Cavuto falsely claimed Edwards "used" Hilton sentence to make "class argument"
SUMMARY: On Your World, Neil Cavuto falsely asserted that John Edwards had "used" Paris Hilton "in part of his campaign comments, talking about the dichotomy between the rich and the poor." In fact, when asked at a press conference to comment on Hilton, Edwards responded that he was "gonna stay out of the Paris Hilton story."
On the June 8 edition of Fox News' Your World, host Neil Cavuto falsely asserted that Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards had "used" the controversy surrounding celebrity heiress Paris Hilton's recent jail sentence "in part of his campaign comments, talking about the dichotomy between the rich and the poor." Cavuto then asked his guest, Fox News host Bill O'Reilly, "What do you make of that?" O'Reilly responded: "He's the biggest phony in the world." Later, Cavuto similarly stated that Edwards had used Hilton "in his class argument on the campaign." O'Reilly asked, "He wanted her in jail, Edwards did?" Cavuto answered, "Right." O'Reilly added: "[H]e doesn't really want to chase down the bad guys in Iraq, but he wants to put Paris Hilton in jail. Is that what you're telling me John Edwards wants?" Cavuto responded: "That's effectively what he's saying." But contrary to Cavuto's claim that Edwards "used" Hilton" in "his campaign comments," Edwards was asked at a June 7 press conference to comment on the message of the Hilton story as it pertains to the class divide in America -- one of his signature campaign issues. Edwards responded that he was "gonna stay out of the Paris Hilton story" and went on to note his goal of "clos[ing] the gap that exists in America today between those who are doing well and everything else." Further, Edwards offered no judgment regarding Hilton's jail sentence, contrary to Cavuto's claim.
From a transcript of the June 7 press conference posted on the New York Times political blog The Caucus:
Reporter: Senator, you speak all the time about two Americas, can you just tell us briefly, you know, what you think the message sends that Paris Hilton got out of jail after three days, when she was originally supposed to spend 45 days in jail?
Mr. Edwards: Um, I'm gonna stay out of the Paris Hilton story. Although I saw it seems to be completely dominating the news, I had the television on just before I came down. Uh, I still do believe, without regard to Paris Hilton, that, uh, we have two Americas and I think what's important is, it's obvious that the problem exists.
The issue is what are we going to do to create one America with universal health care, with more economic equality, having, raising the minimum wage, access to decent housing, access to college for kids who can't afford it? Those are the tools, some of the tools, that allow us to close the gap that exists in America today between those who are doing well and everything else. I think the next president of the United States is going to have a huge responsibility. Last. It's not healthy for our economy, it's not healthy for our democracy, and I think we need to do something about it -- without regard to Paris Hilton.
From the June 8 edition of Fox News' Your World with Neil Cavuto:
CAVUTO: Let me ask you: John Edwards, who you've been saying some pretty strong things about --
O'REILLY: Is he in jail with her?
CAVUTO: He has used her, as you know, in part of his campaign comments, talking about the dichotomy between the rich and the poor --
O'REILLY: John Edwards has.
CAVUTO: -- and that Paris gets special breaks like the rich.
O'REILLY: The guy with the 30,000-square-foot home?
CAVUTO: Four hundred dollar haircut.
O'REILLY: Yeah. This is the guy who's -- the disparity?
CAVUTO: Yes. What do you make of that?
O'REILLY: He's the biggest phony in the world. John Edwards? And you know me, I don't endorse candidates, and I don't really care about them, and I actually admire people who run for president because they have to go through hell. And they're all patriots on both sides. But this guy, this guy Edwards, he's a phony. This guy's a phony. We went out -- the "Factor" went out to -- across the street, there's a trailer park from his 30,000-square-foot mansion. And we interviewed the guys and the gals in the trailer park. They hate him. He won't talk to them. He goes jogging, and he doesn't even pay attention to them.
CAVUTO: So when he uses Paris Hilton to insert it into his class argument on the campaign, what do you think of that?
O'REILLY: What does he want? To give Paris Hilton 10 years? What does he want to do?
CAVUTO: Well, he's -- this was the first, when it looked like she was going to escape prison.
O'REILLY: He wanted her in jail, Edwards did?
CAVUTO: Right.
O'REILLY: So he doesn't really want to chase down the bad guys in Iraq, but he wants to put Paris Hilton in jail. Is that what you're telling me John Edwards wants?
CAVUTO What do you think of that? That's effectively what he's saying.
O'REILLY: I think he's a phony. I think he's ridiculous. I think the Republicans would be the luckiest party in the history of the republic if he got the Democratic nomination. That's who they want. The Republicans would love to run against John Edwards because it would be like [1972 Democratic presidential nominee George] McGovern. He'd get slaughtered. Because Americans know that this guy is a phony.
You can't make this stuff up.
But Fox can.
FOX Lies
Troops Die
Bushlied
I thought it was Bush Lied Troops Died?
FDR will get a fifth term before Edwards gets his first. Check out Shrum's book if you don't think Edwards is a phony.
It's...disturbing, Edwards is a very creepy guy.
And what is phony about him? Please, be specific.. Enquiring minds want to know (please use facts that are not easily dismissable).
I don't like Edwards either, but that is no excuse for Fox "News" to invent news to hurt a Presidential candidate.
No doubt, some of what Shrum writes is accurate. E.g., during a recent debate, Edwards' seemed to confirm the gist of Shrum's account of the Iraq vote. Beyond that, it's difficult to assess how much is Shrum misreading people, innacurately repeating their words, and/or covering for his own miserable record. I suggest second sourcing everything Shrum writes and says before giving it any credence.
I HATE AMERICA! It is all because of pot holes. I watched Meet the Press this morn with C. Powell. I have now lost count of the reasons for why we went to Iraq and what happened. I hope b.o. can clear it up for me Monday Eve. Does Powell have a book about Hillary out? In the midst of a national crisis (Paris Hilton) Why would Powell be on MTP?
Let me get this straight.
Being rich and and pro-working people is bad.
Being rich and anti-working people is good.
Please explain to me the logical basis for O'Reilly saying that he is a phony. Is it because he lives near right wingers who have no reason to hate him but do?
Well, first of all, I certainly wouldn't take O'Reilly's word for it that Edwards's neighbors "hate" him. But I think, as always for this narcissist, that this is more about O'Reilly than Edwards. O'Reilly sees himself as a man of the people--the "folks"--yet he his is a multi-millionaire who lives in a mansion on Long Island. He's obviously unable to reconcile those two things in his mind, so he spends a lot of time building up his personal mythology as the working class hero with a working class background. I won't bother to get into details about the inaccuracy of that mythology, but O'Reilly clearly thinks that it's necessary to project that image in order to remain "authentic."
So Edwards, who doesn't find it necessary to misrepresent his social or financial status in order to show concern for the poor, is wrongly perceived by O'Reilly to be "phony" or "hypocritical." O'Reilly's kept up this "lookin' out for the folks" charade for most of his career, and then along comes Edwards, who's smart enough to know that there's no hypocrisy in a rich man caring for the poor. By accusing Edwards of phoniness, O'Reilly is only attempting to bolster his own mythology.
I have seen many stories regarding John Edwards' neighbors not liking him. I don't really know how it figures into the debate. There are always going to be people that don't like a candidate. Who really cares? Why do their opinions even matter? Have they ever even met John Edwards? Are they strongly opinionated people who would never give John a chance to begin with?
If BO has a substantive argument against John Edwards, he should stick to that.
Pretty good analysis Clams.
It is because he will not go across the street from his house and have tea and crumpets with the "mobile-home-people" like b.o. does every day I am sure.
Poor Edwards. Same "two Americas" cliche with no blood-und-iron plan behind it. Where's the proposed legislation? No more platitudes, we want to hear the PLAN, man! How do we go after the Other America? If you gonna lead us, lead.
There has to be a plan...have to look for that in leaders. Called "vision". Democrats still need to go with Kucinich and Gravel, Republicans for Paul. All three would be a win/win for the country if one got in. They are the only ones of the bunch who have a clue what's going on. The rest are just phonies.
Completely an utterly irrelevant and off-topic and devoid of substance. WTF does the green (envy) party stand for? please... do yourself and everyone else a favor and skip the voting lines on election day. In America have a 2 party system.. LIVE WITH IT.
Wow, that's a huge commitment to multi-party democracy you got there. Only two choices or else when the rules allow for unlimited....sounds like tyranny to me.
I'm all for democratic ideals. But until you guys put forth a viable candidate for president then its nothing more than envy... green envy. Which is what your pity party stands for. Your party needs to quit whining and put forth ideas, and get them to the masses.
As for Ralph Nader,
He needs to give it up. In fact, I have been suspect from the beginning of his and your parties intentions. WHY was Ralph Nader's campaign accepting money from the GOP? Doesn't that go against the very foundation of your party? Can you tell me that? Did you even know that? You asked for this.... I hate to be the one to tell you this but your party is as corrupt as any other.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/07/09/MNGQQ7J31K1.DTL
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/30/bush.nader/index.html
If you REALLY want the American populace to take your pity party seriously, STOP CALLING YOURSELVES THE GREEN PARTY FOR CHRIST SAKES!
Here are some more examples:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5411492/site/newsweek/
http://www.factcheck.org/article216.html
DTRAIN-
First of all, all those links prove is that some republicans didn't have enough faith in Bush to think he could win without their efforts to siphon off the those at the more liberal end of the spectrum by promoting Nader. The donations made by these clowns was only 2.3% of Nader's total donations, and he did nothing illegal in accepting them. Also, these articles are from the 2004 election in which Nader ran as an Independent. The Green party candidate was David Cobb. None of your links prove corruption. Also, the dems are not in any position to judge where other candidates get their donations from. From one of the articles you posted by fact check was this exchange between Nader and Dean:
You didn't read ALL of the links did you? Its an established fact that Ralph Naders campaign accepted money and help from the republican party, thats the bottom line.
I did read all of the links- please show me where he was accused of doing anything illegal. I didn't see any proof for what you claim, maybe I missed it.
P.S. I never said the links didn't prove he received money from repubs, that is the only thing you claim that these links do prove.
Who said anything about being illegal? This is about principle and hypocrisy. Now there is documentation of illegal meddling and campaigning inregards to repubes posing as greens. I don't see the green party condenming these practices or actively trying to stop them. You now acknowledge the truth, which was my fundamental point from the beginning. It goes against the founding principles that the green party hold so dear:
Repubs = Dems = Corrupt.
Let me now modify this equation.
(Greens+ Envy+ Gross Naivity, Idealism, & Hypocrisy) = Dems
= Repubes*(1/5) = Corrupt
:)
You said it was illegal-
"Considering the above documented illegal funding and campaign practices of the ENVY party in conjunction with the repube party, I would think you know better than that."
And, as I pointed out, Nader accepting money in 2004, $23,000 to be exact, from some repubs had nothing to do with the Green party as he was running as an independent. If your fundamental point was that the Green party is corrupt and hypocritical you fail to make that point unless you can come up with dirt for the Nader/LaDuke campaign in 2000, or the David Cobb campaign in 2004.
"You now acknowledge the truth"
I acknowledged the truth in my first post when I wrote " The donations made by these clowns was only 2.3% of Nader's total donations".
"Group: Bush allies illegally helping Nader in Oregon..."
That was the title of the CNN article. And thats what I was referring too (added with a bit of hyperbole I admit)... And thats what I said, in my previous comment, illegal activity of the repubes helping the Nader campaign. Like I said before, they made no effort to stop it.
And its a little misleading to say that "it had nothing to do with the Green Party" as he was seeking the green party "endorsement" AFTER he tried to run as an independent in 2004. And there is no doubt that his 2004 campaign was accepting GOP money and help much more than in 2000. Old habits die hard. Its not just Nader though,
http://polizeros.com/2006/08/03/gop-donors-funded-entire-pa-green-party-drive/
What does it matter that he was seeking the GP endorsement? He was not their candidate in 2004. You have not presented any evidence that this happened in 2000 as well, so it is speculation at best. To me, this says a lot more about how low repubs will go to win. Also, as much as I don't love the idea of Greens getting money from repubs, to me it is still better than dems corporate whoring. I know that Greens have little chance of winning, but dems need to straighten out if they want to regain the trust of people like me. If they lose my vote to a Green or independent or libertrian, it is nobody's fault but theirs. I vote my conscience, not my fears.
You can't deny the facts, 2 green party candidates accepted GOP money and help at worst, and at best, ignored its existence.
Voting your "conscience" does nothing, absolutely NOTHING to solve the problem. You have, in essence, voted yourself irrelevant at best and obstructionist at worst. ALL parties are as corrupt as they come. Money, greed, envy, revenge, etc.. drives everything in politics. UNTIL that changes, somebody's gonna have to RUN OUR GOVERNMENT. The Green Party's naive, idealistic views are just that: Naive and idealistic. Your message is clearly not resonating with the people. And to be honest, there's only one reason why... MOST PEOPLE (voters) can't think for themselves. Put bluntly, the masses are like herds of sheep that just drift to feed on the next batch of insecticide-infected grass the 2 parties feed them. They refuse to take the time and energy to research and vet any given candidate. Most people just buy into the hype and the hyperbole too. Unfortunately, thats the system we have and it is surely broken. Honestly, dude, I really WISH I could vote something other than repub or dem. There are no viable independent/green/whatever candidates that have a chance to win the presidency. Thats a cold hard pill that you are gonna have to swallow. I do think (if your party is to be successful) you have to start small (and change the NAME!!), notwithstanding the onslaught of democratic legal intervention.
But with the support of a diverse and vast foundation (i.e. find your base and stop judging everyone else as if your better than them) you can overcome those hurdles. Until then, nothing will change for your party.
First of all, I do not always vote green, sometimes I vote dem if the candidate is worth it, or independent. My view is that in order to have a true viable diversity of parties, we need instant run off voting and publicly financed campaigns. Those are things that threaten the power of both major parties and they will be hard pressed to initiate those changes at the institutional level. If dems keep losing votes, they will have to rethink things. If voting third party makes me irrelevant why is it that dems have sued to keep greens out of the race? Obviously it has some impact. In MN the Green party is a viable force, and the state has instituted instant run off voting in local elections. Change is possible, but we have to really want it. The system is broken, and voting D or R keeps it broken. I too wish it were different, so I cast my vote to reflect my hope and not my fear. You are entitled to your opinion, but I cannot in good conscience support the status quo.
We would have run the only anti-war Senatorial candidate in Pennsylvania in the 2006 elections, but the state Dems threw enough lawyers at him to push him off the ballot and then force him to pay $90,000 for the privelege. When the Democratic Party drives third-party candidates away with legal action just to prevent any competition at the ballot box, that ain't very democratic, is it? So keep your whine about how we Greens have to suck up to you tryant Democrats to yourself. I've watched them subvert democracy on more than two occassions here. There is no "progressive" Democrat Party...they are tyrants, fascists, pro-war and pro-corporate. They hate democracy, want to monopolize all power, just as your "two party system" statement proves. I urge you to vote for the few liberals still left in the Party and I get attacked. You are not a liberal. You're a right-wing conservative. Your actions and words prove it.
Long Live Democracy! Down with Democrats and Republicans!
Considering the above documented illegal funding and campaign practices of the ENVY party in conjunction with the repube party, I would think you know better than that.
Lets not dodge the question...
Lets try it again... WHY was a green party presidential candidate's campaign accepting money and campaign support from the GOP?
I think I know why.... maybe its because, THEY'RE ALL REPUBLICANS(LIKE YOU) and G.I.N.Os as in (Greens In Name Only)
If the Repubs were willing to assist us getting on the ballot as spoliers to the Dems, so be it. We embrace NONE of their policies or agenda. In fact, it is in opposition to all we stand for. But if the enemy want to hand us free money to fight them with, more power to them. Should exploit your enemies' mistakes. Dat's Sun Tzu talkin'.
And back to my point. Why aren't you liberal Democrats supporting the liberal Democrats in the race? Why are you backing the right wingers again? I thought you Dems were liberals. We want you Dems to vote for the liberals. We want everyone to vote for the liberals.
MAYBE because there are more than just "liberals". Progressives exist too. There is diversity in the democratic party.
Maybe you need try to think beyond simple "conservative/liberal" dichotimies.
http://johnedwards.com/news/speeches/20060622/
All you had to do is type the words TWO AMERICAS PLAN and its the second link. Did you even TRY to find out what Edwards stood for?
Do you want me to also post in detail all of the concrete pieces of his plan? Or are you to lazy to read it for yourself? In the first half of his speech he talks mainly about his philosophy and what the problems are. The second half talks about solutions.
I am so sorry though that Edwards' plan does not fit on a bumper sticker.
You need to awaken from the stupor your Green Party voter registration card has induced and wake up to reality.
Here's his link from his website that details his plans for combating the disparity between the haves and the have-nots.
http://johnedwards.com/about/issues/poverty/
Here's his comment from that press conference where he references a few of those plans.
The issue is what are we going to do to create one America with universal health care, with more economic equality, having, raising the minimum wage, access to decent housing, access to college for kids who can’t afford it? Those are the tools, some of the tools, that allow us to close the gap that exists in America today between those who are doing well and everything else.
He cannot have a unilateral plan before he is elected, because he is a realist. You aren't, it seems. After he's elected he can run a firm plan past Congress. You do know that any plans from the President must pass the muster of Congress.
When you claim that he has no plan, you're not being accurate. When you try to hijack a thread with your fraudulent attacks on Edwards when the story is about a false tale being told about Edwards, you diminish your effective dispersion of your message.
I read that part. Don't believe a word of it. Sounds far too much like the last round of failed promises. I told you Dems to nominate Kucinich or Gravel, it's your vote, your power to do so. I'm just pointing out that Edwards is repeating cliches without any concrete plans behind it. The man is whipping in the wind with a weak vision. It's not good leadership traits.
You Dems always complain that you want to take your party back from the DLC, well...do it! Vote Kucinich or Gravel in the primaries. It's not rocket science.
It's not rocket science?
It's not college English to visit his website and read his plans.
It is idiotic to say that he doesn't have plans when I pointed you directly to a place where you can read about his plans. You're a numbskull if you try to claim that his shorthand version of those plans aren't evidence of plans.
The fact that you don't believe him doesn't change the fact that he does have plans. The fact that you don't have confidence in mainstream Republicans or Democrats doesn't change the fact that you were wrong.
When an establishment politician begins to promise you the sun and the moon and the stars, one should NOT believe them. And it's obvious that you don't want a progressive Democratic party, you'd prefer to go for their celebrity do-nothings with proven right-wing track records.
Well. I don't want Edwards to give me the sun or the other stars. But I'll take the moon:) I think he can get me that.
Kidding asside, first he has no plan. But now he does have a plan and you just don't believe that his goals cannot be achieved. You don't say why. Or give me any example.
Also, I want to see this proof you hold that Edwards is not a progressive. I want to know where it came from. Actually, I don't want to know where it came out of.
Consider Edwards compared to say, Kucinich. Has Edwards shown a history of championing liberal causes? Nah. Has Kucinich? Yes. So when Edwards and Kucinich are saying basically the same platform and one has a proven record of helping the liberal agenda and the other has actually promoted the right wing agenda in the past.....which one do you think is more sincere? Which one is not just feeding you a line to get your vote?
Again, this ain't rocket science. It's just a little common sense. If you want a liberal Democratic Party, you NOMINATE the most liberal candidate. Kucinich, not Edwards. And that's a good plan.
you say "where is the proposed legislation". so someone shows it to you, and you "don't believe it". why should anyone believe you? your approach is my way or the highway.
No, it's not rocket science. It's very simple. we are in danger of loosing our government "of and by the people".
Abandoning the Democratic Party or supporting the nomination of a terrific but unelectable candidate such as Dennis Kucinich will hand another eight years to a Republican President. How can that be a good thing?
I'd love to see Kuchinich sworn in as president. I'd also like to see cancer cured, the end of hunger and poverty and the war ended.
Any rational person has to know that the only way to take steps toward any of these objectives, is to remove the Republican in the White House. Voting Green will not do it. Unfortunately, the only alternative to a Republican is a Democrat. Idealism is not an option at this time.
Unelectable? Of course he's electable. All you have to do is stop making excuses why you will not vote for the most capable man in the race and just do it. If I can get just 5 Democrats to stop saying there's no such thing as democracy and go and vote to move their party one inch closer to the left, I will have made this world a better place. Kucinich is the best man for the job, your conscience tells you so and you even admit it openly. So just support him. We know he'll do a great job and set a high standard.
There is no such thing as "unelectable" in a democracy. You liberal Democrats can do your part for the cause by giving America a liberal presidential candidate. Just vote for them and ignore the right-wing DLC celebs. Take your party back. We Greens would vote for Kucinich. The Libertarians would probably vote for Kucinich. He'd slide in with a nice margin on the anti-war vote...and he'd deliver! That's all the matters right now. We got to end the war. Only the proven liberals can get elected now, only they will do it.
Best case scenario is Kucinich versus Paul. If we get a Hillary/Rudy ticket, we're sunk, the war will go on at least four more and get worse.
How will you lead, Redking?
Screw party politics. This is still a representative democracy and our elected officials are still accountable to us. Just look at the grass roots organizing and citizen participation that brought down the current immigration bill.
We still have the power so stop grousing and get on with it. Organize. Find leaders who will follow our lead.
And those leaders are Kucinich and Paul. But so many seem to think it's a waste of time to vote for them.
Paul is a phony. Kucinich is the real deal, he has my support.
Redking, just because Ron Paul doesn't believe in bombing countries it doesn't mean that he'll be the best president. He continue conservative economic policies, if not more conservative than Bush or Reagan.
That's the daggone truth. Paul is a big time market fundamentalist.
Paul's not pro-corporate, though. He's also anti-imperialist. The money won't be going to the Military/Industrial Complex as before. And Libertarians are not big friends with the Federal Reserve and don't like huge deficits. They may be a bit laissez-faire with regulations, but that's easy to talk them out of. The key point is to drive stakes into the heart of the M/IC. They are the real enemy here. All the others will just feed the monster. Paul and Kucinich have proven records of opposing it and have firm moral grounds for doing so. Paul would also take a lot of the religious fervor out of the Republican sails. He's the best Republican choice to end the war the right way. We shouldn't be making objections about him, we should be promoting him to the masses.
Paul vs Kucinich or Gravel. It would be perfect. No matter who wins, we get a liberal president who hates the system. The People would finally win, not the corporations. We have the power to be the leaders here. All we have to do is make the right choices on Primary Day and take the nation back from the fascists. The People choose the liberal candidates on both tickets and the Party bosses would be crapping their pants. It'd be worth it just for that.
But it would be grass-roots Dems and Repubs who have to do it. They're getting handed three liberal choices on a silver platter this time. All they have to do is vote for them in the Primaries and they're in! All the wars would end. Our troops will come home from acorss the globe. America would finally be at peace and peace brings prosperity. Paul, Kucinich and Gravel are the only ones who would do it. It's all up to you to make it happen.
Correction:
"It's all up to you to make it happen."
No, it's all up to us. You're not off the hook either, Red.
My state doesn't have open primaries, I can't vote for them for party nominations. I would vote for any of the three in a presidential election, without hesitation. They are the only ones of them all who are truly anti-war and sincere enough to actually stop it.
Everyone tells me they can't vote them. Why not? There's nothing to stop these men from winning the primaries. Except voters who think they have to go with the one with the most cash instead of the one with the best ideas. I thought that was the point of democracy, to get the best men for the job.
no one is going to vote for the three that redking mentions. which is why he is so unrealistic. i will take a democrat over another republican. that is the only choice available now. i don't want to see more scalitos on the supreme court. that's what nader helped bring about.
One of his strengths is that he does not allow himself to be dragged into gossipy comments.
He did "use" the question about Paris to talk about how his plans will help the USA.
He did not use "Paris" as a springboard. Because he is a clever politician, he turned a question he was unwilling to address, gossip about Paris Hilton, into a way for him to talk about his strong message about ending the two-class society we live in.
Using a crass and irrelevant question about Paris is not using Paris. It's a strength that his opponents are trying to turn into a bad thing. We cannot let them.
I do have issues with Edwards, I would not call him a phony like O'Lielly does but his stance on this war is disturbing. He voted for this thing when it counted and now like Senator Obama said he is alittle to late. Obama was the one who was against this war from the begining and he never changed his stance.
As for Paris, I like most intellgent people could care less about this. This is another example of FOX and MSNBC and CNN ignoring the real issues to report on OJ sensation.
Edwards also went with the Kerry escalation plan in the 2004 elections and stood by US commitment to Iraq's occupation. He hasn't minded killing people if it's politically expedient.
There is another inaccuracy here beyond what MediaMatters has listed:
O'REILLY: We went out -- the "Factor" went out to -- across the street, there's a trailer park from his 30,000-square-foot mansion. And we interviewed the guys and the gals in the trailer park. They hate him. He won't talk to them.
Fact: From the Orange County Observer (from the county where John Edwards resides):
For a guy who says he takes the side of the working man, Bill O'Reilly has some trouble distinguishing between a tire shop and a trailer park.
-----
Introducing the segment, O'Reilly noted that a reporter spoke with four residents of a "trailer park where working-class Americans live" across the street from Edwards' home.
"We couldn't find anybody in the trailer park to say anything nice about John Edwards," O'Reilly said.
But the people were interviewed at Big Valley Auto Repair, not a trailer park.
Though none of them are named, they were garage owner Danny Hulon; his live-in girlfriend, Trish O'Neal; property owner Monty Johnson; and a customer, Ronnie Lilly, according to Hulon.
So THREE of the four people interviews by O'Reilly's producer are related to the auto repair shop. There has been some bad blood between Edwards and these folks in the past, so they do have some grudges against Edwards.
For more details, please read here and here from the same newspaper.
From the latter,
CHAPEL HILL - Monty Johnson was heading home Monday with a cooler full of catfish when he learned his new neighbor had turned him into a minor celebrity.The first calls on his cell phone came from two lawyers asking to represent him in a slander case. Elizabeth Edwards, they told him, had called him a "rabid, rabid Republican." That wasn't all. The Democratic presidential candidate's wife also told The Associated Press she didn't want her children near Johnson because, she said, he once pulled a gun on workers investigating a right of way on his property.----------------Johnson didn't rebut Edwards' comments. He's a proud member of the Grand Old Party and owns a 9 mm handgun he said he's not afraid to use.What got his goat, he says, was Edwards' calling his 42-acre property "slummy."
-----
So this a special case of two neighbors feuding with one another, and it doesn't have anything to do about how Edwards treats his neighbors in general. Even after the Orange County Observer corrected O'Reilly and the truth is out there for anyone to discover, he repeats the same statements on Cavuto's show with reckless disregard for the truth. Sounds like libel to me.
Also, although this neighbor is "poor", don't feel too sorry for him. According to the same article, his land is worth 1.6 million dollars!!! And he is willing to sell it to Edwards if he wants it.
nice job.
NoSpinner,
that is a great job. You should send that to O'Reilly Sucks.com and SweetJesusIHateBillO'Reilly.com and Olbermann too.
Edwards has my vote. O'Reilly is soooooo f'ing full of it... always going on about how he knows the average American... such a sleeze ball and very, very wrong about almost everything. When are his viewers going to wake up and smell the daily turds he leaves on the media?
Edwards is the candidate that scares the bejeezus out of the corporo-fascists that run this country now. He has a specific plan to deal with the health care crisis and specific plans to deal with other issues for anybody who bothers to look.
This is a guy who got almost as rich as a Republican by taking on the corporations - that's why I like him and why scumbags like O'Lielly and Caputo miss no opportunity to slime him.
He did vote to authorize the use of force - and admitted it was a mistake. Hillary is DLC all the way and Obama said he would have voted to confirm John Roberts to the supreme court. So much for the perfect candidate. No viable candidate has the populist roots and message Edwards does.
I suggest that posters who think candidates like Kucinich and Gravel actually have a chance to become president lay down some bets with the oddsmakers. With such incredible longshots as those you could make a small fortune with very little investment.
To be perfectly honest, with the forces aligned against him, Edwards is anything but a safe bet to win the nomination, but I ask my fellow progressives to do a reality check and get behind a candidate who actually has a reasonable chance to win.
This isn't a horse race. It's a team event and you're in it. The goal is to push American politics towards liberalism and away from corporatism. You need to vote for the really liberal guys to win. It's a simple game. They're not longshots, they're victory.
Edwards is a "moderate" with a weak liberal past and no signs of any understanding of world events, his cabinet will be chosen by the DLC to control him and plunder everything in sight, as usual. Kucinich is a bright boy, knows what's going down out there and would have top-notch advisors not chosen from the corporate world, people that would be trying to police the abuses of the system.
Seems a clear choice. Dems just got to vote for the man.
I am a registered Dem as of 2003, specifically to rid the country of BushCo. Before that my husband and I were independents for many years. We like the idea of the Green Party & admire the work Ralph Nader did previously to his political runs. I do hope that the Greens will get it together to elect more people in the grass roots positions. & Ralph will use his prominence to push for run-off voting, the hard work BETWEEN elections that build up enough momentum to really make positive change.
Rather than tear down Edwards (and much of what you have posted here about him is based on your own opinion of his character) and other "main-stream" politicians, I see what all of us can do to push the country toward saner policies. As a Dem, I can pressure my party to more there. Greens can also do that in a different venue. Nothing can be gained by just tearing down "the other" in order to self-righteously declare yourself the purest of the pure.
Would someone explain to me how being rich means that Edwards can't possibly care about class disparities in the U.S.? Are we arguing class consciousness here? Is O'Reilly using Marx? 'Cause it sounds to me like that's pretty much the conservative criticism of Edwards at this point.
Anyway, who's the phony? "You know me, I don't endorse candidates...," yeah, right.
So good of these 'newsmen' to inform us of this unsubstantiated hate directed at Edwards. They're just so down to earth giving a voice to the lowly trailer dwellers. I guess they'll be eager to report about how millions of Americans feel about W. Bush. I don't live in a trailer or anything but I'm not sure if I could do justice with words for how I and almost everyone I know feels about the guy who is already president. That sure would seem at least as important as these heros who purportedly live across from a candidate. I mean gosh with about 70% of the population disaproving of Bush, you'd think they might want to get out to some of those trailer parks and ask the salt of the earth what they think of our esteemed leader. Fox News aint funny folks. A corrupt party in power using all the trappings of government to try to consolidate their power is bad enough. For them to have what is still the most popular cable news network in their pocket should be a national outrage and scandal. They could easily help deliver the White House right back into the hands of the same group of scoundrels with some other patsy like Bush to play the role of president. Spread the word. Keep the faith. -R
Neil Cavuto and Bill O'Reilly. Two pots calling the kettle black. If anyone is a phony, it is Cavuto and O'Reilly. Cavuto should stick to his interviews with Hooters girls, or showing Fredricks of Hollywood fashion shows, and O'Reilly, who claims he is an Independent, should go back to dredging up anything of a sexual nature to run on his own program.
Cavuto or O'Reilly couldn't debate John Edwards without getting into slander and back-biting which is the MO of FOX NEWS anchors and hosts.
Cavuto is a real piece of work. I bet deep down he loves Paris Hilton. She's got the looks of women he'll never be with and she has wealth that he will never attain.
The definition of hypocrisy-Bill O'Reilly calling someone a phony.
who would build a multi-million dollar mansion next to a trailer park?
Please read NOSPINNER"s posting. It will clear up this "next" to a trailer park myth.
OK. I confess. I couldn't even read this or watch it. Just scanned it. It is impossible to stomach these two, with Cavuto being the worse in my opinion. And hey, if I'm guilty of not thoroughly reading it to judge it, than I'm just as sloppy as all those FOX folks.