since payroll is almost always the largest single cost in any business.
If you look at the real cost of gasoline (including the costs of defending foreign sources of it, the part that goes on our tax bill), making a decent, car-less, lower-wage existence reasonable in the centers of cities could make a big difference in our foreign policy, too. Colin Powell once pointed out that one of the more important reasons we went into Iraq was to try to get a stable middle east oil supplier out of the bargain, because of the “kinds of cars we like to drive.” He paid lip-service to the ideals of extending freedom and democracy in almost the same breath, but his main point got out there.
I have to say that I’d prefer most of these programs to be temporary. But I imagine Edwards would say the same — if he wants to eliminate poverty in 30 years, it should be with a plan to eventually eliminate the public spending needed to get there, as the need for it declines.
A sharper distinction between “bootstrap” subsidies and “maintenance” subsidies would be good to see. Some ideas just don’t work without subsidies–public transportation, and low-income city-center housing for low-wage workers are two of them. Those are “maintenance”. “Bootstrap” subsidies that pull people out of dysfunction and into the mainstream shouldn’t continue if they are successful in reducing their client base to a minimum. (Nor should they continue if they fail, for that matter.)
I’d be interested in Jack Kemp’s reaction to what Edwards has said here, because he’s one of the few Repubs who seemed to have his head screwed on straight about issues like these, even if the sorts of solutions he favors might be different. He actually mentions Edwards by name here:
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/jackkemp/2006/02/06/185449.html
“Obviously, education, homeownership and job opportunities are critical to a meaningful bipartisan war on poverty. I recently had the opportunity to join Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina and Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa of Los Angeles at the University of Southern California in a two-day-long conference on poverty sponsored by Daughters of Charity and co-chaired by Maria Shriver, wife of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California.
“It was both edifying and provocative to hear the viewpoints left and right, liberal and conservative, Republican and Democrat as we grappled with an emerging consensus that emphasized public-private partnerships and the critically important role of private enterprises in playing a central role in this 21st century challenge to our nation.”
June 26th, 2006 at 5:08 am
We were on the two yard line and behind when the clock ran out. Well, it’s still a loss and dems de breaks.
Democrats are more worried about gaps rather than progess. They would be content to see everyone brought down if it made them the same. If the rich make $1 million a year and the poor make only $30 thousand isn’t that still better than everyone making a lower $25 thousand but being equal? Didn’t Stalin try something like that? I don’t know. You guys are the expert on him and seem to think that he almost got it right.
June 26th, 2006 at 5:23 am
Woody, try another angle. Edwards himself is a millionaire several times over. You might not like how he did it (I’m not sure I do), but you’re way off-base in characterizing the Dems as utopian purist income equalitarians. I know I have no real objection to people making a lot of money — the only thing that scares me about the current wealth disparity is that some people are rich enough to buy the democracy they feel they deserve.
What an amusing troll this is — now we can debate whether Edwards is the real Stalinist rather than Parenti. Hey, Woody, why not ask Jack Kemp about that. You might actually learn something about when a blow is below the belt, and from a real conservative at that.
June 26th, 2006 at 5:45 am
I too have been excited about the prospect of another Edwards candidacy. When I was working as a union organizer in Ohio in 2004, me and some coworkers went to see him and Kerry at a rally in Springfield, and Edwards was far more articulate and galvanizing than the senator from Massachusetts. He was clearly the preference of the crowd, and I think that he has the opportunity to garner similar support in 2008.
I think he also has the opportunity to become labors’ candidate in the 2008 race, which would give him access to a massive network of resources and activists. Since the last election, he’s been working very closely with some national unions, especially UNITE-HERE, in their campaigns; he was very visible in the opening stages of that union’s Hotel Workers Rising Campaign.
I’d really like to see Edwards emerge as the progressive standard-bearer in 2008. I like Feingold, but I don’t think that he appeals to many outside of the already converted, and while he’s strong on things like civil liberties, he’s not nearly as strong on issues of economic and social justice.
June 26th, 2006 at 5:51 am
Just finished reading that speech – it’s really good. One of the only quibbles I have with it is the phrase “Working Society” to describe his vision of the type of America he wants to see. It’s clunky, and I don’t think it adequately conveys what he’s trying to say. I guess he’s got another year or two to straighten that out though.
June 26th, 2006 at 6:01 am
Since Edwards calls for an immediate withdrawal of 40,000 troops from Iraq, that puts him ahead of Hillary in my book immediately. No excuse for a Hillary candidacy anymore.
June 26th, 2006 at 7:14 am
Parenti did endorse Edwards in that Democracy Now interview. He must know something only Woody knows…. I hear Edwards is growing a curly mustache.
June 26th, 2006 at 7:37 am
Chris, I think “Working Society” actually … works. If it’s “clunky”, it’s at least clunking along in the right ways. On a couple different levels. For all the Lakoffian wanking about Framing in the Dem base, they tend not to come up with anything nearly as pithy, nor anything so open to a number of positive interpretations.
What’s to like about “Working Society”? Let me count the ways.
A Working Society is:
1. one that works, i.e., functions well as a society, in the sense of “not broken”;
2. one that creates work (for the poor), in part by emphasizing work as both an ethic and as a prerequisite for mental and social health, in its employment promotion social programs;
3. one that favors the struggling middle class, which is most of us;
4. and (the inevitable Blows Against Plutocracy trope) one that emphasizes those who work, rather than those who just coast along on their capital gains and dividend income.
Of course, “Working Society” might also be partly a stalking horse for means-testing Social Security and increasing the retirement age. Did I say that like it was a *bad* thing? I don’t mean it that way. Those are vote-killers, though, so if Edwards et al. have something like that in mind as well, they’re smart to keep it under wraps for now.
June 26th, 2006 at 7:49 am
I bumped into him inadvertantly at one of his informal campaign stops in ’04 and can testify that he shakes hands well and has the requisite glow. He began to talk about honoring work and not just wealth in the ’04 campaign, which I thought was great. But I don’t remember many responding to this pitch. I wonder if the country is capable at this point of responding to such a notion. I certainly hope so and hope very much that he catches on.
June 26th, 2006 at 7:52 am
I don’t think some version of means-testing SS is a vote killer, depending on the “frame”: eg millionaires don’t need social security, like T. Heinz (some $2 mill in tax-free muni bond income?).
For the poor, who usualy have both lower life expectancy at birth but also, more importantly, at age 50 or 60, raising the retirment age is more like a 10% cut for them (if they average 10 years now, to become 9), rather than a 5% cut (if they average 20 years now, to become 19).
I like “Working society” — and even advocate a full employment policy of voluntary National Service. For all. Instead of all other poor & rich & middle class subsidies & supports.
I also want aid groups to be counting how many jobs they’ve directly created — poverty won’t be ended for a person without a job. It will be ended, one job (or a hundred?) at a time.
(Charles Murray is now advocating a lump some $13 000/year payment to every citizen, no means testing, and scrapping all other programs).
Edwards had a good, wonkish program in 2004.
But he’s a loser. He lost his Senate seat. Maybe he join McCain in Unity80 or whatever the mixed third party (LOSER) campaign is.
Still, I’m glad he’s there to raise the issues.
“3. one that favors the struggling middle class, which is most of us;”
The real problem is that most gov’t pork, in $, goes to the “struggling middle class” who, in a world scale are rich. The “help the poor” programs usually ending up helping the not-poor much more; and no surprise, the poor stay poor.
June 26th, 2006 at 8:17 am
Charles Murray is a quack, who correlates intelligence with genital size. He is a pseudo-scientist that could only get play in neo-con circles. Among actual social scientists he is considered a fraud.
June 26th, 2006 at 8:44 am
One good thing about Edwards — he’s consistently hammered this working society theme ; he’s actually convincing as a tribune for the those whose boats haven’t been lifted. He ‘s not just tossing out a little economic populism when it’s convenient, or to boost a flagging campaign (as other dems are wont to do). However, I’d worry about his perceived weakness vis a vis the war on terrorism. Even tho many have lost faith in Bush as a bulwark against terror, it’s kind of hard to believe they’ ll be prepared to embrace Edwards, with his sunny persona, in this role. Pragmatically speaking it’s gonna be important to project (and to actually possess) judicious toughness in this area.
June 26th, 2006 at 9:02 am
“But he’s a loser. He lost his Senate seat.”
Once again Liberty Dad puts his head entirely up his ass. Edwards did not “lose” his Senate seat, he decided not to run again to spend full time on the 2004 campaign.
June 26th, 2006 at 9:14 am
Michael -
You’re such a stickler.
June 26th, 2006 at 9:30 am
Once again Liberty Dad puts his head entirely up his ass
What makes you think he ever removes it?
June 26th, 2006 at 9:47 am
evets says:
“However, I’d worry about his perceived weakness vis a vis the war on terrorism. Even tho many have lost faith in Bush as a bulwark against terror, it’s kind of hard to believe they’ ll be prepared to embrace Edwards, with his sunny persona, in this role.”
One reason I take heart in Edwards calling for 40,000 troops to be withdrawn immediately is the following: My political instincts tell me that the only Democrat who can beat the Republicans in 2008 is the one who begins blasting away right now at the Bush war in Iraq and his handling of the “war against terror,” and who distinguishes him or herself not only from Bush but from timid or opportunistic Democrats like Hillary Clinton. If you want to talk pragmatism, you can’t outdo the Republicans in macho poseur tough talk, but you can outdo them in talking reality against fantasy–something that the polls show the majority of Americans are now ready for. If the Democrats want to be warmed over Republicans, well, there’s nothing like the original–so that would be a loser. Sometimes taking the principled road gets you farther ahead than pragmatism and opportunism, and if there has ever been one of those times, it is now.
June 26th, 2006 at 10:19 am
I’m not saying he needs to change his tune on Iraq, only that he’ll need to convince voters that he’s still truly engaged by the issue of global terror / militant Islam, that he doesn’t wish it away because it intrudes on his dometic concerns and doesn’t eschew military force as a matter of course. This message can be compatible with withdrawing troops, since Iraq can accurately be portrayed as a bungled and tragic diversion from the larger issue.
I hope he can make the case and that his personality ( through no fault of his own) doesn’t undermine him. I’d like to see him succeed.
June 26th, 2006 at 10:54 am
Hey! Don’t you dare make fun of my ideological soulmate* Tom Grey – Liberty Dad! His statement that Edwards is a loser because he lost is as astute as when Tom said that people choose the choices they choose because they don’t want to choose one of the choices they have to choose from. So shut your mouths…..FOR FREEDOM!!!!
*I mean this in a totally cool, not at all gay way. Not that gays are bad, they just can’t make babies with each other, and that makes them less than human. Please see Tom’s many posts about making-baby-love as transcendent God love!!!!1!!!
June 26th, 2006 at 11:04 am
Tim Blue–Freedom Father (!!!!11!!!), I imagine you with a cape and leaping over high mounds of bullshit, have I got it right?
Will try not to make fun of your soulmate Liberty Dad even though he makes Woody look like a major intellectual in comparison.
June 26th, 2006 at 11:09 am
A comedy highpoint of Election 2004; and a serious look at what the national media will do to candidates who talk about poor people: http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh100804.shtml
June 26th, 2006 at 12:10 pm
I would note that Edwards is already in the top three of the DAILY KOS straw poll (along with Wesley Clark and Russ Feingold) which is a good sign of where the party activists are at this time. I have also been impressed by Edwards’ positions on the poverty gap and hope it gets play but, frankly, given the awful state of the media – see Helen Thomas’s new book – I fear it will be lost in speculation about the Clinton’s married life and more idolatry of St John McCain. Besides, “Everyone” knows the economy is doing just fine, even if the public is too dense to see it. Sigh!
June 26th, 2006 at 1:01 pm
Wait a minute, Jody: Michael Parenti endorsed a DEMOCRAT?? Everything I know… IS WRONG!
June 26th, 2006 at 2:09 pm
Michael Turner, okay, I’ll try another angle….
John Edwards will have a lot of nerve proposing any tax hikes to fund his “Great Society” considering his own tax scheming: http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2004/07/wall_street_jou_1.html
Maybe if Edwards want to help bridge the gap between the two Americas, help balance Social Security, and identify with the “working families,” then he could start by paying the back Medicare tax on the $5,940,000 that he conveniently misclassified–and, no one tell me that I don’t know what I’m talking about.
==========
Chris M. wrote: I think (John Edwards) also has the opportunity to become labors’ candidate in the 2008 race, which would give him access to a massive network of resources and activists.
How do you think that the union members might feel about that? Seriously. Not the union leaders, but the workers whom they are supposed to represent. I’m not sure that the Republicans don’t represent the values of the average blue collar worker more than the Democrats and especially the likes of John Edwards–unless you let that lawyer double-talk turn you around.
==========
Michael Balter wrote: Edwards did not “lose†his Senate seat, he decided not to run again to spend full time on the 2004 campaign.
Then I guess it was a forfeit, which still counts as a loss. If giving up your seat was important for running in 2004, then why didn’t Kerry do it, too? Do you think that Hillary Rodham (Clinton if she stays married) will give up her Senate seat if she campaigns? Hah!
==========
Hey, if people are nice, one day soon I might tell y’all the story about 300,000 celebrants and me at a recent Gay Pride Festival and that one of the performers on stage announced me to the crowd, which gave me a hardy greeting, and then I had my picture taken with the group. My name will be on his next CD. It’s true. If you were there, I was the one wearing the suit. I even had some rainbow pin to wear, whatever that means.
June 26th, 2006 at 2:40 pm
Then I guess it was a forfeit, which still counts as a loss. If giving up your seat was important for running in 2004, then why didn’t Kerry do it, too?
You are butt stupid. Kerry was reelected in 2002. Edwards was up for relection in 2004, and although he didn’t run for reelection he remained in the senate until his term expired in January 2005.
Idiot.
June 26th, 2006 at 2:42 pm
Everyone touting Edward’s position on poverty yet, no one is discussing how he will do it. LBJ did the same and that went absolutely no where despite spending billions on the “War on Poverty.” How about not just talking about ending poverty, but actually some solid proposals that will work and have shown themselves to be efficacious?
June 26th, 2006 at 2:45 pm
Michael, I too have some concerns about how Edwards “earned” his money. The tragedy of CP is not the fault of a Doc, yet, that is precisely what Edwards earned his money on, suing the Docs. If a Doc is negligent and violates acceptable standards of care, sue his ass to hell and back, but CP? Disgusting and hitting the “insurance companies” for what is essentially an accident of nature.
June 26th, 2006 at 2:54 pm
Well it goes to show there never has been a lick of difference between the administraion’s ability to facilitate cover for the way they earned money as oppose to Edwards’ earnest ways. No different than my years of government service.
June 26th, 2006 at 2:54 pm
“Charles Murray is a quack, who correlates intelligence with genital size.”
It’s an inverse relationship, in Murray’s world, incidentally. Which IMHO allows me far more information than I need about Charles Murray.
June 26th, 2006 at 2:57 pm
GM, I can make 2 suggestions: We have a bloated, absurd Military budget that has made the Miliatry a weird, overblown socialist/nationalist society within a soceity. Cut the hell out of it. The money spent on T.V. recruting commercials alone should be stopped and those funds given to the poor.
Second, All tax breaks for the rich should stop right now, and their taxes should be raised so that over the next five years or so they have to pay back into the system the giveaways they have been given in the last six years and no doubt mostly hoarded. Denfine Rich? More than one million dollars a year in income and interest.
June 26th, 2006 at 3:06 pm
LCsAC, I hardly think that my comment deserves a rating from you of “Idiot,” but you’re the expert. Of course, a point of my comment was that Kerry couldn’t do both his job as a Senator and run a campaign for President–but, he didn’t let his duties as a Senator get in his way. During one stretch, he missed 89% of his votes. Shouldn’t he have resigned to spend time on the campaign and let the people of his state have a full-time Senator who put them above himself?
Most Americans don’t believe a member of Congress can be effective while running for president, according to a new CNN-USA TODAY-Gallup Poll conducted Oct. 24-26. Of the 500 people surveyed, 61 percent said members of Congress should resign if they want to run for president. [ http://content.gannettonline.com/gns/2004vote/vote2.html (c) 2003 ]
June 26th, 2006 at 3:20 pm
I realize that Murray’s attitude is small = intelligent, hung = dumb….Murray only scratches the surface in terms of fraudulent male social scientists. One, whose name escapes me, in Canada whose getting play in right think tanks and even mainstream press now that conservatives are in power, has “retheorized” domestic violence and sexual harassment, a whole lot of pseudo-academic nonsense that covers the old “they provoke it” theory. Of course the guy had recently been sued for exactly what he was retheorizing.
June 26th, 2006 at 3:59 pm
I find my self agreeing with Jcummings regarding Murray. Quick, check outside, is the sky falling?
June 26th, 2006 at 4:45 pm
LCsAC, I hardly think that my comment deserves a rating from you of “Idiot,†but you’re the expert.
I just call them as I see them.
Dubya didn’t resign as governor of Texas when he ran for president.
You’re a hypocrite, too.
June 26th, 2006 at 4:49 pm
Wall: “Second, All tax breaks for the rich should stop right now, and their taxes should be raised so that over the next five years or so they have to pay back into the system the giveaways they have been given in the last six years and no doubt mostly hoarded. Denfine Rich? More than one million dollars a year in income and interest. ”
Actually, the income the government received from the “rich” has grown exponentially and the percentage of taxes paid by the “rich” has outstripped that paid by the poor who often don’t pay any taxes at all. So, what you are saying is get rid of the tax cuts so that everyone (including the poor – because if you get rid of a tax cut that has been applied across the board, that is what happens) gets to pay more, except of course the “rich” who will end up paying a smaller proportion even though they pay a higher rate.
June 26th, 2006 at 4:54 pm
GM writes:
“Everyone touting Edward’s position on poverty yet, no one is discussing how he will do it….”
Actually, Edwards lays out some concrete proposals. Housing vouchers for one. Rather than building massive housing projects, or government takeovers of low-income housing, neither of which work very well. If this is “the same” as LBJ’s Great Society approach to housing the poor, that’s news to me.
June 26th, 2006 at 5:09 pm
Edwards did propose several schemes to help end poverty to which I would add a doubling of the Earned Income Tax Credit (and simplify the paperwork too – currently the IRS spends more time on EITC “fraud” than auditing corporations or high net worth individual returns) And I’d pay for it by repealing all the Bush era tax cuts. Sorry Woody but the Clinton tax levels seemed to do all right by the economy so I’ll risk going back to them again.
June 26th, 2006 at 5:09 pm
Michael, you are correct, if it works. That is part of the problem with so many government programs however… no one runs pilot programs to see if they actually work on a grand scale as they may on a smaller scale. Eradicating “poverty” is easy just give everyone a guaranteed income for life, but then there will be damn few to work because why work if your income is guaranteed. Of course, I’m being facetious. But, having said that, a large number of folk will choose not to work. Look at the “dole” in England for example. I’m far from an expert in this area, but I know that merely creating a program is not the answer, it must, absolutely be a program with incentives and a proven track record. Housing vouchers? Great, how about school vouchers too then?
June 26th, 2006 at 5:30 pm
School vouchers? Who pays the rest of the bill? I’d support Edwards, and already have for VP.
June 26th, 2006 at 5:32 pm
Tom Grey: “(Charles Murray is now advocating a lump some $13 000/year payment to every citizen, no means testing, and scrapping all other programs).”
Nothing new. Milton Friedman proposed much the same, on the theory that the poor will always be poor, so why support a burgeoning bureaucracy aimed at making them less poor (and usually not succeeding)? Just give them money and shut the door.
Do we actually want to solve the problem? Just giving money to the poor isn’t going to do it. That’s all you can do for a certain fraction of the poor, but using it as a blanket solution just fosters multigenerational dependency and irresponsibility.
OK, here’s a stupid idea: a cable service called the Jobs Channel. Every hour that the Jobs Channel is showing on TV in a household below a certain threshold of employment would earn that household some smallish sum of money, maybe a dollar or two. (The number of hours could be monitored using technology that’s been available since the 60s.) It would be daytime TV that provides continuous exposure to the culture of work, rather than soap operas, commercials for fast food, and fights breaking on Geraldo — the kind of programming that helps keep people poor and stupid. Jobs Channel shows nothing but documentaries about life at work in entry-level positions. It doesn’t have to be singing the praises of these jobs, it just has to talk about what it’s really like, what you have to learn to get such jobs, what you learn on the job, what’s actually involved — including all the problems.
I can hear the objections already: what prevents somebody from just leaving Jobs Channel on, while they are out spending their income from Jobs Channel on crack cocaine? Obvious answer: nothing. Likewise for the possibility that people would have one TV hooked up but with the sound and display turned off, and another one so they can catch Geraldo. That’s not the point. No system is going to be perfect. If you provide incentives to companies to make the programming interesting, and monitor audience response systematically, the quality of programming might reach the point where poor people like to talk about what they saw on Jobs Channel the other day.
And yes, I know I’m inviting that old joke: “I love work. I can sit and watch it for hours.” And that’s how some people will take it. But if it increases employment among the poorest by even a few percent, it might handily pay for itself.
June 26th, 2006 at 6:43 pm
“giving money to the poor isn’t going to do it.”
It’s the ole teach a man to fish thesis. Many professions don’t pay very well, but sometimes there’s more involved with a career than money. Liking what you do and does it have meaning, are key aspects. Finding things for people to do can’t really be done on a group basis. Folks that don’t know what they could be good at should be provided the opportunity to find it.
June 26th, 2006 at 6:49 pm
I have a problem people who have never been laid off or drawn an unemployment check claiming to know about “the dole.” It’s a temporary condition, by definition. I don’t know ho long it lasts in England but here 26 weeks is the max and it takes a pile of work in the right quarters to qualify in each of the 50 states. Some pay more and some less. Of course qualified people could always be given new jobs, but as we’ve seen this has become tougher and tougher as we go forward in this selective hurray for me and my connections job environment in Bush World.
June 26th, 2006 at 9:52 pm
The Jobs Channel sounds like a good idea to me.
Not revolutionary, but workable, commonsense approach. I suspect the solution is in exactly those type of incremental initiatives rather than sweeping giveaways or crackdowns…
Is it being considered anywhere?
June 26th, 2006 at 10:09 pm
“Dubya didn’t resign as governor of Texas when he ran for president.”
I take back what I said about Woody being a major intellectual compared to Liberty Dad. They both have their heads up their asses, and they never let facts interfere with their blind ideology.
June 27th, 2006 at 5:47 am
LCdAC wrote: Dubya didn’t resign as governor of Texas when he ran for president. You’re a hypocrite, too.
LCdAC and Michael Balter, it seems that whatever you call me, you’re worse from your side.
From the ultra-liberal commentator Bill Schneider of CNN aired June 17, 2000:
Did (Bush) promise the voters of Texas he would not run for president? The answer is no, he never made that promise. He was asked many, many times in 1988 — 1998 whether he would make that promise. He never did. He said, We’ll have to see what happens, I’m not making any firm commitments, and a lot of people assumed that that meant he was likely to run for president.
Bill Clinton, of course, promised he wouldn’t run before 1992 when he ran for governor of Arkansas, and he did run. It didn’t seem to do him any harm. Hillary Clinton says if she’s elected senator from New York she will not run for president at least during her first six-year term. So we don’t know — I mean, we have to take her at her word.
As you have called me an idiot and a hypocrite on statements which also describe your positions, may I add the word pathetic to further describe you? Facts, logic, and cotradictions never seem to interfere with your irrational points. Give the name calling a rest, jerks.
June 27th, 2006 at 5:50 am
“You cannot maintain a civilization with twelve-year-olds having babies, fifteen-year-olds shooting each other, seventeen-year-olds dying of AIDS, and eighteen-year-olds getting diplomas they can’t read.” —Newt Gingrich, 1994
“When a 13-year-old girl thinks that there’s nothing wrong with having a baby that will drive both her and her child into poverty, we haven’t built the levees high enough. When a 15-year-old boy becomes a father, then walks away, gets shot or goes to jail, we haven’t built the levees high enough. When young people spend more time going to meth labs than chemistry labs, we haven’t built the levees high enough. We know better, but we don’t act because we don’t want to look. If we believe in community, we have to have the courage to do what communities do: together, we have to stand side by side and man the levees – all of us: parents, clergy, teachers, public officials. We need to say some simple truths: it is wrong when boys and young men father children, but don’t care for them. It’s wrong when girls and young women bear children that they aren’t ready to care for. And – and it is wrong when all Americans see this happening and do nothing to stop it because this is all about America’s responsibility, our responsibility, our collective responsibility to create new opportunities for these young people.” —John Edwards, 2006
June 27th, 2006 at 5:51 am
MB… no one here should complain about anybody’s “blind ideololgy” methinks!
June 27th, 2006 at 5:54 am
Publius… don’t speak before you know what you are speaking of. I’ve been “laid off,” “fired,” and otherwise discombobulated in the world of work. I’ve yet to receive “the dole.” Mostly because I took another job right away even if it wasn’t what I wanted or was trained in and I always made sure my “temporary” employer knew that ahead of time. Work is honorable regardless of what it is… unless you work for the DNC I guess!
June 27th, 2006 at 7:01 am
This is why I will not support Edwards:
Voted NO on more funding for forest roads and fish habitat.
The Bryan Amdt (D-NV) offered an amendment to raise funding levels for Forest Service road maintenance and wildlife and fisheries habitat management programs. Senator Craig (R-ID) motioned to table this amendment. [A YES vote is considered pro-business].
Status: Table Motion Agreed to Y)54; N)43; NV)3
Reference: Motion to table Bryan Amdt. #1588; Bill H.R. 2466 ; vote number 1999-272 on Sep 14, 1999
Rated 37% by the LCV, indicating a mixed record on environment.
Edwards scores 37% by the LCV on environmental issues
June 27th, 2006 at 2:34 pm
Hey, Mike B., at least Edwards voted those times, which is more than Kerry did. However, Edwards attendance wasn’t steller, but maybe we should be glad that he missed so many votes. It’s a lot more time demanding for Edwards and Kerry to be Senators than it was for Bush and Clinton to be governors, and Edwards’ commitment to his office seemed lacking.
June 27th, 2006 at 5:27 pm
Woody you wouldn’t know logic if it hit you in ther head for the false anaolgies you use. GM you can’t get unemployment if you quit or are fired. It’s an insurance policy so your answer still shows no understanding or recognition of facts. try learning about what you’re talking about if that’s possible. It should be for one who claims to be so flexible in the working world.
June 27th, 2006 at 8:40 pm
Yes, Edwards has been making “wonderful speeches” but really, name a democratic presidential candidate who hasn’t made “wonderful speeches”.
Next, name a democratic presidential candidate who didn’t, once in office, forget all the election rhetoric about helping the poor and working class people.
Democrats are great for talkin’ the talk but the last one to walk the walk was FDR.
When are all of you Camelot Kennedy liberals gonna stop pondering “what Jack Kemp thinks” etc, wake up, smell the coffee, look yourself in the mirror and vow, I won’t get fooled again!
June 27th, 2006 at 11:14 pm
GM, the difference between Gingrich’s sound bite and Edwards’ more discursive characterization is pretty clear. For Edwards, these problems are wrong. For Gingrich, they are the end of the world. For Edwards, it’s a collective responsibility. For Gingrich — well, he doesn’t say, but it sounds like blame the victim and only the victim, as usual. Gimme Edwards any day.
June 28th, 2006 at 5:44 am
To Publius:
You are a bit inaccurate in your statement concerning unemployment. The following reasons disqualify you from collecting unemployment payments. (Many times workers are allowed to collect when they have been fired or they have quit.) -25 years Human Resources Manager
Quit without good cause
Fired for misconduct
Resigned because of illness (check on disability benefits)
Left to get married
Self-employed
Involved in a labor dispute
Attending School
July 5th, 2006 at 6:35 pm
Democrats helping the poor? Give me a break. These are the same people who would adopt 10 -20 million poor illegal immigrants to compete with their U.S. citizen poor counterparts. After amnesty that can only get worse with sponsorships of relatives. Any government official who supports amnesty has a callous disregard for the unskilled poor whose wages are being continuously undercut and who have difficulties finding jobs paying a living wage.
Let’s not bother to mention the competition our poor have with illegal immigrants for ever scarce health care and state fostered assistance. Yeah, let’s add a few million more, we’ll just keep the pie the same size, and reduce the per capita expenditure.
Public schools are becoming overcrowded with children of illegal immigrants, assuring a reduction in quality of education of the poor as teachers spend more time helping the ESL students catch up to their citizen counterparts.
Want to do something nice for the poor? Write your congressmen and demand that he votes for the House version of the immigration bill. Do something more than give them your pity.
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:09 pm
While plubius complains about people not knowing the “system” if they’ve never dealt with it. Well, I have. I had my own small business untill 2000. At that time I was diagnosed with chronic heart and respiratory problems. I continued to try to work for the next year, but only ended up losing my business, home, money, etc. I was sent to Humaan Services in my state. There I saw 20 yr old women with 3 kids and no “baby daddys”. I saw 22 year old men on assistance, even they had no reason not to work. Our local papers had over 200 jobs listed every day at all skill levels. It took me 3 months and 2 physical exams to finally get state approval for a disability. It took these people 3 days! I did not get my SSI disability until 17 months later. The best part was watching these young leeches leave the parking lot in their imports with $3000.00 rims and tires, and $4000,00 stereos.By the way, the mainstream media has forgotten to tell you that unemployment is below 5%, and corporate tax reciepts are up 300%.
August 19th, 2007 at 4:15 pm
cable car accident…
Therefore, our advice is for you to buy an up-to-date cable descrambler from your cable TV company….
March 16th, 2009 at 10:58 pm
One of the only quibbles I have with it is the phrase “Working Society” to describe his vision of the type of America he wants to see. It’s clunky, and I don’t think it adequately conveys what he’s trying to say. I guess he’s got another year or two to straighten that out though.
March 26th, 2009 at 8:21 am
I was sent to Humaan Services in my state. There I saw 20 yr old women with 3 kids and no “baby daddys”. I saw 22 year old men on assistance
October 22nd, 2009 at 9:14 am
Bess’s argument – which all should read and consider – takes us a considerable distance in establishing that there are objectively true reasons for preferring a certain built environment. ,
December 2nd, 2010 at 6:32 pm
Compassionate for the large review, but I’m rattling smitten the new Zune, and wish this, as vessel as the reviews few opposite people mortal cursive, testament ameliorate you determine if it’s the just selection for you.