Now that we have reached the black comic post-portem stage of the John Edwards scandal with Andrew Young’s book out and pundits playing mop up, it’s time to address an interesting question: To what degree did John Edwards’ “leftism” affect his extraordinarily narcissistic behavior?
The quotes around leftism are, of course, deliberate because Edwards wasn’t a real leftist. He is the poster boy for a faux-leftism that permeates our culture. Nothing could be more obvious than that Edwards, who took the furthest left stance of the three Democratic presidential candidates in the last election, cared next to nothing for “the people” but excessively for himself, building the McMansion of McMansions, etc. And “stance” is the operative word here, because his positions always seemed adopted, not felt.
Is there a cause and effect relationship here? We do live in an era when the private behavior and lifestyles of liberal-left politician seem completely out of whack with their public pronouncements. Besides Edwards, Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi come quickly to mind, but there are others. It’s doubtful Gore and Pelosi lived personal lives anywhere near as execrable as Edwards’ but there are parallels, especially in the area of personal enrichment (“green” or otherwise). And then there are liberals (or should I say faux-leftists) operating in the public sphere from George Soros to Ariana Huffington about who similar charges could and have been made. And then there’s Hollywood, the indigenous home of this kind of behavior.
Why has this happened? Well, it’s certainly not new. Back in the Thirties, New York was suffused by a kind of radical chic about Stalin’s Soviet Union. This was named “Penthouse Bolshevism” by journalist Eugene Lyons who was the UPI’s Moscow correspondent and had seen life the Soviet Union up close. When he returned, he was amazed at the naivete of Le Tout New York’s adoration of Stalin. Lyons wrote about this and ended up ostracized for a time. The more things change, etc.
People want to be seen as left, but not be left. Or at least have to live as left. This behavior seems more extreme now because there is more of it, an almost willed separation between what you say and what you do. The MSM has participated greatly in covering up this division, because they are frequently a part of it, profiting from this illusion-reality game whose aim is to fool the self as much as it is to fool others.
But it is breaking down. The Tea Party Movement, with its disdain for hypocrisy, is on the rise. But more importantly, there is a great contradiction (to use a marxist term) confronting us. Almost everyone realizes that socialist economics are ridiculous. They have never worked. That is more than ever the message of our times. So how do you take a position of faux-leftism when you can no longer advertise the faux part? You’re trumped.
So most likely no more John Edwardses, at least for now. We’ll have to find a new form of scalawag. That shouldn’t be hard, alas.
Hypocrisy is the homage vice pays to virtue, some wise man observed, but never have we such bowing and scraping going on. The Tea Party rose on a wave of disgust and revulsion against our rulers, including the monster Nancy Pelosi. It now develops that she has been commandeering military aircraft to shuttle her children and grandchildren around the country. Isn’t there a criminal statute applicable? Look for the MSM to pursue that story with the same zeal if did ClimateGate, ACORN, Van Jones, the Rev. Wright and all the other stories with the potential to embarrass the Democratic Party. Want to bet they are trolling to see if there are more pictures from that Scott Brown shoot that could knock that bandwagon off the rails? The MSM exists to serve the left.
Pelosi’s lifestyle is rich. She lives in a Pacific Heights mansion (attached, brick, not Victorian), but still $3M – $4M. She flies private jets (I mean publicly-owned private). She flies out of Travis instead of SFO, even though her house is closer to SFO. Perhaps it’s easier to access from a ski house or Napa? Her husband is involed with all sorts of regulatory rent seeking under the guise of being an investment banker. Her kids went to the most expensive private high school in San Francisco. She leads the typical caviar socialist lifestyle and is not being called out on it. Where is the press when we need it?
John Edwards gravitated towards the Democratic Party almost certainly because its core economic policies are dedicated to wealth redistribution. As a practical matter, this means Democrats believe in offering bribes for votes. A Republican candidate behaving similarly must violate their own party’s principles. Politicians instinctively realize that Peter normally loves the taking of stuff from Paul. He merely needs to find a way to rationalize away the theft. One merely must make sure that Peter represents the majority of voters—and you should win many elections. Will Paul continue to be played for a sucker in the future? Is he likely to be less productive? Such logical questions are conveniently ignored. Countless voters are easily fooled when “getting stuff” from politicians. They don’t even begin to comprehend the long-term costs. Only the short-term benefits are considered on Election Day.
It’s narcissism. These sorts of faux leftists wear their politics like jewelry. Something to be displayed and admired by others, but signifying nothing but the vanity of the wearer. A fashion statement. A tribal affiliation displayed by adults in middle school developmental arrest who are still desperate to be among the Cool Kids.
Actually, I think it’s none of the above. In my mind, these are people who have become wealthy, or were born with money, and feel guilty about it. Think about it. Our society tells you, from the word go, that a “rich” man is inherently evil. Everyone from Jesus (“the eye of the Needle”) to Oliver Stone (“Greed is good”) tells you the rich are evil incarnate. So a person with lots of money, earned or not, feels guilty about it.
The response is to either go into charitable works, to try and help those less fortunate, or to go into government service, and try to regulate and “help” those less fortunate. One of the interesting things about this is the number of wealthy Democrats who are in favor of higher taxes on the “rich”. This is almost always portrayed, in the media, as a self-sacrificing instinct, because these people are “rich” themselves. The taxes, though, almost always hit those *making* a lot of money, not those who have already accumulated large amounts of cash. If you have tens or hundreds of millions in the bank already, your accountant can find new ways around the law. If you are a small businessperson getting larger fast, becoming rich, the money’s probably coming out of your pocket.
As a result, I’ve always taken wealthy liberals, who want to increase taxes on the rich, as a sort of self-preservation-oriented group. They’re rich, they feel guilty about it, and they want to make sure as few other citizens make the same mistake they did, and become wealthy. It’s better staying middle-class, so you don’t get invited to those annoying parties at Gore’s house. Trust them on this: being rich isn’t a cakewalk. To make yourself feel better, you have to get yourself elected to a government position, and then regulate everyone else’s life. It’s hard.
Edwards, the quintessential narcississtic- elitist-hypocrite-charlatan is just like the messianic, Hypocrite-in-Chief. These two, along with the perpetually angry, racist Reid and tax-n-spend queen Pelosi, and tthe Progressives’ hardcore supporters like Michael Moore, Madonna, Ed Schultz and the laughable mainstream media — they all will destroy the Democratic party as we know it, and they only have themselves to blame.
Mr. Simon, Don’t compare Edwards to 1930s leftists. In the 30′s, a left winger, even as far left as a ‘fellow traveler’, had a definite integrity. Lining up with Stalin defeated Hitler. The depression era and WW2 generation leftists in the U.S. were opposed to what C. Wright Mills called ‘The Power Elite’. The neocons are making a mistake by not distinguishing between the old and the new left. This includes ignoring the antifascist books and theater solely because they were written by leftists.
Edwards on the other hand is a part of the lawyerism and media narcissism that pervades our present culture. He is a Paris Hilton with a Law Degree and able to pass the bar exam.
I take your point, Houyhunhnm, but I would check out such works as “The Red Decade” by Eugene Lyons. Radical chic is not an invention of our time by any means, although, as you say, it may have become more pervasive.
I do agree with you about countenancing anti-fascist plays, although Hellman has been revealed as a bit much.
At least Gomer is gone and pretty much for all time and that is good! His soon to be ex wife will end up with all he has and that also is good. Bye bye Gomer (or is it Goober)?
Houyhnhnm,
“In the 30’s, a left winger, even as far left as a ‘fellow traveler’, had a definite integrity. Lining up with Stalin defeated Hitler.”
Other than that pesky intermediate stage when lining up with Stalin also meant supporting Hitler. See also: Dalton Trumbo and Pete Seeger.
Ed
Actually, the behavior of leftists is both amazingly consistent and quite realistic.
Leftist/socialist regimes are by nature rigidly caste-oriented and class-conscious, no matter what they may claim.
At the top are the Party leaders, who in all these polities invariably enjoy a lifestyle Caligula would envy; not only can they have anything they want, they can “have” anybody they want, too (even if the experience is terminal for the “anybody”).
Just below them are the Party functionaries, who are the nearest thing to a “middle class”. They may, by dint of effort, get into the leadership class, but only if they have a “patron”- who is already there. And they will owe him, big time.
Below them are the proletariat. Not eligible for the benefits of Party membership, even if they are members. And in most such states it is a legal requirement, to obtain housing, a job, etc. (Insert your favorite observation about labor unions here.) They are the ones who work to keep those above them afloat. Which is the only reason their “superiors” even tolerate their existence. (Other than the thrill of having someone to kick around as they wish, of course.)
What keeps this three-layer cake from collapsing? The military and police, of course, whose function is to protect the Party hierarchy from “enemies domestic and foreign”. Meaning, largely, the “proles”.
(This is yet another reason our “domestic brand” of socialists deeply resent and hate our military and police- because by law, they aren’t allowed to behave as the “enlightened elite’s” Praetorian Guard, and wouldn’t do it anyway on general principles.)
Yes, trendy socialists will tell you that this is a description of a capitalist society, like ours, if you subtract the word “Party”. There’s a word for that- “Projection”. They see our society that way because to them, it’s the only “fitting and proper” social order. As long as they’re the ones calling the shots (literally), and reaping the benefits.
In our “brutal” capitalist culture, you don’t have to be a Party member, and swear fealty to the godhead, to be able to succeed on your own terms. Meaning, you don’t have to worship them. And that peeves them no end.
Edwards, Pelosi, and of course Obama are cases in point. It isn’t enough for any of them that they have “the moon on a silver platter”- like Apollo in the Star Trek episode “Who Mourns for Adonais?”, they want sacrifices in their names from loving acolytes as well.
And they can’t understand why the rest of us aren’t on our knees, anymore than Apollo could understand Kirk.
clear ether
eon
“The Rich are different…” you know the rest.
In S.F./Napa, it’s mansions and only the best for their kids. Edwards should move here. Then when he comes to town we can say, “As to you and the pig(s) you rode in on…(see Rule #1)
SCUM FLOATS.
Yet another variation of the phoniness and fantasy of modern American leftism… real leftists are committed like Ed Begley, riding his generator bike to make power for toasting his morning bagels.. Nobody in a mansion with jets and limos and $400 haircuts could POSSIBLY be even halfway committed to leftism..
I dislike Ed Begley immensely, but I also respect him for living his (insane) beliefs.
We should print a bunch of Begley posters and caption them with slogans challenging all leftists to abandon the lifestyles of the rich and famous and get serious about what they believe…
Up to and including challenging population control advocates to set positive examples by offing themselves.
Edwards flew to Haiti to what?? Lend assistance to recovery? Or get laid? He’s a sterling representative of our legal culture, i.e all the justice that money can buy.
I wonder if Americans are waking up? Pond scum. you don’t reason with it. You purge it. John has earned a $1000 hnaircut, a Clinton BJ, and everlasting obscurity.
Edwards flew to Haiti to what?? Lend assistance to recovery? Or get laid? He’s a sterling representative of our legal culture, i.e all the justice that money can buy.
I wonder if Americans are waking up? Pond scum. you don’t reason with it. You purge it. John has earned a $1000 haircut, a Clinton BJ, and everlasting obscurity.
Am I the only one who finds the paean to tribalism that’s running beside the story, more than a little ironic? Strange, at least?
The number and nature of the mental disorders
of the Loony liberal Left are of interest,but
the burning question is how will they respond
when they feel personally threatened with the
loss of whatever they use for primary goals.
The anecdote is 3rd hand, but checkable:
Oprah Winfrey was interviewing an epidemiologist
on the worst case scenario for an H1N1 epidemic.
He seemed puzzled by her detached concern, until
he realized that she thought she would be safe
in her penthouse, watching on her Home Theatre
the suffering of the common people down below.
When he explained to her that there would be
a breakdown of unmanned infrastructure, such
as powerplants, hence no electricity for the
TV or the elevator, or the AC, or..
She became quite flustered.
Edwards may be in this category, and hence
amenable to appeals to his self interest.
Many of the others seem to have a hatred
of humanity, a hatred of self, and a
heavy-duty death wish; How does one dissuade
an individual from promoting policies which
will give them their hidden heart’s desire ?
See also David Hemmings villain in “Zardoz”
There were stories after Katrina, while the police were confiscating all weapons from people leaving the city, there were also security guards armed with M 16s guarding the homes of the wealthy. I just wonder how many of them were populist Democrat politicians.
There is absolutely nothing “faux” about Edwards’ leftism. Leftist never practice what they preach. It is a hallmark of being a leftist.
Dekpends on the thirties leftists you’re talking about. The pro-Stalinist ones had no intellectual integrity at all, happily shifting their views directly in accordance with the party line and, as someone points out above, suddenly being pro-Hitler after the Molotov-Ribbentop pact. One of the books I’ve been searching for over the years is from Pete Seeger’s group, The Almanac Singers. It’s called “Songs for John Doe” and is a collection of anti-war songs.
The reason its hard to find is that it came out in mid-June 1941 and less than a week after it was published what had been an imperialist war that only greedy capitalists favored became a crusade for freedom and anti-fascism.
You didn’t need to be a Stalinist to be anti-fascist. The Socialist Party of Norman Thomas, for example, was democratic and had democratic if not necessarily practical policies and goals. People didn’t become Stalinists because they were anti-fascist; there was more and anyone who stayed with the CP after the Dewey hearings in 1937 either knew what was going on and didn’t care, or made an effort not to know.
As to people like James Cameron who live in 8,200 square foot mansions and lecture the rest of us–Laurie David is beyond parody–it reminds me of the line from the old Socialist anti-communist song, “The Land of the ‘Daily Worker,’” sung to “Pop goes the Weasel:”
“United front was quite a stunt,
It took in many a sucker,
And many a dame with a Maylfower name
Is reading the Daily Worker.
“and Uncle Joe, as you might know,
With many a grin abnd smirker–
He sees the line go over fine,
They’re reading the Daily Worker.”
Edwards and Pelosi are prime examples of what I call ‘Stepford liberals’. They can always be identified by their mindless expositions devoid of reality-based feedback, their glazed eyes, and rictus grin.
I invite PJ readers to use the term, as well as find other examples currently in extent… it can be a fun game, and satisfying when each next one is recognized.
What these elitists don’t seem to understand that if they keep poking the tiger with the sharp stick eventually the tiger is gonna rip the stick out of their hands,rip their arm off and eat it.
funny stuff…Edwards and wife are a pair.
Also, we hear about Pelosi etc and their perks…but, nothing ever gets done about them..nothing..so, now we need dirt on Pelosi…a sex tape..her the downstairs maid, a wine bottle….
And if the Enquirer..of all rags…hadn’t tracked Edwards and his girlie down..nothing would have happened there either.
i was surprised when mccain-kennedy chose palin over edwards-kennedy for his vp choice. it would have been perfect.
Plaintiff lawyers are the High Priests of the Taking Coalition. Edwards was just being typical, politically and morally.
[Off subject]
Posted by: Ron
Feb 01, 08:30 AM
Also look into right wing weirdo Gary North’s ideas. Gary wrote a letter to Palin.
It is still on Ace of Spades. It is a plan for a massive expansion of the Tea Party movement.
Objective: Take over the country from the bottom up.
so we’re supposed to be biased against Pelosi b/c she’s not poor, lives in Nob Hill, sent kids to private school, etc.?
lemme see…there’s this guy, think his name was…? Daddy was a CIA Director, Vice-Presient, President and son of East Coast blue blood senator. I think that guy was a governor of a state in the south. what’s that “don’t mess with…” state? gosh, can’t think…
I think he first went to a prep school, then a boarding school for high school. I think that guy went to like, Yale or something on family name and played rugby. Then was able to get into Harvard. Crap grades, total connections. I even think they vacation in Maine or something. Oh, and when he was running for president, he bought a ranch so he could be like other folks and clear brush.
I just…I’m sure if I think really hard, I’ll come up with his name…
And, I don’t recall sneering about Issa’s worth. Or McCain’s. Or McConnell’s. Real men of the “people”.
Edwards cheated and lied about sex. Even fathered an illegitimate kid. Dan Burton?* Vitter? Ensign? Sanford? Gingrich? Guliani? Fosella?
(*has an illegitimate kid)
Foley? Craig? (I believe, based upon sexuality, that both have been “on their knees” before)
And what about your revered men of the people such as Beck? Limbaugh? O’Reilly?
You may want to cork that spewing hypocrisy, there, peeps.
The “left” as founded by Lenin is the permanent Reign of Terror started by Maximillian Robespierre. It appeals to those who want tyrannical power, which is why many wealthy people, like George Soros, are members of it.
The US dollar has lost over 90% of its purchasing power in the last 40 years.
The Petro dollar, which is the only support for the US dollar at this time, is being replaced by Russia, China and Iran with Either Euro or more probable the Yuan ( Chinese dollar ) for settlement of petroleum contracts. Expect to see collapse of US dollar in the next 2-3 years.
Manufacturing has been decimated by trade policies favoring the location of american companies offshore
America is losing its ability to decide its own fate, becoming subservient to International currency and credit markets
There is an Ongoing FBI investigation into money laundering centered in Chicago, and will soon spread to Washington DC involving well known politicians on both sides of the aisle. These politicians are using known Turkish terrorist organizations
There is some pretty good talent on this website, there should be more hard hitting stories written on themes that are about to change the way Americans live and earn their paycheck. Its not republican or democrat, its a systematic attack on America itself.
Edwards is a fool and knave, he should be relegated to the back pages of the national Enquirer.
The demise of America however, should be detailed and outlined for what it is; the abandonment of US interests by its own elected officials.
American Citizens are played for fools by their own government, nobody republican or democrat stands up to question the source of the countries Ills unless it is grandstanding and absurd labeling of Communist or Nazi, depending which side of the aisle is being screamed at.
Get over the facades, and start investigating where things really went wrong; the adoption of the Petro-Dollar to support American economy, American Government agencies operating banking industries, laundering monies though terrorist organizations, etc, etc… Americans will not like what they find.
It’s hardly a partisan issue when men let their dicks do the thinking for them. Mark Sanford, anyone? How about John Ensign? Newt Gingrich? Henry Hyde? This is a classic case of throwing stones from a very fragile glass house.
#29 avoidswork: Obviously work is not the only thing you avoid. I’m sick and tired of the Bush “crap grades” meme. The ones with crap grades were Kerry and Gore. I remember during the presidential campaign when the liberals first tried the “Bush is stupid, our guy’s an intellectual genius” argument. It lasted until the candidates’ transcripts became public and were compared. The only thing heard after that were crickets chirping.
Jesus never condemned being rich or making money; His statement was a warning about how money and luxury can become a snare for one’s soul. If you make money into an idol, it will destroy you.
Put more succinctly: modern leftism is a fantasy ideology, more about proving your commitment to an appealing (to some) ostensible worldview than about reality.
Here’s a great quote from Ronald Reagan:
“The West will not contain Communism; it will transcend Communism.
We will not bother to denounce it. We’ll dismiss it as a sad, bizarre chapter in human history whose last pages are even now being written.”
He must have been thinking of people like Edwards.
There are only so many ways that you can say preening, narcissistic schmuck.
To what degree did John Edwards’ “leftism” affect his extraordinarily narcissistic behavior? -R. Simon
Actually, shouldn’t the self-centered narcissistic behavior be affecting (or driving) the leftism?
I will argue that ‘volk-marxism’ (vulgar marxism) is the leftist philosophic core. It is as empty as their souls, pretty much. But self-elected elites (Edwards, Pelosi, et al) can jump aboard that train to get the public approval they crave.
I would put Edwards in the same camp of Clinton, men who are just interested in the power, and will say or do anything to get it. They aren’t leftists, but see the Democratic party — quite rightly — as the easiest vehicle to obtain the power. Just make empty promises to the parasites and ignoramuses, the blacks, the environmental whackos, the gays. The main qualification is that one has to be a slick talker and have no moral scruples.
Obama, Peloso, Reid, and Frank fall into the camp of wanting the power, and being willing to say or do anything to get it, but they are more dangerous to the country because they are also leftists.
Edwards’ background, and how he made his money in the first place have to be taken into account. When you can win huge lawsuit settlements by basically bamboozling 12 members of a jury into an emotional decision, and when the targets of your suits are the biggest pockets around, usually corporations, it’s no surprise Edwards would have both an anti-business stance and the belief his words were so smooth and his audience so gullible he could sell ice to Eskimos.
Which he did, primarily to gullible liberals and to most of the media, who still loved Edwards up until last year, even though they loved Barack Obama more because of what he represented. Had Obama not run in 2008, a significant portion of the left and the big media still would have directed their vitrol during the primary at Hillary, only with John Edwards being the main beneficiary of the unquestioning love that kept them from reporting on the Hunter scandal for the better part of 2 1/2 years.
For wealthy liberal elites and Hollywood types, their extreme left posturing is the perfect way to assuage the guilt of privilege and at the same time keep the serfs from storming their castles.
But the author makes a great point – this can no longer hold when left/liberalism takes power and proletariat anger can no longer be directed at capitalist establishments. After a spurt or two of more freebies, the average person starts to realize that there is not enough to go around unless private businesses thrive and everyone works – at something besides rainbow coalitions, community esteem development and green theater.
thank you (:
from the “democratic” underground website,the john edwards(i kid you not!) support group:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=257
@33 — Kerry (especially) and Gore had meh grades at Harvard/Yale, respectively. But Bush’s were not great at all and he was an average “C” student. Despite his MBA from Harvard, his business endeavors have been less than stellar. (BTW, Gore/Obamam graduated with Honors).
My main point is this: you seem to call “X” elitist in this scenario without acknowledging that “Y” is elitist, too. GWB came from a very privileged background. I am not condemning him for his background, but pointing out that Grandpappy was a Senator from New England, Daddy was CIA director, VP then President. He never owned an equivalent of Crawford until running for Pres and now they live in a swank Dallas community. He found his “higher Father” in his mid-life (late 30′s/early 40′s). So his man of the people meme wasn’t exactly as forthcoming as, say, Huckabee.
Team Edwards is baaaaad for their performance and I hate how far they have fallen. John – Awful for denying his child for the first year + of her life. What makes me sad, whatever the motivations, was the work he had done for the poor and now that credibility is utterly lost. Deservedly lost b/c. But the cause was good.
I wonder if Mark Sanford took notes from Edwards or maybe they compared notes during a shared camping trip. Both being from the south, it could have been the water. What do you think?
There are elitists who take our money and there are elitists who leave us alone.
Strange world we live in when the National Enquirer, a magazine originally created to cater to the Jerry Springer crowd, does a better job of displaying the truth than say the New York Times, Newsweek and Time Magazine.
But the with lefty demographic and their heroes called Frank Rich, Maureen Dowd, Joe Klein and Paul Krugman still spinning wild stories with a healthy dose of BDS daily, one does wonder how long the charade can go on.
Edwards is a charlatan and a philanderer. I have always despised him. I am sure I was right about Kerry and Al Gore too. Next subject.
29 & 32: none of those men fathered a child whom he very publicly and internationally denied as his own, while at home, his wife was suffering from cancer. Also, none of those men were that close to becoming the next President of the United States.
Take a look at Toby Harnden, the US editor for the Telegraph newspaper. His blog is well worth
reading.
“Nothing could be more obvious than that Edwards, who took the furthest left stance of the three Democratic presidential candidates in the last election, cared next to nothing for “the people” but excessively for himself, building the McMansion of McMansions, etc.”
Pseudo? Don’t you mean ‘pure.’ Edwards had the same concern for the people as average Secretary-General of the Soviet Union, the same remote dacha as the most superior nomenklaturist, etc. Hatred of the people, contempt for the people, exploitation of the people, where are these not the record of leftists? That was Edwards, 100% pure.
A faux Gingrich ‘revolution’ like the Tea Party is underway which will end worse than the real Gingrich ‘revolution’.
A simple cycle back to other oligarchs and more but perhaps different corruption. Thank W for that.
Bring back Goldwater and Perot and Kirkpatrick.
There were so many people talking about John Edwards on Twitter that it was one of the top trending topics for a while – check out the video at http://www.joshrimer.com/john-edwards-fatthoughts-supreme-court/ to see some of the more entertaining ones in a funny video.
29. avoidswork:
The difference is the do as I say not as I do marxist-elitist policies of the progressive left and to a lesser extent the progressive right. They both stink on ice.
What you confuse when we criticize that evil b!tch Pelosi is that the criticism is in no way defense of “my-guy”. Bush was a poor president – as you love to point out, and your marxist Messiah is a dozen times worse. That’s something you progressives find yourself unable to believe even though you’ll point to a progressive Bush policy, unchanged by your marxist Messiah, and then defend the WORSE policy in spades.
I’ll point to Bush’s economic policies as an example. A progressive Congress and progressive Bush created billions in deficits – BAD Bush! Now, a progressive Congress and a progressive/marxist President increase the deficit to TRILLIONS and all you can point to is Bush’s poor policy. BAD on YOU – where the hell are your faux principles now?
In case you didn’t see the theme here. They are all progressives and the only way it’s all going to stop is to roll it back. The Constitution must be reaffirmed and reinstated and ALL of it (the EPA, NEA, IRS – your marxist income tax system, the wefare stacked on welfare, corporate and otherwise) must be rolled back. We are only going to find common ground in our original Federalist system and libertarianism – nNotice that I’ve in no way advocated legalizing drugs (state’s rights issue). Why is it always about the drugs?
The first step is to forbid property (corporations and unions) from contributing to the political process. They are PROPERTY and the concept of a piece of paper having free speech is disingenuous at best. Also, If you cant legally vote for the person, you cant give money. I cant think of a reason why I as a citizen of Utah should have any say in who gets elected in New York.
I’ll go out borrowing a line from Aliens – “It’s the only way to be sure”.
@55 — translation: “blah blah blah”
In all your blather, CJ, WTFrak does that have to do with (1) this article; (2) Obama; (3) anything you said?
I reviewed the definition of “elitist” on Conservapedia and it lists solely democrats. What I am pointing out is that some Republicans can act in the same fashion and avoid this term “elitist” because…?
My point is that the word is bandied around with solely the “left” despite applying to the right. Mitt Romney put in place a healthcare plan in MA that was essentially what was in the recent plan for US healthcare. I don’t hear him being labeled “socialist”, “facist”, “gonna kill grandma”. (BTW, in the DKos/Research 2000 poll, behind the 42% undecided, Romney is second to Palin in which person would be chosen for the Republican 2012 primary). I do not recall the character of McCain discussed despite not knowing how many homes he owns (that’s not elitist?!) or his abhorrent treatment of his first (disfigured) wife (and apparent verbal abuse of his current wife) after returning home from Vietnam. The Reagans shunned McCain after the stunt of dropping wife #1 for the beer heiress. And let us not forget that McCain excelled like Bush excelled — Daddy connections. Also, gonna tell me that Newt Gingrich is not “elitist?” Guliani?
Beck – no. Rich, yes, but elitist, no.
Again, Edwardses – grateful these *sshats never made it to the WH. But, I’m also grateful that other *sshats didn’t make it to the WH as well.
In all your blather, CJ, WTFrak does that have to do with (1) this article; (2) Obama; (3) anything you said?
Exactly! You dont have the IQ of a carrot, let alone the ability to comprehend what or any conservatve articulates.
DAVIDN, I disagree with you on two points. These people are so self-involved they are incapable of feeling that kind of guilt. Also, Jesus did not say being rich is evil. He said it is hard for the rich to enter heaven because of the temptation to worship money and not God.
These people, of both sides of the aisle, are interested in money and power and will lie, cheat and whatever else it takes to get it. We need to rid our government of these type of cancers. The Hollywood narcissists are just shallow tools easily used by the power hungry.