OCCOM BILL wrote:Meanwhile; John Edwards is mapping out how he's going to
end poverty from the 28,000 sq ft mansion he bought with the money he swindled from innocent doctors. (Incredibly; some people actually believe in this guy.)
Anti-Poverty Headquarters:
Of all the anti-Edwards reproaches I've heard from the few people who care enough to get worked up about him, this one I find the most ridiculous. To me, it's the clearest sign that one's resentment against him is an irrational, visceral one rather than one based in argument.
He says he cares about the poor, but look, himself he is rich!
Uhm, yeah. And? Beyond the conclusion that he is no Ghandi, what does that tell us?
Think about it the logic behind this. Almost all the presidential candidates are very wealthy. A man like Romney is much more wealthy still than Edwards. But whereas the other candidates are A-OK for it, Edwards is a scumbag - because he is also wealthy, but dares to campaign against poverty as well!
So, what - if he was still running for President and being wealthy, but keeping mum about poverty and inequality, he would be a much better guy? Nonsense of course, if anything he'd be a worse guy. Yet in this logic, he would escape the ridicule O'Bill is levelling at him now. The political lesson: if you're wealthy and you're not ready to give away your own riches, then you should just shut up about poverty and justice --
even if you are running to be President of the USA. Wonderful.
There's a lot of rich guys who campaign against poverty in the world - just think of, I dunno, Bono. Some of them are a lot richer still than Edwards - take, say, Bill Gates. Are they scumbags? Of course I'd personally rather see them give a bigger share of their own wealth to the poor as well. Personally I think
anyone spending that much money on themselves is a bit tasteless - but that's my socialist/calvinist outlook. But given the choice between an extremely wealthy guy who at least spends much of his time putting the issue of poverty and inequality in the public eye, and one who just spends his time lavishing in his wealth and making ever more money, I know which one I prefer; at least the former is doing
something about it.
And then you have someone like Romney, who is himself extremely wealthy, and as politician propagates the kind of politics that gives people like him ever fatter tax breaks and leaves the poor even poorer!
Yet in the logic of O'Bill's argument here, it's OK for someone like Romney to be extremely wealthy and NOT talking about poverty, because at least that's 'consistent', while there's a howl of indignation at Edwards for being wealthy and yet still championing policies that would benefit the poor. Is that how you want to rank these people, really?
Truth is, many movements of emancipation - for worker rights, for womens rights - have, contradictorily, been led in particular by people who themselves were already in the middle or upper class. Thats how it often works, apparently. And those people have done a lot of good even while not casting aside their own personal wealth in some Ghandi-like gesture. Scumbags all?
OCCOM BILL wrote:And the latest pearl of wisdom: he must be good at convincing people stuff.
For God's sake, ehBeth, do I sound convinced to you?
No, you dont, but you'll have noticed that in your intensity of feeling against Edwards, you're pretty much on a one-man crusade here. So you're hardly representative of whether Edwards is persuasive or not.
In fact it's kinda ironic that you just labelled
Cyclo Don Quichote. Your brimming with indignation at Edwards has overwhelmingly met shrugs and blank stares here. Now I know that some A2Kers do dislike Edwards, or dont trust him; while many others obviously do like him. Either way, when it comes to your heated arguments about how he is single-handedly responsible for cheating doctors out of billions, and should get a lot of the blame for the whole health care system becoming more expensive, there seems to be about as much agreement as for an Omsigdavid post.
Meanwhile, when it comes to the voting population at large, Edwards'
favourability ratings are equal to John McCain's, Rudy Giuliani's and Barack Obama's.
To put your metaphor in context: John Edwards would be the lawyer who interviewed as many "Experts" as it took; to find one that would testify that tobacco is harmless (FACT: It took him several dozen interviews to find one that would endorse his junk-science on the stand). Amazing how quickly you divorce the man from his deeds under the cloak of doing his job. Do you do this same favor for Prosecutors who argue for the Death Penalty on behalf of the State? Did all of you magnanimous people withhold any and all personal thoughts about Kenneth Star; since he was "just an attorney doing his job". Or, if someone could access the Abuzz pages from the relevant timeframe might they find some, gasp, hypocrisy?
