USA Presidential Politics - 2008

[PlayadelSoul]

Originally Posted by ryberg

Ah, you guys...

There is a thing called CONTEXT, you know... You, Mark, persisted in presenting in a harsh light Elizabeth Edwards and her actions in this incident involving of course her comments to and criticism of Anne Coulter, and then answered Melliedee (do you and kirbyfan both really think I didn't get that?!?), continuing with criticism only this time of Melliedee's comments regarding whether such was a crime or whatever. I simply clarified that for her part, Elizabeth Edwards did not say that (whatever Melliedee may have said), and that Elizabeth Edwards' point was just that it lowers the quality of the political dialog at a time when if anything, it should be higher.

(Probably this move on my part was fundamentally misguided for this forum, as it was effectively an attempt to return to the topic. )

Listen, you guys don't want to respond to that key point from the whole incident, that's fine, I understand. It would in fact be a hard point for you to argue against, obviously, and as such Elizabeth Edwards would win that point. But your weird, over the top reading into my words suggest that you're just in some sort of weird denial about the fact that she even said it!

Sheez...

Steve

I responded to the off topic, subtopic, a long time ago. Ann Coulter doesn't speak for the GOP, no matter how hard you wish it.

Elizabeth Edwards' attempt to ambush Coulter, almost 4 years later, was trifling.

Ann Coulter's original piece was spot on about Edwards.

Edwards has talked about his son's death in a 1996 car accident on "Good Morning America," in dozens of profiles and in his new book. ("It was and is the most important fact of my life.") His 1998 Senate campaign ads featured film footage of Edwards at a learning lab he founded in honor of his son, titled "The Wade Edwards Learning Lab." He wears his son's Outward Bound pin on his suit lapel. He was going to wear it on his sleeve, until someone suggested that might be a little too "on the nose."


If you want points for not using your son's death politically, don't you have to take down all those "Ask me about my son's death in a horrific car accident" bumper stickers? Edwards is like a politician who keeps announcing that he will not use his opponent's criminal record for partisan political advantage. (I absolutely refuse to mention the name of my dearly beloved and recently departed son killed horribly in a car accident, which affected me deeply, to score cheap political points.)

I wouldn't want John Edwards to be president, but I think even Karl Rove would be willing to stipulate that the death of a son is a terrible thing.

[ryberg]

I think we're probably just repeating ourselves, here, and maybe even agreeing on some of these points!

Originally Posted by PlayadelSoul

Ann Coulter doesn't speak for me . . . The woman is nuts. She has no filter...´

Originally Posted by ryberg

For a guy who says Coulter is an extremist who doesn't represent the views of conservatives, it seems you are rather in agreement with her on a number of points and that she does represent your views...

Originally Posted by PlayadelSoul

Elizabeth Edwards' attempt to ambush Coulter, almost 4 years later, was trifling.

Ann Coulter's original piece was spot on about Edwards.

[Just Lucky]

Originally Posted by PlayadelSoul

I responded to the off topic, subtopic, a long time ago. Ann Coulter doesn't speak for the GOP, no matter how hard you wish it.

Elizabeth Edwards' attempt to ambush Coulter, almost 4 years later, was trifling.

Ann Coulter's original piece was spot on about Edwards.

For someone who doesn't seem to like Coulter you certainly seem to quote her and talk her an awful lot.

I think one is getting a glimpse of Edwards as an actual individual emotional human being by the way he is dealing with these somewhat traumatic events in his life. Personally I like to see the human side of leaders. The fact that events move them emotionally suggests to me that they might not enter into things like poorly planned and executed wars. Some of the greatest world leaders in history have had similar difficulties they have had to deal with.

[melliedee]

Ambushed by Elizabeth Edwards? She should have knocked her block off! New meaning to the "cheap" shot.

[PlayadelSoul]

Originally Posted by Just Lucky

For someone who doesn't seem to like Coulter you certainly seem to quote her and talk her an awful lot.

I think one is getting a glimpse of Edwards as an actual individual emotional human being by the way he is dealing with these somewhat traumatic events in his life. Personally I like to see the human side of leaders. The fact that events move them emotionally suggests to me that they might not enter into things like poorly planned and executed wars. Some of the greatest world leaders in history have had similar difficulties they have had to deal with.

Well, JL, seeing as the topic was brought up by Steve and it referred to an article written by her, I thought I would look it up rather than just knee jerk. Seems to be plenty of that going on already.

I like to see the human side of people, as well. Knowing, for example, that a Presidential candidate uses the death of his son to gain political points is very telling. Add to the mix, that he uses his wife to fight his battles, and you get an even clearer picture.

Here is John Edwards in a nutshell. He takes $50,000 in speaking fees to speak to the members of an organization that helps the poor on a limited budget. His theme? How one should give their time and resources to help the poor.

[PlayadelSoul]

Originally Posted by melliedee

Ambushed by Elizabeth Edwards? She should have knocked her block off! New meaning to the "cheap" shot.

So, Elizabeth had just been fuming about it for 4 years and then just decided now was the time? Puulease.

[Just Lucky]

Originally Posted by melliedee

Ambushed by Elizabeth Edwards? She should have knocked her block off! New meaning to the "cheap" shot.

While not a fan of violence I have to agree with the sentiment here. Coulter is the lowest form of political life as far as I can see. I sure wish folks would stop buying her books. Heck, I'll be there are folks giving input on this thread that buy her hateful diatribes.

[melliedee]

Originally Posted by PlayadelSoul

So, Elizabeth had just been fuming about it for 4 years and then just decided now was the time? Puulease.

You're right. She probably timed it to go along with the return of her cancer.

[sctx]

can we get off the Coulter kick???........it's just gonna make Rissask use her Freaky Ann avatar again and that thing really disturbs me

[roni]

Surviving the death of a son is a fact of my life. I refuse to, in conversations with others or in life in general, ignore that I raised a son to the age of 19. I talk about him. When someone asks about where he is etc....I tell them matter of factly that he died 8 years ago at the age of 19. He remains a very important part of my life story. All of us who have raised children know how transformative that activity is (and not exclusively in good ways, if we are completely honest).

From my perspective, I don't get a sense that Edwards is trying to gain political favor because his son died, or because his wife has cancer. In my opinion it goes beyond the limits of good taste and civilized discourse to assert that any politician is going for the dead kid vote or the cancerous spouse vote primarily because those things are a part of their life narrative and are publically known and talked about by a candidate.

[Just Lucky]

Originally Posted by PlayadelSoul

Well, JL, seeing as the topic was brought up by Steve and it referred to an article written by her, I thought I would look it up rather than just knee jerk. Seems to be plenty of that going on already.

I like to see the human side of people, as well. Knowing, for example, that a Presidential candidate uses the death of his son to gain political points is very telling. Add to the mix, that he uses his wife to fight his battles, and you get an even clearer picture.

Here is John Edwards in a nutshell. He takes $50,000 in speaking fees to speak to the members of an organization that helps the poor on a limited budget. His theme? How one should give their time and resources to help the poor.

I doubt you'd be likely to vote for him anyway. Do you have a link to the article about this organization that helps the poor or is this something Rush or Coulter dreamed up in their heads.

[ryberg]

Well just to sum up, here, Anne Coulter is whacko and has no filter and says things that make even conservatives cringe. And she doesn't speak for conservatives, anyway. But on the other hand, conservatives applaud her en masse when she calls a candidate a faggot. However she continues to be popular only because liberals make her so by misrepresenting her as being someone who benefits from support from conservatives. And getting back to the candidate, he and his wife are bad because his wife said Coulter's actions and language degraded the level of political dialog while calling Coulter on her behavior, even though that candidate's wife was the mother of a boy who died and who Anne Coulter talks about disrespectfully (incidentally in ways similar to how she talked about wives of others who died previously, but that's a whole nother story, you know). And Coulter decided it would be better to say on national TV that she hoped the candidate would be assassinated by terrorists, and then smiled pleasantly. Also the candidate is preferably referred to as a p***y than a faggot. And reaction against language and actions of the Coulter exhibits is just knee jerk reaction, not thoughtful or sincere.

I think that gets at least most of what we've covered here, doesn't it? Although remarkably when you read through it, the point that seems the most lost is Elizabeth Edwards' about how we really would benefit from a bit higher level of political dialog.

Steve

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by sctx

can we get off the Coulter kick???........it's just gonna make Rissask use her Freaky Ann avatar again and that thing really disturbs me

Oh, yes, excellent point!

Consider me done and I second that motion!

Steve

[Just Lucky]

Originally Posted by PlayadelSoul

So, how do you explain the fact that 19 of the top 21 newspapers in the country have an editorial bent to the left?

Money does talk. Ratings are money. Conservative talk radio makes lots of money and helps keep the Government in check. Liberal newspapers make money, as well. And, they help keep the Government in check.

I seriously can't believe that you would want to put the power of deciding who gets how much time to say what, to a Government flunkee. I am surprised by anyone, left or right, who would support any government control over the market of free speech. That is some scary stuff.

I'd be interested in reading these newpapers. What are their names? Who determined they have an "editorial bent to the left". What proportion of the public read newspapers in comparison to the number who get their information in whole or mostly from the broadcast media?

The fairness doctrine worked just fine for decades and was largely self enforced by the broadcasters themselves.

Folks say my local newspaper leans to the left. They endorsed GW Bush for President twice. Mighty liberal folks at that paper.

[sctx]

Originally Posted by Just Lucky

Folks say my local newspaper leans to the left. They endorsed GW Bush for President twice. Mighty liberal folks at that paper.

they were high on that Austin sticky bud......sometimes that search for "higher dialogue" kicks you in the ass