Attacking Edwards, O'Reilly baselessly suggested New Orleans homeless encampment doesn't exist
SUMMARY: Fox News' Bill O'Reilly baselessly suggested that a homeless encampment under an overpass in New Orleans that former Sen. John Edwards mentioned in a speech did not exist, saying, "[W]e called the Edwards campaign and asked where exactly is that bridge so we could help those people. Apparently, they don't know or they wouldn't tell us. The Edwards campaign can't pinpoint the bridge." Numerous media outlets have reported recently on a large encampment of homeless people under an overpass in downtown New Orleans.
On the January 30 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly repeatedly mocked a portion of former Sen. John Edwards' (D-NC) speech earlier that day, in which Edwards announced his withdrawal from the 2008 presidential race. In his speech, Edwards stated: "I want to say to everyone here, on the way here today, we passed under a bridge that carried the interstate where 100 to 200 homeless Americans sleep every night. And we stopped, we got out, we went in and spoke to them." Responding to Edwards' remarks, O'Reilly repeatedly suggested this homeless community did not exist, saying: "[W]e called the Edwards campaign and asked where exactly is that bridge so we could help those people. Apparently, they don't know or they wouldn't tell us. The Edwards campaign can't pinpoint the bridge." O'Reilly later stated to guest and Democratic strategist Kiki McLean: "Just tell me where the bridge is. We will help those people. They can't tell me ... Kiki, all you need to do is tell me where the bridge is, Juan [Williams, NPR correspondent and Fox News contributor] and I will go out there and we'll help those folks. OK?"
In recent weeks, the New Orleans Times-Picayune, the Associated Press, and the Seattle Post-Intelligencer have reported that a large encampment of homeless people has formed under an Interstate 10 overpass in downtown New Orleans.
O'Reilly has repeatedly attacked Edwards' January 3 claim that "tonight, 200,000 men and women who wore our uniform proudly and served this country courageously as veterans will go to sleep under bridges and on grates." O'Reilly previously stated that Edwards "has no clue" and "[t]he only thing sleeping under a bridge is that guy's brain."
In his January 30 speech, Edwards stated:
Now, I've spoken to both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama. They have both pledged to me and more importantly through me to America, that they will make ending poverty central to their campaign for the presidency.
And more importantly, they have pledged to me that as President of the United States they will make ending poverty and economic inequality central to their Presidency. This is the cause of my life and I now have their commitment to engage in this cause.
And I want to say to everyone here, on the way here today, we passed under a bridge that carried the interstate where 100 to 200 homeless Americans sleep every night. And we stopped, we got out, we went in and spoke to them.
There was a minister there who comes every morning and feeds the homeless out of her own pocket. She said she has no money left in her bank account, she struggles to be able to do it, but she knows it's the moral, just and right thing to do. And I spoke to some of the people who were there and as I was leaving, one woman said to me, "You won't forget us, will you? Promise me you won't forget us." Well, I say to her and I say to all of those who are struggling in this country, we will never forget you. We will fight for you. We will stand up for you.
On January 11, the Times-Picayune published an article on a "homeless encampment" under an interstate overpass near Claiborne Avenue in New Orleans. The article reported that, shortly after "nonprofit and government entities ... last month moved to find shelter for roughly 250 members of a homeless colony that had taken over Duncan Plaza, across from City Hall," a "homeless encampment of similar size ... blossomed a few blocks away, in a paved Claiborne Avenue neutral ground beneath Interstate 10." The paper reported: "City Councilwoman Stacy Head, whose district includes the Claiborne Avenue encampment, said a Wednesday night count by her staff found 247 people staying beneath the overpass. She said there were no children at the site and about 90 percent of the people were men." A January 1 Times-Picayune article had noted the sudden appearance of homeless at this location, reporting: "They almost appeared overnight, these long rows of tents, pitched along a fenceline just off South Claiborne Avenue and Cleveland Street, not far from the shuttered Charity Hospital." Further, a January 3 AP article also reported on the existence of the Claiborne Avenue homeless "encampment":
They have huddled in abandoned buildings, been chased from the doorstep of City Hall, and, if lucky, spent a night in one of the few shelters that Hurricane Katrina spared.
Now, many of the homeless of New Orleans are freezing under a stretch of interstate that is their latest encampment in the city.
Uncommonly frigid temperatures prompted emergency officials to enact a "freeze plan" on New Year's Eve, allowing the remaining facilities for the homeless to set up as many cots as they can safely hold. Similar action was taken on Christmas Eve. The current plan is expected to continue through Thursday.
But despite the emergency measure, about 70 people have remained under an elevated stretch known as the Claiborne Avenue bridge, cocooned in blankets, sleeping bags and the pup-tents that have become the calling card of a homeless epidemic here.
[...]
The homeless assistance group UNITY of New Orleans estimates that skyrocketing rent and a crippling of the support network has caused the homeless population to rise from 6,300 to 12,000 since Katrina.
"It's basically cots in the kitchen that's keeping some from freezing," said David Davis, a program leader at one New Orleans shelter, the Ozanam Inn. "But at some point, there's just not enough beds."
At Ozanam, 32 cots will be added to the 56 beds already available to walk-ins. The stays are limited to 10 nights a year at the facility, a rule imposed so no one person receives more help than another in the resource-strapped city.
George Blackmon said a similar rule at another shelter drove him to Claiborne Avenue, and its oil-stained island under the superstructure of Interstate 10. On warm nights, about 120 homeless people squat along a five block stretch underneath the concrete. There are about 40 pup-tents along the stretch, but many live in the open air on mattresses, sleeping bags and blankets.
"This is the worst place I've ever been," said Blackmon, 43, as he rifled through spare clothing that a local assistance group had dropped off. Without a tent, he said staying there Tuesday night "was like sleeping in a wind tunnel."
[...]
The previous focal point for the homeless was Duncan Plaza in front of City Hall, the first compound to see the tents which the homeless purchased from a local Wal-Mart. The homeless people who lived there were forced to make way for the demolition of an adjacent state office building that was damaged by Katrina. UNITY found 250 of them temporary housing, but many simply migrated from the plaza to Claiborne Avenue.
On January 18, the Post-Intelligencer reported on the unscheduled stop the NBA's Seattle SuperSonics made at a "homeless community," where the team offered "food to the homeless who have congregated since Hurricane Katrina under New Orleans' busiest freeway." The Sonics were in town for a scheduled basketball game against the New Orleans Hornets. From the Post-Intelligencer:
As the darkness descended on the corner of Canal and Claiborne, and the homeless who occupy the dozens of tents that litter the underpass of Interstate 10 conclude another day of despair, the millionaire basketball coach was in tears.
The emotional P.J. Carlesimo is more known for his growl than his whimper, even to the point where rookie Kevin Durant has mastered an impression of his raspy voice. But there was no harshness in his voice Tuesday night just before he boarded the team bus back to the Ritz Carlton.
There were tears of pain and sadness. Carlesimo and his team spent 45 minutes handing food to the homeless who have congregated since Hurricane Katrina under New Orleans' busiest freeway.
There is an entire homeless community here, and it looked on in shock when the Sonics team bus pulled over on Canal Street and a bevy of tall, muscular men pulled food, water and supplies out of the bottom of the bus and began lining up.
One frail-looking woman walked over and asked where the line started. There was no line. This was no scheduled stop. After his team served those in a substance-abuse rehabilitation center near downtown, Carlesimo wanted to do more. The NBA suggests teams run basketball clinics for those Katrina victims, but the coach didn't believe the New Orleans homeless needed to work on their left-handed dribble. Carlesimo said he wanted to directly help, and the Sonics were the first NBA team to reach out to those in Tent City.
According to numerous reports, since Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans in August 2005, the homeless population in New Orleans has ballooned. On January 23, National Public Radio reported that "since Katrina, the city's homeless population has doubled, according to groups that work with the homeless." The New Orleans Health Department currently reports on its website that "according to service providers' statistics, 17,000 to 19,000 men, women and children in the New Orleans area are homeless."
From the January 30 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: Continuing now with "Campaign '08." Earlier today, John Edwards dropped out of the race, as we said, but he's still on bridge patrol.
EDWARDS [video clip]: I want to say to everyone here, on the way here today, we passed under a bridge that carried the interstate where 100 to 200 homeless Americans sleep every night.
O'REILLY: Now, we called the Edwards campaign and asked where exactly is that bridge so we could help those people. Apparently, they don't know or they wouldn't tell us. The Edwards campaign can't pinpoint the bridge. And John Edwards apparently is not involved in a rescue mission. I know you're shocked.
[...]
O'REILLY: Joining us now from Washington with analysis, Fox News guy Juan Williams and Hillary supporter Kiki McLean. All right, we'll get to Edwards in a minute. The guy -- you got to, Kiki, you got to call him and tell him to knock it off with the bridges. He's obsessed with the bridges.
McLEAN: Listen, listen --
O'REILLY: Just tell me where the bridge is. We will help those people. They can't tell me. OK.
McLEAN: You know what? You know what? Whether it's that specific bridge or somewhere else in America, he's right. There are people who are sleeping under a bridge without a roof over their head. And that's the point.
O'REILLY: OK, Kiki, all you need to do is tell me where the bridge is, Juan and I will go out there and we'll help those folks. OK? Now, Kiki, look -- every time Edwards shows up anywhere, it's the bridge, all right? It's a bridge too far. It's the bridge on the River Kwai. It's the bridge -- thank God he's not in the race anymore.
Just keep digging Bill, just keep digging.
I guess if you deny they exist, you have no reason to go through with your promise to help them.
thank God he's not in the race anymore.
Yes Bill. You don't need any more help looking like a fool.
Keep digging indeed.
Maybe, just maybe, the Edwards campaign has more on their minds than returning your phone calls.
And its too bad O'Reilly's investigative talents stop at getting into a dust up with the secret service at an Obama event.
After all, how many Interstate 10 overpasses can there be in downtown New Orleans?
This is all a bit silly, this O'Reilly/Edwards fued. But if this really happened, that O'Reilly's people called the Edwards campaign and asked where this bridge was, then if Edwards was smart he would have told them to bring their camera crew there and O'Reilly would just look foolish.
Either Edwards didn't care, and that would seem odd since he brought up O'Reilly's name several times when discussing this earlier, or Edwards made it up, or Edwards isn't that smart. I have no idea which it is.
Edwards should tell pompous ass O'Reilly where to stick his camera.
What a grown-up answer. And not unexpected.
I have a feeling Edwards has more class...
Edwards got his figures from the Veterans Administration.
And if O'Reilly was curious about the plight of homeless vets, there were a group of them demonstrating in front of the News Corp building the other day and he didn't talk to them. He didn't have to look under a bridge, all he had to do was look out his window.
He was answering a question from a late night talk show host.
It's clearly O'Reilly who thinks he has something to gain by keeping this issue alive.
Right - I have to say... of all the horrible lies and irritating things these jerks say day-in and day-out... this sort of dismissive, completely calllous and uncompassionate rhetoric that is spewed... just really pisses me off.
Does anyone deny that Katrina happened, that people died, lost everything they had? And, the poor repsonse, slow/botched/barely existent cleanup or aid. Just too much. Horrible.
You're ignoring the third, and most obvious choice: O'Reilly is lying and didn't actually contact Edwards at all. On a recent show O'Reilly also claimed that his "crack research team" attempted to track any homeless veterans and after two weeks of searching they only found two. O'Reilly even dismissed one of those because of drug and mental problems, and he said they were "still looking into the other."
By the way, there's always been a homeless camp under I-10, right off Canal Street.
I don't recall hearing Edwards dispute it. And it would seem awfully ballsy of O'Reilly to lie about it knowing full well Edwards could say otherwise. Why would O'Reilly bother at all then, trapping himself so easily.
Not so obvious.
Clams I'm sure word would have gotten to Edwards or someone in his camp that O'Reilly made this claim.
Edwards may have simply decided not to refute it because he doesn't have much use for O'Reilly. But if O'Reilly keeps harping on it he should do himself a favor & answer him. If Edwards is on the level, why not?
J, I think that if Edwards has no use for O'Reilly then it's a head scratcher why Edwards used Bill O'Reilly to drive his point home about their dispute over the homeless vets, he did it on a campaign stop I saw on TV, and in one of the debates. This would have been a golden opportunity to definitely make O'Reilly look shameless and a liar, why would he pass that up considering O'Reilly can't stand him?
I still think that Edwards never stopped under the bridge at all, he just said so as it sounds better than saying he just drove by one. And it wouldn't be the first time a candidate has stretched the truth on these types of things, no biggie.
Edwards left the campaign gracefully, I wish him and his family well.
Good point Tommy. Why acknowledge O'Reilly before but not now?
And yeah I agree there is as good a chance Edwards might not be telling the whole truth. Wouldn't be the first time a politician fabricated a heart tugging story.
He could clear it up very quickly if he wanted to.
The excuse that he has little use for O'Reilly doesn't really stand up. If O'Reilly lied about getting in touch with Edwards camp, one would think he'd gladly call him on it if it were bull. And if Edwards actually made this alleged stop you'd figure he'd be happy to say where it is.
And again, O'Reilly said this on the evening of the 30th. You're jumping on Edwards because it's taken longer than 24 hours to respond? He's just announced his withdrawal from the race, so I'm sure he has better things to do than to issue real-time responses to Bill O'Reilly's baseless accusations. And what will you two say if he eventually does respond? Apparently baseless accusations are all Tommy needs to convince himself that Edwards never stopped at the camp. There's absolutley no reason to doubt the story--Edwards has been making similar stops all over the Gulf Coast area ever since Katrina hit--but Tommy "thinks" he's lying, so that's enough to start hurling the accusations of dishonesty, right?
I guess I will do exactly what you did to me below when you accused of me something I didn't say, oh wait, you have no class to apologize after you hurl baseless accusations, you just slither away.
No, I won't be anything like you. I will come on these boards and apologize to John Edwards for any false assumptions I may have made.
No, you accused me of "pathological dishonesty" and lying about what I said in my original post. When I told you exactly what I said, you didn't apologize for calling me what you did. Not that I care, but you should really try and live by the same standards you choose for others.
Oh, you told me what I said? And then you called me dishonest and now you can't own up to it, much less apologize. You are truly a sad individual.
Tell me Darling, what am I wearing now? Or what am I thinking? Since you're so good at this.
"But if this really happened, that O'Reilly's people called the Edwards campaign and asked where this bridge was then if Edwards was smart he would have told them to bring their camera crew there and O'Reilly would just look foolish."
Oh, so you were originally talking about the existence of the camp after all? Edwards should have told O'Reilly where the camp was so that O'Reilly could film it and look foolish? Interesting. Now let's look at the sentence that immediately follows the one above.
"Either Edwards didn't care, and that would seem odd since he brought up O'Reilly's name several times when discussing this earlier, or Edwards made it up, or Edwards isn't that smart."
So when you accused Edwards of making it up, you obviously meant that "it" was the existence of the camp. And then you attempted to shift your argument to say that Edwards made up the story about stopping at the camp, and not the existence of the camp itself. And then of course you accused me of lying about what you'd written, even though I'm just cutting and pasting your exact words. I love it.
What will I do?
I'll be glad that he responded & if he can refute O'Reilly's charges I'll be satisfied. I really don't have much use for the Billy-Boy. Of course the guy has been correct on occasion, so I'll wait to see how this plays out.
But don't you see that there is absolutely no concrete reason to doubt Edwards? You've simply bought into O'Reilly's baseless accusations. He planted the seeds of doubt, and now you're going to wait to see how this plays out based on nothing more than O'Reilly's suspicions.
Clams,
O'Reilly said they called Edwards campaign in order to be to be of help. Whomever they spoke to didn't know or wouldn't tell them where these folks were located. Do you believe O'Reilly may have had another motive for the call? Do you believe he didn't even make the call?
O'Reilly said they are waiting to hear back from Edwards camp, which I agree may take a day or two. Why wouldn't Edwards call back to accept O'Reilly's offer to help?
And if he doesn't, what does that say?
We are free to draw our own conclusions.
Think about this supposed BOR staff phone call to the Edwards "campaign." Edwards had announced earlier that day that he was withdrawing from the race. The campaign was over. Whatever staff members, if any, may have still been answering the phone at campaign HQ would have exactly zero motivation at that time to answer questions from Faux News. Those people at Faux are not stupid, only opinionated. They knew the campaign was in shambles after Edwards' announcement. I can imagine a saddened campaign volunteer answering one of BOR's intern's calls saying they had no idea what the guy was talking about, thus allowing BOR to proclaim that Edwards' campaign couldn't tell them where tehy could find the homeless camp.
You have such a hard time following these posts don't you? I think it's silly, but apparently since Edwards brought up O'Reilly's name more than once in their dispute over the homless vets, neither of them think it's silly.
So yes, if Edwards wanted O'Reilly to eat a little crow, he should have disputed the call was ever made to his campaign. My guess is he didn't dispute it because it was true.
For the record, I think you're silly.
Here's a link that O'Reilly might be interested in. All I had to do was put "I-10" and "New Orleans homeless" into the Google, and it's the first thing that comes up.
http://nohomeless.blogspot.com/2008/01/bad-times.html
Greek,
I think what happened is that politicians make these personal claims all the time, i.e. "I spoke to this person", or "A woman came up to me who was......", and much of it is rhetorical to make a political point and probably not entirely true, more anecdotal - and we know O'Reilly hates Edwards so he heard about his claim of stopping and visiting these homeless people under this bridge and O'Reilly probably thought, "OK, let's see if he really did stop". Maybe his people did call the Edwards campaign and got the answer he said they did, then my original question still stands.
"I said that perhaps Edwards never stopped and visited it, which is what he claimed."
You said no such thing. Do you think that we can't look up a few posts and see exactly what you wrote? Your dishonesty is pathological. This is exactly what you wrote just minutes ago:
"Either Edwards didn't care, and that would seem odd since he brought up O'Reilly's name several times when discussing this earlier, or Edwards made it up, or Edwards isn't that smart. I have no idea which it is."
You never said that "perhaps Edwards never stopped and visited it." You said that perhaps "Edwards made it up."
There is a third and even a fourth option.
3)Edwards just ignored O'Reilly's call, because of the obvious and forceful bias of O'Reilly's coverage, and the ban against anything Fox. Who can blame him?
4) O'Reilly NEVER CALLED.
Knowing Bill-O's history as a congenital liar, I go with 4.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
Am I to understand that Tommy, and those whom would think like Tommy are not sure of a homeless issue in America, and New Orleans to be sure?
Homelessness was a urban myth until Ronald Reagan came to power and closed thousands of mental hospitals, entitlement programs, shelters, and assistance programs that represented the safety net that kept people from having to use bridges, grates, and the like for shelter, or warmth.
Am I to understand that America is to forsaken the wounded heart, the veteran lost in our society after having done the nation's bidding is to be treated as little more than chattle to be discarded, and taunted by a coward like O'Reilley??
Symptomatic of a society that surrendered it's democracy to the avarious of the richest amoung us. Their wealth for our freedoms, their power to feed us rhetoric, distortions, and lies to excuse their greed, and the damage it does to every facet of our society. We pay for them to pollute our water & air, to gouge our energy bills & gas prices, to allow them to sell us drugs un-tested, to advertise them on our public airways, to lie about it on those same airways they gave to corporate America inspite of what would benefit Americans.
We don't fix our roads, highways, bridges/tunnels,we don't treat the sick amoung us; we start wars in oil rich nations in the middle-east for oil companies that feel good about gouging the nation that would bleed for their profits, their historic profits. We would be duped into supporting Draft-Dodgers, Texas Oilmen, Military Contractors, and in return we get a war in Iraq.
Is somebody going to point their attention to this coincidence in the mainstream media? Do we have to only hear about the truth from documentaries that never make the airways?? Why??? The truth to much for us, or to messy for the corporations?
If the generation that saved the world in WW11 was the Greatest Generation, what that make us?
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
I can see it... O'Reilly takes a field trip to NO... stands under a vacant underpass and says. "See?! No homeless people!" This guy is such an A-hole. Mocking the misfortune of others, basically... still holding to that Barbara Bushian moto "... this is really a good result for them".
Does Bill genuinely need help locating homeless people?
Does he really expect us to believe that the reason he can't make good on his promise to help homeless people is because he doesn't know where they are?
2 people who really do not matter in America.
John Edwards and Bill O'Reilly.
Both belong on the same ship, and I hope it sails away soon.
Two disgraceful people.
Sue,
Bite your tongue on Edwards. What has he done to draw your ire? O'Reilly misinforms millions daily. He lies about homeless vets. He thinks that kidnapped kids enjoyed their kidnapping. He lied about WWII American vets and he never EVER admits that he is wrong.
Please show me one egregious mistake by Edwards which has led to the misinformation of as many people as O'Reilly has.
Do you know how utterly condescending and dismissive you are to the millions and millions of Americans who supported John Edwards in his run for President?
Hillary and Barack both were consistently trailing John on policy. John would write up a plan, say on healtcare, then a week or so later along would come the other campaigns with similar plans on their website. He was able to push their (Barack and Hillary) campaigns to more Progresive, populist platforms by demonstrating that, despite being unmercifully outspent and contending with a media blackout, millions of people rallied around his message.
So don't tell me Edwards is of no consequence. His populist campaign was the boldest and most important this country has seen probably since George McGovern.
As for O'Reilly. If only he were inconsequential. He ain't. He's an influential corporatist lapdog.
Do you sometimes just write ridiculous stuff to draw negative attention?
no I give my opinion just like many of us, you do not like it that is your right and you are free to say whatever you want
Do you know how utterly condescending and dismissive you are to the millions and millions of Americans who supported John Edwards in his run for President?
It is a campaign, I support Obama we are all free to say things about other candidates. Would you feel the same way talking about Rudy and his camapign? And his supporters? Or is this a double standard?
Hillary and Barack both were consistently trailing John on policy. John would write up a plan, say on healtcare, then a week or so later along would come the other campaigns with similar plans on their website. He was able to push their (Barack and Hillary) campaigns to more Progresive, populist platforms by demonstrating that, despite being unmercifully outspent and contending with a media blackout, millions of people rallied around his message.
I do not see your point, Even Kerry knows what a fraud Edwards is.IMO
So don't tell me Edwards is of no consequence. His populist campaign was the boldest and most important this country has seen probably since George McGovern.
Oh Please
As for O'Reilly. If only he were inconsequential. He ain't. He's an influential corporatist lapdog.
You give O'Reilly too much credit, the guy is scum.
Thank you so much for your permission to think for myself. So I'll do just that. I think you're a contrarian.
"Would you feel the same way talking about Rudy and his camapign? And his supporters? "
Yeah. I do feel the same way. I don't call people inconsequential because I think people matter. Even contrarians like you and authoritarian thugs like Rudy.
"I do not see your point, Even Kerry knows what a fraud Edwards is.IMO"
That makes very little sense. Is it your opinion that Kerry thinks Edwards is a fraud? Not very convincing. Anyway, I made a valid point and you dismiss it with a nonsequiter. Edwards led the pack on policy specifics, it has nothing to do with your personal feelings about him.
"Oh Please"
More dismisiveness. The sign of one with nothing of value to add. A contrarian, if you will.
"You give O'Reilly too much credit, the guy is scum."
He may be. But he is scum with a few million viewers. And as you say, he is free to say what he wants. The dude has influence; wishing him away will not change that. In fact, wishing it all away is exactly what O'Reilly has been doing in the face of America's homeless.
Trying to nail jello to a tree. I like that.
He may be. But he is scum with a few million viewers. And as you say, he is free to say what he wants. The dude has influence; wishing him away will not change that. In fact, wishing it all away is exactly what O'Reilly has been doing in the face of America's homeless.
Where have I ever said that he should not be challenged? I just do not feel he has power like you do, he has an audience large but full of old people.
People matter. Even 'old people' as you so dismissively refer to them.
I have shown the opposite of what you say is true.
The one thing we do agree on is that O'Reilly has a large (but hopefully shrinking) audience.
Sue thinks Edwards is disgusting. Olbermann is disgusting. Fox News-they deserve a break. Media Matters "hates" Fox. Etc.
But Sue supports Obama!
With friends like that.....
"Only call out FOX becuase they beat you in the ratings. Got it."
"[This] is my main issue with MSNBC. How many of its shows have segments where FOX is attacked? Countdown, Morning Joe and Dan Abrams. It is silly beyond belief."
Those are only from one thread yesterday.
Edwards is disgusting. Olbermann's horrible. MMfA "hates" Fox. Fox deserves a break from these cruel, vindictive 'attacks'.
I've noted you are critical of MSNBC to the benefit of Fox, often deflecting criticisms of Fox & its staff by shifting blame to MSNBC. So, yes, you are in fact giving Fox a break.
I suspect you are not much -if at all- a Democrat. At best you are a "Fox News Democrat".
No *real* Democrat would call Edwards a "disgrace". A Dem might disagree with Edwards' positions, support Clinton or Obama. But they wouldn't call John "disgraceful". Nor would a real Democrat bash Olbermann, or continually bash this site the way you do.
Thomp,
I can't stand McCain, & I've yet to talk to another Conservative that does, so I'm curious why you are supporting him?
McCain beats Hillary 46-40 and Obama 42-38 in a Rasmussen poll I heard quoted on the Thom Hartmann show. According to the same poll Romney gets stomped by the two remaining Dems while Edwards beats any Republican any day.
Roundhouse,
Sadly you're probably right about that as the reason for some, but there are obviously folks out there that really believe in this guy & I've yet to hear an explanation from a McCain supporter, or any of the pundits that cleary states why. Or convinces me that McCain would make a good President.
Hell even Rush & Ann Coulter won't back the guy. Coulter went as far as saying she'd back Hillary before she'd vote for McCain. From everything she's written about McCain I believe she'd never vote for him, not sure if all her talk about voting for Hillary is on the level or just her way of expressing her distain for McCain.
Of course, just to be fair, I've heard Democrats that backed Edwards or back Obama admit they would hold their noses & vote for Hillary just because they want a Dem, any Dem in the Oval Office. And will do whatever it takes to win.
I haven't yet heard any convincing pro-McCain argument either. It would put my mind at ease to hear one even though I'll more than likely disagree with it.
And you make a fair observation of the tepid Hillary supporters. Some folks just want to win. I'm guilty too, I guess. Except I thought the debate went fairly well for the two Dems last night and I would be happy to have either one as the next President. I am leaning toward Obama, but slightly. They'll both have to come out with some more solidly Progressive thinking to win my vote.
"obama played dead"
You have room to talk??
McCain looks dead, talks about no one but the dead (Reagan) and acts like he's feeling dead. And his chances of beating Obama or Clinton are dead in the water.
Thomp,
McCain the straight talker? Which is the real McCain: 1) The one who called the Religious Right agents of intolerance or 2) The one who spoke at Liberty University's commencement? Which is the real McCain: 1) The one who thought Bush's tax cuts were dangerous or 2) the one who wants to make them permanent now. Which is the real McCain: 1) the one who sponsored a bill with Kennedy or 2) the one who wouldn't sign it now.
How is he a straight talker on any of those issues?
Fried, you're putting a lot of pressure on Thomp. Doesn't he have enough to worry about with Islamofascists hiding behind every rock? He just likes a guy the media calls "Maverick", isn't that enough?
I actually think it's cute, or would be if he was too young to vote.
"He just likes a guy the media calls "Maverick""
You nailed it. It's in much the same way he articulates his loathing of John Edwards: it's 'cuz he "just doesn't like his [Edwards'] whole act."
He IS the son of a millworker. It's really that simple.
Why is he a fraud that you guys keep saying that he is? Is it because he's rich and actually wants to help the poor in this country? Could it be that he's been working on these issues since BEFORE he was a Senator? I mean, come on. How does wanting to help the poor prop up John Edwards? Take a look at his poverty center located at UNC in Chapel Hill. He established it post 2004 campaign, and they have been doing immensely great things for the poor in the SE of the country.
People who claim he is a fraud have no other argument, and for some reason want to denigrate the work that he has done, and will continue to do regardless of whether he's President or not.
yeah, but the question was, tell us why you think he's a fraud, and you trotted out that he keeps saying he's the son of a millworker, which he is. And hence, no fraud totally eliminating your first try at why you think Edwards is a fraud, a fraud being someone who has done something to deceive you or I.
Would you like to try again?
Now we're getting somewhere. That's not the same as being a fraud though. You don't like him for those reasons, and that I can accept, but stop calling him a fraud, because, well, he's not. Right?
In the broadest sense, a fraud is a deception made for personal gain. The specific legal definition varies by legal jurisdiction. Fraud is a crime, and is also a civil law violation. Many hoaxes are fraudulent, although those not made for personal gain are not technically frauds. ...
In the broadest sense, a fraud is a deception made for personal gain.
That's close how I feel about the con artist
What about his act is deceiving though?
He talks about being the son of a millworker in SC. He was.
He talks about helping the poor. He has and continues to do so.
Where is the deception? You can't find any that's the problem. I keep asking, you provide no proof, just your opinion, and again, that's fine, but base it in reality at least. Why don't we just leave it at you don't like the guy.
I would like to see evidence of the deception or the phoniness, if you would, Thomp.
I just pointed out three ways McCain is not the "straight talker" he is billed to be and they are reasons why I don't trust him. I have yet to call McCain a fraud. On the other hand, you have repeatedly called Edwards a "fraud and a "con" and have not offered one example of this.
How can you trust McCain and think so little of Edwards?
My theory as to why people don't like Edwards is simple: People who don't like Edwards are jealous that Edwards has worked hard to become who he is and has earned the kind of wealth that he has - and they have not; I believe that people hate Edwards because Edwards does things that greedy right-wing people don't understand: true charity and caring for other human beings. Further, I think people on the right hate Edwards because he is truly a populist candidate and works hard to do right by those who are downtrodden. Because of his populist message, he catches the eye of the average, every day worker. Although Edwards doesn't have the support that Clinton or Obama have, he nonetheless has the support of millions - MILLIONS of people. That's a threat to the business status quo. The Republican Party is getting ready to implode and it will be people like Edwards who will be there to lift up the middle class and working poor. The hatred for Edwards is based on fear of change and jealousy. It's too bad, too. Edwards, IMHO, would make a great president - someday.
Tommy,
I think the personal dislike factor is different from the voting for him politically factor. The way Thomp was going after him reeks of the latter. If people don't want to vote for him based on policy, I have no problem with that. The way Thomp described him was far more dramatic than not wanting to vote for the man.
Fried,
I have been very critical of Edwards on this site quite often. It was not a personal dislike since I have never met him, but I was not a supporter or even an admirer of his. As I said, I wish him and his family well, but I am glad he will not be the president. Those are my feelings.
Tommy,
Your feelings are a lot more honest than Thomp's. You seem to disagree with his policies rather than resorting to personal attacks. To me, that makes much more sense.
Fried,
To be honest, I have mocked and made fun of Edwards plenty around here, it hasn't been strictly about issues - so I am not innocent of not getting my digs in......but for the record, I don't hate, or despise anyone politically, not politicians or private individuals. I am passionate, but I am not a jerk that can't get along with people I disagree with politically. Sometimes these threads narrow us and define us only one way. I like to think we could all probably get along should MMFA ever convene some poster convention somewhere?
If that happens, I'd like to be sitting at the same table as some of the most liberal posters here sipping an adult beverage.
Have a nice weekend Buddy.......
Well said, Tommy. My disagreements with Thomp are due to his terms "con man" and "fraud." His ONLY basis, from what I can tell anyway, for these statements is Edwards's background as a personal injury trial attorney. I am an attorney in a firm's litigation department. Before I joined this firm, I volunteered for free Legal Services. I am in a most plaintiff's law firm, but I have a great concern for the poor.
Will I become a millionaire like Edwards from this work? Not likely, but I like to think the work I do helps people who have been wronged. I also am very passionate about poverty in this country. That is why I connect so much with Edwards and why I get very defensive when Thomp calls him the names he does without a solitary fact to back up his reasoning.
You have a good weekend too, Tommy!
I don't use the term fraud in the legal sense... I just think...I think he... That's my impression ...- thomp.steve9098
Feelings...Nothing more than feelings .That's why facts are so annoying to conservatives.They get in the way of their emotions.
Thomp,
The accusations you have thrown Edwards' way are just lazy stereotypes of injury lawyers. Find me some cases where Edwards was sanctioned.
Thomp,
The accusations you have thrown Edwards' way are just lazy stereotypes of injury lawyers. Find me some cases where Edwards was sanctioned.
"Because he's rich and he wants to help the poor, of course."
Ok, so apparently Edwards wouldn't be a "fraud" if he was rich and didn't help the poor.
Of course, that'd make Edwards a Republican.
Are you a doctor, and if you are did you examine the patient who hired Edwards as his or her attorney?
Or are you just giving us your biased opinion?
Worrierking, I hate to repeat myself, but it's about feelings.
That's how they think, that's how they vote, that's how they live. Don't make me show you a wristwatch to prove that God exists !
So, Thomp, I know what you think of Edwards because of his profession, but I bet you would call a top trial lawyer if God forbid anything happened to you like it happened to John's clients.
Did you ever read that article about Justice Bork suing the Yale Club for $1 million because he slipped and fell?
What makes Edwards a fraud? Point me to a fraudulent lawsuit. Even better, point me to one where opposing counsel frivolous lawsuit motions against him and he was sanctioned.
I'm pretty sure what you say is true. It seems as though people don't have any use for a personal injury lawyer, until they get injured, and it's not their fault, and then there is a whole bunch of use for them. I know from personal experience, negotiating the pratfalls and landmines that come with trying to deal with an insurance agency about an injury that happened to me by someone else's doing, and I HAD a lawyer to help me along. I dread to think what I would have done without said lawyer on my side, I'm sure I would have gotten the screw from the other person's insurance company many times over.
I agree with you Fried. Thomp and others like to tout his trial lawyer credentials as somehow being bad. What's bad about going after negligent companies who have caused the death of someone's child? What's bad about going after negligent companies who have caused people harm? Where is the wrong in that? Do you want said companies able to keep doing business unregulated, and basically being allowed to do what they want? Lawyers like Edwards keep said companies in check by providing the threat of a potential lawsuit, and since most companies aren't affected unless you hit them on the bottom line, it makes sense.
I'm pretty sure that if you have/had a child, and said child was killed due to someone else's negligence, and or a company's negligence, you'd just say "Have a nice day, I know you're sorry about that." and just move on down the road? Yeah right, I'm sure not. Thomp would be the first one screaming for a lawsuit, which is what you should do.
Without guys like Edwards, you get what we have from the Bush camp - free reign, no checks and balances... and good luck.
"It's my job to worry about it. It's your job to go about your business." GWB
There's a lot I like about Edwards, but it is a fact that several of his most lucrative cases involving suing on the behalf of infants born with cerebral palsy. Edwards successfully blamed the injuries on the physicians' management of their patients during labor and delivery. Numerous studies since that time have proven that cerebral palsy begins long before labor commences.
Robert
I replied to your similar question on another thread, the one where you kindly advised that my comments were 'disgusting."
I don't care that this con hasn't had any ethical violations in his law career, assuming that's true. Bill Clinton was disbarred and I think he's ten times more sincere than this elmer gantry-like egotist. I freely admit this is simply my opinion. His crap about fighting his whole life for the poor and downtrodden out of the goodness of his heart is patronizing garbage. IMO he makes himself out as a "savior" and I find it sickening.
I expressed other sentiments in the other thread, and explained more why I don't care for his act. Grant it, all I know of him is from what I read in the papers (and internet) or see on TV. So maybe I'd have an entirely different opinion if I actually knew him or something
Thomp,
When I think someone is an indecent fellow, I show it with evidence and not with a broadbrush stereotype of their profession. To get to your points on the other thread about being upset with lawyers making you pay to play and monopolizing the court system, do you feel the same way about doctors?
Name one necessary profession that allows free access to their expertise.
You keep saying that his fight for the poor in this country is patronizing crap, and that's your opinion, you're welcome to it, it would be nice if it were based in reality, but it's not.
Edwards, has been fighting against poverty his entire professional career, before be became a politician, and I'm sure he'll continue that fight after. That you don't see, or even acknowledge that he's done this is disingenuous at best, and that he doesn't really do it for gain, that he does it because he believes in it. His fight against poverty apparently won't get him elected President of the US, since he based a large portion of his campaign on that one main theme that he finds important and worth working towards eliminating. But like I said, your opinion is yours, it would just be nice if it had some ring of truth to it.
Again, I ask, as others have, what has Edwards done that you consider fraudulent? You haven't stated specifically, other than you think that he's a fraud, with really no backing information. For instance, I could say, I believe George W. Bush is a liar because he told me that there were WMDs in Iraq, and lo and behold, there weren't any there. See, I can PROVE that he lied. But you can't PROVE that Edwards is a fraud. Now, if you want to change your definition to you think that he's smarmy and a pretty boy, then you might have some actual information to back up your assertion, but as far as being a fraud, you are SOL (Shiite Outta Luck) my friend.
http://www.law.unc.edu/centers/poverty/mission.aspx
I don't get it with you guys that hate Edwards, for really no apparent reason. He wants to try and help the poor, and somehow that's seen as a BAD thing? What's your deal?
Magnolia, my take:
Being right-wingers, they can't imagine someone actually caring about the poor without having some ulterior, self-benefiting (in other words, Republican) motive. It's just beyond their comprehension; it's not how the right-wing brain is wired.
Dave, I think that's dead-on, with a qualifier; it applies to politicians and pundits, not to the personal lives of right wingers.
I live among them, and,of course, most Republicans are nice, decent people, and they choose friends who have similar traits.
But, when it comes to their leaders and trusted sources, they seem to go completely upside down, with a hatred and distrust of the more decent types, and a worship of the most blatantly evil.Something about authority and power worship, I guess, but I've heard more than one mild-mannered person mention what a nice man Dick Cheney seems to be.
It's interesting,a very submissive programming that feels most comfortable with public role models who are the most selfish and domineering, while keeping pretty normal guidelines intact in their private lives.
So maybe I'd have an entirely different opinion if I actually knew him or something
This says it all.
Let's face it - for most in America all lawyers are scum ...until you need one.
Let's face it - for most in America all lawyers are scum ...until you need one.
Come on. You shouldn't be so cynical. I'm talking about only one guy here and his phony claims that he won large recoveries for sympathetic clients purely out of the goodness of his heart, and merely as part of his tireless fight against bad guys. I can't believe you guys buy that
And, Thomp, I can't believe that you could find a guy who founded a poverty law center to be a fraud, call the man every name in the book and not have a single fact to back it up.
Is part of Edwards' motivation money? Probably, but you don't work as hard as he has worked, especially on those cases if you don't believe 100% in what you are doing.
Thomp,
I will ask you this one last time: Name ONE concrete FACT that you base your conman and fraud nicknames on.
Just one. If you don't like him because he's a personal injury or trial lawyer, fine. Stereotype away, but if you need a lawyer someday, your feelings will change. I have a hard time with your broad brush portrayal because you can't cite a single thing he has done or any basis at all for your feelings.
You made the point on the other thread about lawyers monopolizing the access to justice. Every country with a free market has this situation. Doctors monopolize access to health care, do you distrust them? If you base your dislike of Edwards based on other lawyers you know, who else do you group like this?
I pointed out McCain's flat-out reversals earlier on this thread and you seemed to claim you didn't know what I was talking about. McCain has completely flipped on 1) The Religious Right, 2) Taxes, 3) Immigration (and we still don't know where he will land here). These are three major issues to him (I am assuming he called Falwell an "agent of intolerance" because he meant it) and you don't call him a "con man" or a "fraud" but rather a "maverick" and a "straight talker." Why?
I pointed out concrete statements made by a man running for president of the United States that could not be further away on the spectrum of feelings. That is why I distrust the man. I asked you for reasons why you called Edwards a "fraud" or a "con man" and you couldn't give me one.
Why do you consider Edwards a "fraud" and a "con man" but believe in McCain?
I will ask you this one last time: Name ONE concrete FACT that you base your conman and fraud nicknames on.
Here's my brief mea culpa. I admit that my descriptive terms of "fraud' or "con" went too far. But I've said on this thread, and others, that in my opinion, Edwards puts on an "I feel your pain" act. It's just what I think when I hear him give speeches, and think he sounds patronizing. So many smooth-talking politicans do, and to me he's one of them.
And contrary to some of the o' so clever folks who've said that as a rightwinger, I just don't like nice people, I've also said on here or another thread that I have no problem with Edwards' message. As I've also said, I think Obama expresses the same sentiments as Edwards, and I like him and don't think him a phony at all.
So I use the terms "fraud" and "con" too loosely. But nonetheless, he just irks me because, in my opinion, he tries to make himself out as some noble hero of the workingman, to who everyone should be giving thanks.
And always bragging about being the son of a hardworking millworker, as though that sets him apart from others, just got so old.
Thomp,
Bizarre semi-apology accepted. How can you think McCain is the real deal when I pointed out to you complete 180s in his philosophy?
You may think Edwards is patronizing, but if you think he is artificial you must think McCain is twice as bad, right?
Thomp,
Bizarre semi-apology accepted. How can you think McCain is the real deal when I pointed out to you complete 180s in his philosophy?
You may think Edwards is patronizing, but if you think he is artificial you must think McCain is twice as bad, right?
McCain's the only repub who I'd consider voting for. Most politicians change positions on matters sometime or another, and I don't think that's necessarily all bad. I'm not keen on Romney, and the rest of the repub candidates were horrible.
That said, I'm kidding with all the 'Maverick' stuff. Immature? Yes, but there's lots of posts equal in immaturity coming from the other side. Constantly hearing him being referred to as "maverick" is annoying (and patronizing), but I think it's funny because its so inane and makes people's blood boil (not just liberals either). I was kidding on this thread, but on others I often take my opinions to extreme positions, purposely, so that they are criticized. I don't know anyone here, and I'm not ashamed to be proven wrong on the more serious threads.
I'm still not a fan of Edwards, but still I shouldn't attack him personally. And seriously I don't mean to offend you personally when I generalize lawyers. All of us tend to generalize when we're going back and forth with short comments . ..
Thomp,
I will ask you this one last time: Name ONE concrete FACT that you base your conman and fraud nicknames on.
Just one. If you don't like him because he's a personal injury or trial lawyer, fine. Stereotype away, but if you need a lawyer someday, your feelings will change. I have a hard time with your broad brush portrayal because you can't cite a single thing he has done or any basis at all for your feelings.
You made the point on the other thread about lawyers monopolizing the access to justice. Every country with a free market has this situation. Doctors monopolize access to health care, do you distrust them? If you base your dislike of Edwards based on other lawyers you know, who else do you group like this?
I pointed out McCain's flat-out reversals earlier on this thread and you seemed to claim you didn't know what I was talking about. McCain has completely flipped on 1) The Religious Right, 2) Taxes, 3) Immigration (and we still don't know where he will land here). These are three major issues to him (I am assuming he called Falwell an "agent of intolerance" because he meant it) and you don't call him a "con man" or a "fraud" but rather a "maverick" and a "straight talker." Why?
I pointed out concrete statements made by a man running for president of the United States that could not be further away on the spectrum of feelings. That is why I distrust the man. I asked you for reasons why you called Edwards a "fraud" or a "con man" and you couldn't give me one.
Why do you consider Edwards a "fraud" and a "con man" but believe in McCain?
I said that O'Reilly is disputing the stop under the bridge that Edwards said he made, I never said it was about the existence of the homeless in New Orleans?
Do I need to say it 7000 times before some fools get it?
I get it, but couldn't you say the same thing about O'Reilly here? I'm pretty sure that he's lied so much, and so often in his career, that there is a very good chance that he never tried to contact the Edwards campaign at all, and just said it to try and prop himself up more. Isn't that possible? I'd say, with O'Reilly's track record, it is entirely possible.
I'd ask Bill O the following: Who did you contact in the campaign? Did you do it by phone or by e-mail or did you send someone in person? Do you have proof that you tried to contact the Edwards campaign and that you received the answer that you said that you did? Did you ask John Edwards directly? And if not, why not because he is the one that you're attacking about not knowing where the bridge is.
And so on and so on.
What reason does Edwards have for lying in this case? None, none at all.
What reason does Bill O'Reilly have for lying? It makes him look like some smart guy who wants to help, but can't find the homeless, and let's also look at who has lied more over the years. Show me where Edwards has made public lies lately, and then compare with O'Reilly.
It is possible for politicians to be truthful you know. Sure, it doesn't happen all the time, or even as much as we'd like, but sometimes, it does. That was the main issue with Carter I think when he was President. The man was just too darn honest, and it didn't help him at all.
Tommy, so your calling Edwards a liar? What proof do you have of this,other than your opinion? You can believe what you like but facts are stubborn things, Edwards says he visited the camp, and his advocacy on behalf of the poor and homeless is well documented, that you could accept the word of a proven Liar like Billo is further proof of the lack of substance in your thought process, and the bankruptcy of your conservative philosophy.
You can't beleive anything that comes out of O'Reilly's mouth. How can you trust an Irish guy that doesn't drink?
Thomp, you say that "it is just my opinion" that you do not like "his act". Sorry to be pedantic,but it sounds like you have an attitude not an opinion. Of course and opinion is based on looking at the whole issue not just casting a jaundiced eye.
Also, I thought Edwards experience in representing injured parties is a laudable asset. After one deals with the system, many valuable lessons are learned about how vile insurance companies can be.
First...I love the wording here..."members of a homeless colony" haha...so in reality we are dealing with a small army of bums. Now, I have a very legitimate argument for what we need to be doing with bums. Instead of having the government provide for them (at taxpayer expense), the government should pick up the bums off the street, and place them into jobs that illegal aliens are currently working. Next, you deport the illegal alien after removing him/her from the job.
This is a brilliant plan because it takes care of so many problems in one swoop. It gets bums off the streets and into a paying job. It eliminates the argument that we are "dependent" on illegals do do our work. It results in the deportation of illegals. It reduces the amount of money government spends on caring/providing services for street bums. Anyone else agree?
Anyone else agree? (John ####)
I'm sure somebody agrees, but his nurse may have restricted his use of the internets.
O'liely WANTS to believe they don't exist; its called republican cognitive dissonance, or self delusion . Therefore; he laughs it off; and then they don't exist;within the small confines of his small mind. He bothers not to investigate the issue. He puts it out of mind. Its a damn good thing the time republicans is up.
Im not gonna lose too much sleep as to whether he'll show up with a years supply of food and housing for the vets.
Just for Bill O'Reilly I went to Canal St and Claiborne Ave and took video and pictures to show that there are homeless people living under the bridge. Ironically, the man I spoke to is a homeless veteran.
Bill O'Reilly especially despises the homeless veterans.
I emailed Bill a link to http://www.tellmewherethebridgeis.com where he can see for himself the homeless encampment under the bridge.
How long will it take for Bill and Juan Williams to go to New Orleans to help "those people"?