Carlson defended Giuliani's speeches as "selling ... talent," attacked Edwards' speech as "soaking a public university"
On the May 22 edition of MSNBC's Tucker, host Tucker Carlson attacked Democratic presidential candidate and former Sen. John Edwards (NC) for his January 9, 2006, speech at the University of California-Davis, claiming that Edwards "soak[ed] a public university for $55,000 when he's already worth millions." He then asked: "Why the hell is he doing that? What's the possible justification for that?" However, just five days earlier, Carlson had defended the millions of dollars former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani made on the lecture circuit in recent years, saying: "If I make millions giving speeches, I have to get up and perform. I'm selling my talent." Additionally, Carlson made no mention of the fact that UC-Davis charged admission for Edwards' speech, which, combined with sponsorship of the event, offset Edwards' fee, according to Edwards' campaign.
From the May 22 edition of Tucker:
CARLSON: But -- OK. You may be absolutely right. John Edwards is actually a great speaker -- I agree with you there. He's a great speaker. However, this is a guy whose campaign platform contains all this talk about alleviating poverty, sympathy for the average college student working two jobs to make it through to pay off student loans, et cetera, and he's soaking a public university for $55,000 when he's already worth millions. Why the hell is he doing that? What's the possible justification for that?
However, on the May 17 edition of Tucker, Carlson defended Giuliani for earning money delivering speeches:
PETER BEINART (New Republic editor-at-large): We have a political system in which people hold office and then, in between holding office, they go and find a way very quickly to make a lot of money. That's what happens. Rudy Giuliani did it by the law firms and speeches. He did it with a hedge fund. It's the way things happen.
CARLSON: No, but here's the difference. Here's the difference: If I make millions giving speeches, I have to get up and perform. I'm selling my talent. I'm serious. If you are by -- see, I think the key to this is the hedge fund. It's not that he's rich -- every liberal is rich. They're all rich. They're all -- I'm serious -- they're all a bunch of limousine, private jet people. You know what I mean? They all are.
As Media Matters for America has noted, Giuliani reportedly charged much more per speaking engagement than the amount Edwards received from UC-Davis, including for a speech Giuliani gave in 2006 at Oklahoma State University, which cost his sponsor $100,000 and an additional $47,000 for the use of a private jet.
Moreover, UC-Davis offset at least part of Edwards' fee with proceeds from ticket sales. On the May 22 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, CNN senior political correspondent Candy Crowley reported that the Edwards campaign claimed "it was a paid speech, but there were tickets for it -- somewhere between $17.50 for students; about $40 for adults. So it paid for itself." According to UC-Davis' Robert & Margrit Mondavi Center for the Performing Arts, tickets for the speech ranged from $17.50 to $45. A May 21 entry to the San Francisco Chronicle's Politics Blog -- which first disclosed the amount Edwards received for the speech -- noted that he spoke to "a crowd of 1,787," meaning that if everyone paid admission, ticket sales would have brought in anywhere between $31,272 to $80,415.
Speaking of selling talent- what the H-E-double hockey sticks is MSNBC selling on this show,,, fools gold?
If the headscarf fits, wear it.
And I'm sure how the University decides to cover the cost of having Edwards speak is of no concern to Edwards. As it should be.
What a bunch of bone heads
As a representative of Mr. Edwards business concerns, I remember meeting with the UC-Davis chancellor in his office when the speaking engagement was negotiated.
Myself and an associate announced that we were just there for a friendly visit, but couldn't sit down, as we apparently couldn't stay long. We were wondering, offhandedly, how UC-Davis would enjoy an Edwards appearance. The chancellor (I call him "Larry") rather rudely declined, saying that he doubted there would be much interest in $40 tickets to hear B.S. I calmly and politely discussed the issue further with Larry, but during our conversation, my somewhat large associate accidentally knocked the chancellors custom crystal globe off his desk and onto the floor, breaking it irreparably. He apologized profusely for the mishap, grinding the broken glass into the floor with the heel of his shiny black leather shoe. He went on to say that accidents do happen, and that he assumed that Larry had been fairly lucky to have avoided them for so long. Unfortunately, while gesturing "long", he incidentally hit the chancellors family portrait knocking it from a book shelf and shattering it instantly. Larry admitted that maybe he had been a bit hasty in turning down our generous offer, and suggested that a speaking engagement by Mr. Edwards would be a wonderful opportunity for the students. He offered $10k, but after reminding him that Mr. Edwards is a very busy man and that free time among his many beauty-shop appointments was quite rare, the chancellor finally arrived at a figure in the neighborhood of $40k. Independently.
Never, in our conversation, did the subject of the source of the money come up. Mr. Edwards has told us - as his representatives - that he does not care where the money comes from, and reminds us to apprise his clients of that fact.
You're a trip, man. Hilarious!
I agree with the initial sentiment... Edwards should walk the walk... especially if he's appealing to the downtrodden.
However, the double-standard when it comes to the Republicans - building them up like they are these money-maker frontiersmen... making their money 'the old-fashioned way' while speaking of the so-called 'liberals' as 'rich' from the womb... that's BS. Guilliani has zero substance. The more the guy speaks, the more he proves that. Tucker and the like continue with the 'free-pass' with the Republican jokers.
Didn't see your moniker on the similar thread yesterday, so I am guessing you might have missed some exemplary investigative work by Open-Mind: Edwards' Income & Charity
Crucial considerations: his earnings don't approach the $7mil cited below ($1.25mil); his total contribution to charity ($350,000) appears to be about 28% of income (would like to see any two Repugnants cumulatively match either the total, or collectively, the %); and charities consume almost all of his speaking fees (88+%). So walking the talk is hardly a problem for a man proclaiming that he has been blessed, but has concern for those less fortunate.
Ahem. Who's investigative work?
Nice use of The Google.
Sorry, Snoopy: I musta mis-remembered. That was YOU - the investigative work - informing Open Mind, wasn't it? When one gets old, one sometimes gets confused, and since I am so confused, I must be quite old!
What is Carlson's problem? What difference does it make how much money John Edwards has? When was Edwards required to take a vow of poverty that would only qualify him to speak of poverty issues? John Edwards also doesn't hold any elected office at the present time. His fee does not seem out of line with what former elected officials charge for speaking engagements. How much do celebrities make for personal appearances?
Tucker obviously has green envy.
Jon Steward was right, Tucker is a Dick head.
Jon Stewart is a ratings whore.
"they're all a bunch of limousine, private jet people. You know what I mean? They all are."
I consider myself fairly liberal, but I'm going to throw away by card if I don't see my Lear and stretch pretty damn soon!
$40 to hear John Edwards speak? Are you serious? Does that include the bill for the aspirin that I'd need after hearing it?
Yes and I feel like stabbing out my eyes after reading yet another distraction post from Tommy.
You must get paid for posting in bulk.
Actually, I get paid by the number of inane responses I get.......so keep 'em coming.
Inane posts beget inane responses, Tommy.
I wouldn't pay a dime to hear either Edwards Or Giuliani speak.
I'm always amazed at what any of these guys pull down for these speaking engagements.
Why would anyone sane pay $$ to listen to B.S.??
I saw Clinton speak at a campaign event. Free, natch. Say what you will about our former Horndog-in-Chief... the man can speak. It was pretty spelbinding.
All that being said, I can't imagine paying to see a politician - any politician - give a speech.
Ditto to that!
Val,
I have to admit I might pay to hear Bill Clinton speak, the guy is a true orator. But there aren't any others that come to mind that I would spend a dime on...especially among the current crop of candidates.
Megadittoes, Jeter - and if you have an opportunity to hear Clinton speak, I recommend you take it. I have my differences with the man's politics, but for grade-A feel-good-about-America rhetoric he is hard to beat.
Actually, Gore seems to be a good speaker. And keep in mind that folks who pay to hear people speak...want to hear them speak and are willing to pay, Of course, if they're willing to pay for Julie Annie, there's something wrong with them.
Of course, my local Reichswingers are still using haircut story against Edwards.
I saw him too in 1992 and 1996. I've never seen anyone captivate an audience like that. He was awful good.
It is rather ironic how many here are constantly complaining about the rightwing preachers and the hypocrisy of their lavish lifestyles, but when Edwards preaches his poverty pain Two Americas speech and then hauls off with the big bucks, he's largely given a pass.
Since when is earning a living hyprocrisy? If people are willing to pay to hear him speak, that's their perogative. His platform of "Two Americas" is immaterial to his fees. You talk of a capitalistic free market society, but then criticize Edwards for it making a living on his speeches. Can't have it both ways.
Tommy, you say Edwards walks off with the big bucks?
$55,000 for 1,787 people which includes travel and expenses - Edwards
$100,000 for speech, $47,000 for travel (Gulfstream) 5 rooms for entourage, balcony view, no news coverage and pre-tested people to speak with after the speech - Rudy
I wish I could remember the MasterCard commercial. What I do remember is the word "priceless". I'm sure a speech from Rudy would be just that "priceless".
John Edwards actually wants to change and works on issues that change our society to offer more opportunities to help the poor. You do get the difference right?
It's not like saying your pro-life and advocating for the death penalty or saying that your pro-war in the same sentence.
I see a big difference there, Tommy. Televangelists obtain their fortunes by bilking gullible people who can ill afford it. Edwards made his fortune as a lawyer. Now, I know it's debatable which is worse, but there is a difference. Most lawyers don't claim to speak for God.
Although some claim to speak for unborn babies.
------
n 1985, a 31-year-old North Carolina lawyer named John Edwards stood before a jury and channeled the words of an unborn baby girl.
Referring to an hour-by-hour record of a fetal heartbeat monitor, Mr. Edwards told the jury: "She said at 3, `I'm fine.' She said at 4, `I'm having a little trouble, but I'm doing O.K.' Five, she said, `I'm having problems.' At 5:30, she said, `I need out.' "
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/31/politics/campaign/31EDWA.html?ex=1180065600&en=2d062dfd3bf6d9a2&ei=5070He was being metaphorical, dipsh*t. Of course, the baby was neither speaking nor was Edwards channeling her, It was a way of phrasing the analysis of the heartbeat. He could have said: "At 3 the activity showed she was okay, et cetera". You weren't taking it literally were you. I was wondering the last few weeks whether to categorize you as troll, or demi-reasonable or nut-job. I think I can strike the one in the middle--not that you care.
No matter how he meant it, it was totally ridiculous. An ambulance chaser with a flair for courtroom dramatics is not what I am looking for in a president.
Tommy, an argument can be made that one who follows and teaches the word of Christ, might be held to a higher standard than a politician. As far as I know there is no hand book for politicians.
But there is a handbook for right wing preachers. It's called the Bible (or the Good Book). There are many admonishments against the accumulation of wealth for one who would be a "Fisher of Men".
Good point.
Then Jesus said to his disciples, If any one desires to come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.
Matthew 16:24
Too bad, so sad that none of the candidates for the Jesus Party this cycle have any interest in doing that.
I can tell that Tommy is going to ride this "Edwards hypocrisy" hobby horse this whole election cycle - which, presumably, gives me a year and a half to try and make sense of it.
Tommy, is there any way, in your opinion, that a rich man can speak with integrity about the problems of the underprivileged? Or is it only hypocrisy if a Democrat does it?
Darn, you're good at what you do! "Compassionate Conservatives" can get away with caring, but for libs or Dems to do so - well!
IOKIYAR (epugnant)
Val,
It depends on what the "rich" man says. If they talk about the underpriveleged in a way as to pander to them with leftist political talking points about a government solution, then yes, it's hypocrisy.
However, if they appeal to their work ethic by stressing determination, hard work, grit and not looking to government to bail them out, but rather government should remove barriers which impede opportunity - with positive uplifting influences rooted in integrity and making the right choices in life - then no, that is not hypocrisy.
How is that "hypocrisy," rather than a political stance with which you disagree?
You're right, perhaps hypocrisy is not the best word.......for fear of being politically incorrect, I will say the first approach I mentioned is just misguided.
Tommy, we all know you have no "fear of being politically incorrect," so why not just say what you mean?
It's less inflammatory and distracting if Tommy actually says what he means instead of carefully choosing his rhetoric for maximum impact, that's why.
And that came straight out of the MMFA employee handbook.
As if the poor suckers got to pick their parents. Born poor, likely die poor - that is the America we have produced over the past 50 years. And most of it founded in the meaningless drivel you spew, about how it is only your own fault if you cannot overcome childhood deprivation and abuse, to grasp the same "head start" that the miserable creature in the WH was born into.
I am not speaking of poor children, I would think that was obvious.
Where do you think poor adults come from, Tommy? Rich children?
Tommy,
You just described a John Edwards speech.
Since I can't afford to attend one of Edward's speech, thanks for the summarization.
Your quite welcome. I saw him in a town square in 2000. It didn't cost me a penny. He continually talks of the virtues of hard work and determination. This idea that because he is successful and wealthy he can't be sincere in fighting poverty is silly.
The irony, of course, is that "Two Americas" is about the virtue of hard work and the evils of government handouts - to the rich and powerful.
Are you serious? It is a Bush bashing campaign speech for starters, along with "one priveleged, the other burdened"........"millionaires to sit by their pools".........rolling back tax cuts, blah blah blah
Please, it's the same liberal rhetoric we've heard before.....it's nothing more than a political speech bashing his opponents, pandering to those whose votes he wants and pitting one class against the other.
At least be honest Val, don't sell the speech to me, I ain't buying.
Edward's is a populist capitalist and that is no contradiction.
I'm glad that he has worked hard to make something of himself, yet is insightful enough to realize that he didn't do it all by himself. He also knows that he was uplifted every step of the way by the interdependency of people working together. With the aid of our highways, ports, military, banking and legal systems our form of government protects and empowers our ability to prosper.
It's a simple concept until a group of thugs comes along and convinces decent people that success depends on the ability of the individual to horde as much as they can.
In a market economy that aggressively seeks to maximize profits for a proportionally tiny cell of power holders by minimizing the costs of resources (read as people), there will not be fair competition for wealth. Labor will always be in demand and high end jobs will never be plentiful. In the wealthiest society on the planet, it is immoral for those locked out to be without food, necessary medical attention or quality education and subject to the scorn of elitists.
Hard working people deserve equal opportunity to compete and that happens when the risk of failure is diminished. That is to say that if a person experiences a temporary loss of employment resulting in the depletion of savings and elimination of healthcare coverage then that person is effectively locked down. He is unable to compete. If the risk of failure is shared among all of us by pooling together the common wealth for the common good, we can then all share in the rewards of success.
It just doesn't fit the conservative view of how the market should work, that's all
Look, we have very different philosophies so let's just leave it at that. You believe that a few should support the many. I don't. You're entitled to your opinion, I am to mine.
We disagree.
The point is that we all depend on each other, not the profit driven market.
Tommy, that' such a load of crap - I suppose you believe the many should support the few? Because that is exactly what is happening in our country today. The Halliburtons of the world are receiving tax cuts when they make their money off of our tax revenues - If that isn't a redistribution of wealth upwards, I don't know what is. You go ahead and believe that we have a "free market" - we don't - we have a market and government that is manipulated by the few and the powerful, and the rest of us pay the price. And now those same bastards - Halliburton is just one example - are moving ther HQ to a country where they will pay no US taxes? Unbelievable - they should be lined up along a wall and shot for treason as far as I'm concerned. Sorry, that's how I feel at this point. And if you can't afford $40 to see an Edwards speech, I'd say the 'free market' hasn't been all that great for you and you might want to rethink your position.
I'm not selling anything. I am trying to engage you on the substance of your complaints, and so far you have not offered me anything except brief snippets clipped from the speech followed by some boilerplate rhetoric of your own.
If talking about economic issues makes you uncomfortable, we can stop.
Val, Your cuteness is always entertaining but what is the point.
I know what Edward's economic policies are - and they start with raising taxes on job creators and then cleverly he deals the class warfare card, sorry - even your condescending attitude doesn't mask that.......but I am more than comfortable with my opinions, if you can't accept we disagree, perhaps the sagging comfort level is with you.
Tommy, of course I can accept that you disagree. We have both been posting here for a while, and it is clear to me that you see a big part of your role here as being a dissenting voice. So naturally, I want to engage you in debate because sometimes it is stimulating. Not to "sell" you anything, but to exchange views.
You are the one who has said, in your reply to Roundhouse above, that you don't want to talk about it. I am sincere in saying that I don't want to have a conversation where one party is not comfortable.
Val,
If you're sincere then why did you say I posted to Roundhouse that I don't want to talk about it? Where did I say that?
What I said was that he and I have diametrically opposed philosophies when it comes to taxes, government's responsibility and role in our lives......we will never change each others minds and that is fine. I respect another point of view if it's honest and sincere - and it appears he is very passionate about his opinions, I am fine with that.
But to discuss it, is to what end? And it goes for Edwards as well, I profoundly disagree with his "vision" for America and his pathways to get there - and no amount of reading or re-reading his speeches will change my mind, it is what it is.
Your comments are appreciated.
"Look, we have very different philosophies so let's just leave it at that. "
I can't really see any way of reading that other than "I don't want to talk about it."
For the record, Tommy, I've never engaged in any of our many debates with the intention of changing your mind. I simply find the interplay - when it is honest, open, and mutually respectful - to be stimulating.
Obviously there is a point at which nothing more can be said other than "we agree to disagree," but I literally still have not understood the substance of your objection to Edwards' policies, so I just figured we weren't there yet.
"It is rather ironic how many here are constantly complaining about the rightwing preachers and the hypocrisy of their lavish lifestyles..."
Clergy are entirely different... if they are Biblically motivated they are expected to place the immediate welfare of others above their own personal financial gain if they are doing the Lord's work. Edwards could probably be making more money practicing law than giving speeches. One doesn't have to be poor, or to refuse money, to speak out politically against what has become institutionalized poverty in America.
I think Edwards would have more credibility selling "get rich at home" systems than he does now.
He's a con-man and fast talk artist extrodinaire. His blinking Apology on the Today Show for his authorization to use force vote is simply being two faced. That alone raises him to the John Kerry class of flip-flopping. It also makes him again look like a metrosexual.
Trying to persuade people he is a populist when he lives in a 29,000 square foot home and makes millions suing doctors, and works for a hedge fund is simply laughable.
Of course by comparison, he looks pretty good as opposed to Clinton(s), Sharpton, Jackson, and Biden. All Obama has to do is to keep up mouthing his silly feel good speeches and he might just get the nod.
Ah, AA we have such a wide range of selections on the other side, you know the I don't flip flop Republicans, I just changed my mind on abortion, gun control and marriage. Did you get the memo on fear and more fear. Oh don't forget the terrorism and more terrorism. And just in case that doesn't work remind them that they will follow us home. And in case all of those things don't work remember Bin Laden.
People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
Hey, I'm with ya on that. The Republicans have their own floppers to be sure. When one changes one's position when seeking office, it sure does look like duck and very much seems to be quacking, it most assuredly is a flip-flopper.
But let's not forget, the only way our government makes progress is by compromise.
As it stands, we're at the most divisive point in our history. To get from here to there, we're going to need to step back from our talking points and our litmus tests and start governing.
In order for there to be compromise, both sides (or should I say ALL sides) must flip flop. Without compromise our government stagnates.
We need to get past all of this nonsense about flip flopping and plan for the future.
worrier,
Just a small point. I think you forgot about the Civil War. When the blue states start seceding from the union then you might make your case.
Thought you might bring that up.
I've seen articles that say we might be more divided today. I don't remember where I've read it, but there are reports.
Also, fewer states seceded from the Union than remained. Those that remained loyal contained a majority of the population of the country. I''m not sure of the exact figures, but I don't believe that it was even close, population wise.
So, I think my statement holds true. But it does not take into account those in the North who were opposed to the war and pro-slavery or those in thew south who were opposed to secession or anti-slavery.
I think it would be safe to say that we are simultaneously at our most divisive point in history and at our most apathetic point in history. In other words, the Left hates the Right and the Right hates the Left and all of it is endorsed and engorged by the media and the government, but none of the people actually care enough to do anything about it.
I'm guilty of this, too. I listened to Bush's press conference today and became so frustrated at some of his BS, and then said, "Ah, well, what am I gonna do about it?" and went about getting lunch.
However I am fearful of a nuclear Iran. You should be too.
Actually, I'm more afraid of another 4 years like the last 6 years, and you should be too.
Do you seriously believe Iran wants to attack anyone with nuclear weapons? How would that be in their interest?
We have no clue what lunatic dictators would do if they had a nuke in their hands, so the answer is, I'd really not want to take a chance and find out too late.
You know, I have precisely that same tingling sensation at the back of my neck with regard to every Repugnant candidate save, perhaps, Paul: best not to take the chance that it all ends in a mushroom cloud.
Ahmedinejad may be a lunatic, but he is not a dictator. The Islamic Republic is actually run by the Supreme Leader, Khamenei, who has shown no sign of being any more (or less) unbalanced than world leaders in general.
In any regard, the Iranian nuclear programme is not something over which you or I - or George Bush, for that matter - have any control, any more than with Pakistan or North Korea... or, I hasten to add: Israel.
You're right, he's not a dictator, just a lunatic. And they live under international law with regard to their nucleur program, it isn't just GW Bush that feels the world would not be well served with Iran having nucleur weapons.
Thanks for the funniest quote of the day.
So the real leader of Iran, a hardline extremist mullah who installs a lunatic to make genocidal threats is the same as the rest?
Hahahaha.... that's rich! I'd expect John Edwards to try to pass that one off.
Ahmedinejad was elected. The Guardian Council was actually said to prefer Rafsanjani anyway.
And Khamenei repudiated Ahmedinejad's comments about Israel.
I am not saying these people are like the freaking Swedes, but neither are they bugshit-crazy like Kim Jong Il.
Val,
I am so glad you brought up the actual heirarchy in the Iranian government. It seems the conservative chickenhawks want to have a bad guy much like with Hussein. I do believe though, that nuclear weapons in the hands of Iran is a very dangerous threat. They make no bones about hating America, always have for that matter.
Well, I agree with you - insofar as I think that nuclear weapons in the hands of anybody is a real threat. I am not, personally, worried that Iran would be any more or less likely than anyone else to use N-weapons, but I'm far from an expert - I don't know anything other than what's printed in the newspapers.
At the end of the day, though, the question is still what do you want to do about it?
So, by your definition you are equally as concerned with nucleur weapons in our government's hands as Iran's?
Since I'm not a citizen of Iran, I'm much more concerned about the nuclear arsenal that my tax dollars are supporting.
And one wonders why the hard left in this country scares people to death. Whew.
I am concerned about a nuclear aresenal in the hands of an incompetent boob like George W. Bush and a Dr, Strangelove-whacko like Dick Cheney... any sane, rational person should be concerned.
I guess you have to guage the threat by how firmly we believe Iran is willing to use such a weapon. Iran's rhetoric certaintly lends credence to the idea that they may not hesitate to maybe give a warhead to Hezabollah in Lebanon to use against Isreal. Personally I would take the Tony Soprano approach. If we know they got em' they gotta go.
Yeah, except the world knows that we're really Uncle Junior.
"Always hated us," eh? Why are these "clash of cultures" pop histories of the Middle East so weak on recent history?
Anyone remember the overthrow of the elected Mossadeg government in 1954? Remember our good friend the Shah who took his place, or his dreaded political police SAVAK?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAVAKDidn't think so...
Hint - most Iranians do.
O.k., so what is your point?
I believe his point is that your rhetoric is not supported by anything resembling FACT.
Well that is just a ridiculous notion. It's always good to hear someone from the choir speak up. I guess you can prove that the Iranian people have always loved America, especially since we have supported the state of Isreal since it's inception. Sure "always" is probably too strong of a word and I certaintly did not meant to insinuate that ALL Iranians hate us. the fact of the matter is that the nation of Iran since the downfall of the Shah has called for our demise on numerous occasions. I guess I could sit here and do search after search to give you examples, but I really don't feel like it. I know what I know.
Yet, Pakistan which already has the bomb doesn't scare you?
Yes, Pakistan does worry me too.
Don't you read the papers? I do believe Iran is most dangerous because their leaders say they want to wipe out Israel and the U.S. don't mind losing millions of their own people in a nuclear exchange to do so.
Ahmadinejad says Isreal should be wiped off the map. He also said that anyone who recognizes Israel "will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury."
Exactly, the Iranian nutjob believes it's his right to destroy Israel.......so it probably is not a good idea if he has the nucleur means to do it.
Okay... so what do you want to do about it? I'm all ears.
Good question, of which there is obviuously no easy answer.....the best is probably begin a propanda compaign within Iran as he is not very popular there., which I think is underway - and with much international pressure to isolate them should they continue their enrichment program. I am not in favor of going to war with them now.
Probably any attempt to influence Iranian politics from the outside would just unify people behind their government, but who knows.
In my humble opinion, the only real response that we have left is a drastically strengthening of the nuclear non-proliferation regime. Which, of course, will happen sometime between "when pigs fly" and "never."
Yes, but Musharraf is hanging on by a thread. Pakistan after Musharraf will make Iran seem almost a model citizen of the world of nations. Iran has no nuclear weapons today, they will not have any within the next five years.
Pakistan has them already. There are probably more radical, fundamentalist muslims in Pakistan, preaching hate towards the west than in most other countries in the area.
Please tell me what is wrong with living in a 29,000 square foot home. The reality is; unlike the current President Edwards came from humble beginnings. He knows what it is like to work and earn a living or what it is like to grow up in a working class home. So since he is now successful he can no longer be a Populist? Must have missed that in the "Conservative rules to being a Populist Handbook" that you carry around ANOTHERAMERICAN.
Anyone know if Tucker Carlson has come out of the closet yet?
Pardon me, your bigotry is showing.
Bigotry is never scorned here when it's from a liberal, it's only a joke.
No bigotry - just a question. There has been a lot of speculation over the years about Tucker Carlson's sexuality - also about Rush Limbaugh's and Matt Drudge, in light of their homophobic, anti-gay, right-wing ramblings.
All liberals are RICH? Wow! Then what's wrong with me? 'Cause I sure ain't and neither are all those artists and writers and teachers and African-Americans who share my politics. That is the craziest notion I ever heard.
How Ironic, Giuliani earned almost all of his income from milking 9-11 via his speaking tour, and all these whack jobs can talk about is Edwards charging for giving a speech about poverty. What, was his audience made up entirely of homeless downtrodden people?
The problem isn't the amount of money Edwards made for the speech, it is the irony because he was speaking about how to deal with poverty. It is hypocrisy at it's finest.
I think it is also crazy that Giulaini earned so much on his speaking tours! It doesn't speak well of our colleges and the administrators (and anybody else) who pay these exorbitant amounts.
I'm sorry, but you guys are idiots if you happen to think that to try and eradicate poverty you have to be poor? What the hell are you talking about? So Edwards has a lot of money, did actually come from humble beginnings (unlike most republicans in power currently), and can actually speak to what it was like being poor growing up, and he has ideas and plans to change that, and to combat poverty in this country and that makes him a hypocrite because he's rich now?
That is totally and utterly ludicrous. Edwards is currently using his money, and his prominence in society to actually try to make a difference in this country, as opposed to stashing his money away, and not acting socially in the US. Edwards earned his initial load of cash, you might not agree with how he did it, but he did it on his own. Normally, right wingers would be yelling from the hills about the American dream coming true. And isn't America great. But instead, you have a man who actually wants to make a difference and you talk about how he is a hypocrite because he has money? Someone needs a sanity check. And it ain't Edwards.
Speaking of idiots.. Thinking that a man who made millions suing others and making 30-50% of the proceeds for himself gives a rats *ss about the poor takes the cheese.
Well, I guess all those working class idiots who think Rush Limbaugh gives a ratsass about what they think have been played for suckers, huh?
Your own words indict your point, and possibly your grasp of reality: weren't those in fact poor people whom he represented? Weren't those whom he sued, better off? Since some of those whom he sued were corporations doing evil things to people for money, isn't it right that they should be forced to pay? Since he doesn't get a dime if he doesn't win (especially representing poor people as clients) how can his financial well-being be other than having won for his clients? On the other hand, most of those opposing him in court got theirs win or lose, and Sta-Rite (for one) would have done us all a favor by correcting their problem at least three deaths, half-a-dozen serious injuries, earlier.
Last time I looked, suing doctors to make millions was not "the American Dream".
Edwards and his ilk are part of the problem. He made his millions on the misery of others.
Can a leopard change his spots? I don't think John can.
Yeah, he sued some doctors - and won, for the jury believed the evidence and argument he presented, at least more than they believed the "other side". And if your doctor (no, not wishful thinking, just critical thinking) made a serious error in your treatment, resulting in permanent and total disability, I suppose you would be thrilled to be unable to find an attorney to represent you, due to the revisions of tort law in much of the nation, to avert the argued escalation of malpractice insurance. It didn't avert that escalation, but it certainly did succeed in making much more difficult any recovery from damage done to us.
But much of his career, and his biggest wins, came against the greed of Corporations convinced that law should not hinder their pursuit of enrichment, that liability could be disregarded by resisting payment long enough to force an advantageous settlement. Too bad he left so many standing - we could use a lot fewer Corporate maggots infesting our lives.
Let's hope you or your loved ones are never injured or worse when they place their lives in the hands of someone who is "having a bad day".
"He made his millions on the misery of others."
More likely, by making incompetents pay for the misery they caused others. You sound like one of those parrots who repeat "frivolous lawsuit" as if the term actually has some significance. You think any smart lawyer will pursue "frivolous lawsuits" for a living and expect to make a living? You think judges and juries award routinely large verdicts for "frivplous lawsuits"? You think insurance companies routinely pay large settlements for "frivolous lawsuits"? You think doctors never make mistakes? You think all lawsuits, execept the one YOU bring when you or a family member is injured, is a "frivolous lawsuit"? Look at the "risk vs. reward" element involved in personal injury litigation and you'll understand why some plaintiff's lawyers make a lot of money. But they are providing a valuable service in holding others accountable for the lives they ruin.
Another (fine example) of one accusing of hypocricy, who doesn't know the meaning of the word. One need not BE poor, nor downtrodden, to attempt to help (or represent) those who are. In fact, is not that exactly what Jesus teaches with regard to those poor - to help them?
AA, Tommy: have either of you ever heard Edwards speak about the "Two Americas," or read a transcript of one of these speeches?
If so, can you identify exactly what is hypocritical in his rhetoric?
If not... can you explain to me how you reached your conclusion about his hypocrisy?
Thanks.
Val,
The title alone is enough to stomach - it's divisive all by itself. It's the have and have nots, the rich and the poor, the greedy and the downtrodden, the lucky ones and the victims......it's all very sweet and cute and politically driven.
We are one America where opportunity is within nearly everyone's grasp if they work hard enough, make the correct moral choices, stay in school and don't blame others for your lot in life.......if he gives that speech instead of a class warfare one, I will listen. Otherwise, I have no interest.
So, in sum, you have judged John Edwards without even bothering to inform yourself of the substance of his positions, simply because you don't like the title of a speech he gave during the 2004 election.
You specifically asked about the speech, not John Edwards as a whole. He was VP candidate, I am aware of his positions, thank you. I disagree with them for obvious reasons.
You can twist that anyway you'd like, feel free.
No, I specifically asked:
Scroll up.
Oh please! This facade that you put forth that anyone who is rich can't speak to poverty issues is ridiculous. Is it hypocritical to be for the war in Iraq if you don't volunteer to serve?
Sorry, not buying it. I don't see the hypocracy. You either need to do a better job explaining exactly why it's hypocracy or accept it is not and move on.
SNOOPY,
Were you responding to me?
No buddy, that was for anotheramerican.
Sorry. I knew we were on the same side on this one. Sometimes the way peoples comments are posted is really confusing. Go get him.
/sarcasm
I guess you all didn't get the memo - Democrats/Liberals/Leftists aren't supposed to be wealthy, dare I say not allowed to be. Just look at how much grief the Right-wing bloviators give the most evil man on earth next to Hitler - George Soros. I'm surprised they're not going after Bill Gates for his charity and AIDS/malaria related work.
Only those on the Right work hard for their money and deserve to be wealthy.
/end sarcasm
Where's my freakin' limo?!?
I know it is a cliché to say Republicans are so rich but is just not true it is the democrats in congress that are the wealthiest in general. Here is an old list from 2003 but I think you get the picture.
I understand why most of the richest in congress are Democrats it only makes sense; Democrats can not win an election on ideas they need lots of money to win to compensate. Senate millionairesJohn Kerry, D-Massachusetts: $163,626,399Herb Kohl, D-Wisconsin: $111,015,016John Rockefeller, D -West Virginia: $81,648,018Jon Corzine, D-New Jersey: $71,035,025Dianne Feinstein, D-California: $26,377,109Peter Fitzgerald, R-Illinois: $26,132,013Frank Lautenberg, D-New Jersey $17,789,018Bill Frist, R-Tennessee: $15,108,042John Edwards, D-North Carolina: $12,844,029Edward Kennedy, D-Massachusetts: $9,905,009Jeff Bingaman, D-New Mexico: $7,981,015Bob Graham, D-Florida: $7,691,052Does anyone really think that they can stand up for the common man?
This is funny, the idea that you can selectively list a dozen people with (D) behind their name with some dollar amounts and pretend that maybe the Democrats are the fat cats in Washington. Guess what? Republicans are just as bad.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/overview.asp
Of the top 5 people on this list, 3 are Dems, 2 are Reps in 2005.
Combined Minimum Dem Net Worth: 553,491,189Combined Maximum Dem Net Worth: 758,856,104
Combined Minimum Rep Net Worth: 326,589,183Combined Maximum Rep Net Worth: 1,070,164,024
That's right - Even three against two, the Republican representatives' maximum net worth is head and shoulders above what the Democrats could put together for their top runners.
I like Open Secrets. Helps keep some things in perspective. I do wish candidates would report their charitable contributions, as it's something I'd be interested in taking an across-the-board look at, as well.
Yes they most certainly can. Hypocrites like you know that money drives everything in this world and most definitely in American politics. If the democrats are the wealthiest then will you defend them for making it in a "free market" like the republicans supposedly did? Why the double standard? You tell me, whats wrong with having the most wealth and advocating for increased minimum wages for the American people? HOW is that hypocritical, and don't tell me it's because their rich. To imply that would mean that wealthy people should NEVER advocate for those who are less fortunate. Just plain ludicrous. Look ALL politicians are fake (the extent can vary) and lie. But at least Edwards is saying something about it. And for that I commend him no matter what his background is, a humble one at that.
Stop with the "you're forgetting Poland" talking points, Republican posters.
Just explain to me why it's fair for Carlson to criticize John Edwards for receiving money from an appearance, yet praises Rudy Giuliani for receiving nearly three times what Edwards received for the same thing.
That's what this article is about. Please address that.
The Republicans know their blue and white collar worker base are infuriated with them over illegal immigration, the massive number of college educated visa workers brought in, and the so called free trade deals, which are so closely tied to stagnant and declining wages in relations to the cost of living.
Their own front running candidates reveal to them that the far religious right is losing its control over many religious voters who are gaining more in comprehension each day that greed is perhaps the deadliest and most potent sin of all, one used to temp Christ himself, and one which as Christians they must fight against if they are to call themselves Christians at all.
Into this turmoil within the Republican party a man such as Edwards could be seen to have the potential to be a very real threat, so much so that they are now pounding the drum that he has no respect for the Armed Forces and has called for desecration of Memorial Day.
They are determined to destroy him as early as possible.
There is no justification for anyone being paid in the tens of thouands of dollars just to make a speech. it's ridiculous and endemic of the many problems in this society. If Edwards or any other progrssive individual is getting paid like that, they should be just giving the money to some worthy cause. It's definitely hypocritical for him to accept fees like that.
Nevertheless, I like Edwards and would vote for him today over anyone else who is running for president. He's a politician first and foremost (and also only human) and therefore by definition he is going to disappoint now and then.