Now, Edwards also promises to stop global warming, but is this even possible? With sufficient political will, we can immediately stop contributing so much to global warming, but even then the earth will continue to warm for some time to come, until the pollutants of the past and the decreased pollutants of the present work their way out of the atmosphere.
Is John Edwards for real about global warming, or is he mostly an opportunist election-year convert to the issue? Can anyone remember John Edwards endeavoring to end global warming when he was a sitting US senator?
Here are two truly troubling paragraphs of non-sequiturs from the Edwards e-mail I received. Edwards says:
Tackling global poverty is the right and moral thing to do. And it’s also the smart thing to do for our security.
A great portion of a generation is being educated in madrassas run by militant extremists rather than in public schools. And as a result, thousands and thousands of young people who might once have aspired to be educated in America are being taught to hate America.
So, the solution to global poverty is to reduce the number of Muslims who attend madrassas, by providing more public schools and obliging Muslims to attend them, so that the world’s poor can aspire to go overseas to school in America? Haven’t we learned that restructuring Muslim societies is not a wise goal for Americans who desire to live in peace? This proposal sounds like a plan to infuriate Muslims and invite mockery, but certainly not a plan to end world poverty.
And why ever is John Edwards suddenly so concerned about “madrassas” in the context of this electoral campaign? Hmmm.
Still, John Edwards’ utopian promises continue seemingly infinitely. In this one e-mail, John Edwards also promises to “end the scourge of poverty in America within 30 years,” which is five and a half presidential terms after the next two-term president leaves office. I certainly understand the logic behind this 30 year balloon promise: It’s a way to express profound concern about a serious problem now, while leaving all of the serious solutions until two-generations from now.
Personally, I would prefer campaign promises that can be kept within my lifetime. But, Edwards clearly wants to win the votes of people who abhor incremental change, even when only incremental change is possible.
So why not add yet another incredible promise? If we can end all poverty “at home and abroad”, surely we can end all crime in the United States as well! Why not promise the end of all crime? When it comes to utopian 30-year baloon promises, talk is still very cheap.
John Edwards is surely a good man, but the more utopian promises he makes to the idealist/unrealists among us, the more he sounds like a slippery snake-oil salesman.
Cross-posted unedited, with other essays, at http://francislholla…
Anyone wishing to read those excerpts in context can link to the whole speech here. You may have a slightly different take on it than Mr. Holland.
<
p>
Mr Holland, I’m the last person to enjoy the “I’m for Goodness and against Badness!” kind of empty peprally snoozer speech. However, I wonder what you expect from a candidate this far out from the actual election? I actually think that this speech of Edwards goes farther than I’ve heard from other candidates at this time (although please post some links to other speeches if I’m wrong on that – thanks).
<
p>
Based on your other posts, I’m guessing your not an Edwards supporter. He must have turned you off before the NH speech – how so? Is it just the non-christian bloggers he hired temporarily? Instead of picking at this speech, why not lay out point for point what’s really bugging you about Edwards? I think that would be much more interesting and productive.
As I said elsewhere,
<
p>
Are there any viable candidates out there, in your view? If you pick on Edwards, you have to pick on Obama & Clinton too. They are most definately courting the status quo. So, have you found anyone you can support, and what about them engenders trust in you?
<
p>
Btw, I”m not challenging you for the sake of challenging you. I really want to know. I also see the top 3 Dems as supporting the heteronormative status quo, in spades. So we are in the same boat, but perhaps for different reasons.
The history of the United States has been so fundamentally based upon the presumed superiority and actual arrogated privilege of white males, that electing a president who is NOT a white male cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be considered a reaffirmation of the status quo. To the contrary, it would be the most concrete affirmation of change that American voters could effect in 2009, regardless of whether it is Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, or Bill Richardson’s election that ushers in this change. All of them would make excellent presidents.
<
p>
America cannot be an egalitarian nation of equality while its highest office is presumptively held ONLY by one group, based on their gender and skin color.
<
p>
Just as allowing women and Blacks to own property and vote was more than a “symbolic” gesture, so selecting women and minorities for the highest elected leadership positions is more than symbolic. It manifests and reflects a new willingness to share the fruits of America as well as the responsibilities.
<
p>
In addition, all of the three minority and woman candidates have at least twice as many years of public service experience as does John Edwards, if you include years in state legislatures and the US Congress as years of government service, which I believe is logical and appropriate. John Edwards has a grand total of six years public service experience compared to 33 years for Hillary Clinton, some 14 years in state and national government for Barack Obama, and at least 7 terms in Congress plus two governorships and 8 years (?) service in the Clinton Cabinet for Governor Bill Richardson.
<
p>
Considering the relative lack of experience of John Edwards, there simply is justifiable reason to make him the 44th white male president of the United States. And the reasons he offers make little sense. Those few who support him cite only his wonderful 30-year baloon promises as the reason for that support, although their is nothing in his resume to indicate a commitment or ability to effectuate those promises.
<
p>
And so I think his candidacy represents the 43-term white male monopoly of the presidency status quo, with the concommitant subservience for females and minorities that has always resulted from exalting white males above all others, regardless of the qualifications.
<
p>
The election of the first non-white-male president is as important to America as was the integration of the lunch counters, as a concrete manifestation of an improved equality, a new milestone on the road to the greatness that our nation was meant to achieve. Just as ending segregation and commencing integration led to the growth of a black middle class and opportunities for women beyond the gates of the home, increased political participation for women and minorities is the real solution to poverty and the ills that burden the poor.
<
p>
The best way that John Edwards can help women and minorities (much the poor) in 2008 is by helping to elect one of them president and thereby helping to improve their political, economic and social status in the United States of America. And so I call upon John Edwards to announce his support for changing the status quo and improving the status of women and minorities, by electing the first non-white-male president of the United States in 2008.
Electing a non white &/or non male president would be huge and meaningful. Of course, Obama, Clinton & Richardson aren’t allowed to really address this because they have to pretend that race & gender in this country don’t matter enough to exclude them from “winnability”. But of course, as you say above, race and gender matter a lot in this country. If it didn;t we would have had non white and female presidents long ago. Obama, Clinton & Richardson are faced with the problem of having to court for votes the very status quo that they wish to change. Let us hope that at least one of them can do that sucessfully without selling out to it!
in what seems like a long time.
Despite your argument below, I’m afraid I can’t see this position as anything but bigotry. The thing it most reminds me of is the people who voted for GWB on the ground the he was “one of them” as a Bible-believing Christian. I have looked at the candidates based on their stated positions and evidence of character. I will support Sen. Clinton or Sen. Obama (or Gov. Richardson for that matter) if they win the nomination, but I’m going to work for Sen. Edwards until or unless they do.
<
p>
The actual arguments you have raised against Edwards have been, in my opinion, without substance. The claim that he is anti-Catholic and anti-Christian is beneath contempt. I think your current claim is just factually wrong. A President with a deep commitment to expanding health care, fighting poverty, and combating global warming can make a difference, by proposing legislation, not vetoing good legislation, appointing executive branch officials who will support his goals, issuing executive orders, and providing moral suasion. It would certainly not be the “status quo” when that consists of the GWB administration.
by acknowledging that many people said they voted for Bush becasue “he was like them”. This means that a majority of voters, unlike you, don’t look first at the realy qualifications of the candidate. To them, the main qualification is that the candidate won’t ripple their waters. I applaud you for really looking at the candidates non-external characteristics. Won’t it be an amazing day when the majority of the electorate proves that they can do that too?
<
p>
I don’t agree with all of francislholland’s criticisms of Edwards either, but those criticisms are really beside this larger point. IMHO
…You are suggesting that voting against Edwards would be the best way to undermine the status quo?
<
p>
If Edwards turns out to be the Democratic candidate, since the Republican candidate will almost assuredly be a white male (as far as I can tell, every candidate on the Republican party is one), then people should cast their vote against Edwards because he’s a white male? That would only accomplish…maintaining the status quo.
<
p>
BTW, methinks you are reading far too much into Edwards’s email.
Please don’t confuse the issue by bringing in Republicans. The first decision we have to make is as between perpetuating the status quo by nominating another white male or challenging the status quo by, for the first time, nominating someone who isn’t a white male. That is a decision that has nothing whatsoever to do with the Republicans, so please don’t even bring them up in this context.
Please don’t confuse the issue by bringing in Republicans. The first decision we have to make is as between perpetuating the status quo by nominating another white male or challenging the status quo by, for the first time, nominating someone who isn’t a white male. That is a decision that has nothing whatsoever to do with the Republicans, so please don’t even bring them up in this context.
I read the entire speech. I disagree with Mr. Holland. But then, my mother was a mill worker – and so I am told was John Edward’s mother. Perhaps he is an optimist, and lays out a path where the challenge is to do the right thing by education at home and abroad, etc. because he has experienced the reality that hard work makes a difference.
Remember how LBJ promoted the status quo by passing the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act? Of course, he wasn’t that rich.
<
p>
Remember how FDR, a rich white male from a family that had already produced a president, promoted the status quo with the Works Progress Administration, the Social Security Act, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Rural Electrification Act, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and Unemployment Insurance.
That really promoted the status quo of Harding, Coolidge and Hoover.
<
p>
Yes, history tells us it was a big mistake electing FDR and LBJ.
I have crossposted this from another thread by francis holland that deals with Edwards’ apology:
<
p>
I have no problem with the fact that John Edwards has apologized for his war vote. What I have a huge problem with is the fact that he has become a serial apologizer, to the extent that he looks unpresidential. Moreover, he uses the fact that he apologized as a tool against Hillary but he doesn’t have the balls to actually use her name; and when asked after his speeches IF he meant Hillary, he replies that he will leave it to Hillary to let her conscience be her guide. What a sickening dude he really is. He poses no threat to Hillary Clinton and his ill-conceived plan to use his apology against her has failed.
He’s stuck in third place and I predict he’ll drop out sooner than later, and good riddance to him.
francislholland from dailykos?
<
p>
How’s your girl Hillary doing? You’ve got my boy in the crosshairs on this diary and I’d like to just say one thing. At least Edwards is trying to have an honest dialog with the people of this country about the issues by representing the Democratic Party as the voters see the party and not the “wise guys and pundits” cynically engineer the message.
<
p>
I cannot in good conscience support another Clinton candidacy full of moderation, triangulation, DLC talking points and YOYO economics. I want my party back and that means electing/nominating leaders that represent Democratic values and not just the value of getting elected.
<
p>
Deval Patrick talked about this unfortunate trend in Democratic politics a lot in his stump speech:
I’ll take naive, unsophisticated and principled vision any day over the politics of the third way that, in my opinion, only serves to blur the differences between the parties.
and as I mentioned on another thread, he’s been banned in both places.
<
p>
He is more or less following the behavior standards here so far, I must admit.