So he's totally loaded...what's new?

(I personally think it's tacky/gaudy, but hey, if he wants to be lame with his money, that's on him.)

1/28/2007 4:11:55 PM

a rich politician??!?

this is news to me

1/28/2007 4:16:39 PM

at least with edwards we know where his money came from. how many politicians are there (on both sides) who get elected and are upper middle class and retire with 10 million plus in assets.

1/28/2007 4:55:13 PM

I don't really give a shit if a politician is rich or not... whatever floats their boat

but when he/she gives off the impression that they don't want me to become wealthy also... then I have the problem with them

I'm not gonna waste my time arguing with any of you, not like any of us are gonna change

1/28/2007 4:58:38 PM

^When did he give off the impression that he didn't want to become wealthy? Was that before or after he made millions and millions of dollars?

We can help the poor and continue to create wealth for ourselves, you know.

1/28/2007 5:08:44 PM

CRAZY TALK

1/28/2007 5:16:27 PM

^^didnt you know? If you support helping the poor eat then you dont want anyone to be wealthy. but if you support cutting taxes for 1% of the population and paying for those tax cuts by cutting off social services to those who need them to live then you want everyone to be wealthy.

1/28/2007 7:36:39 PM

Quote :

"I'm not gonna waste my time arguing with any of you, not like any of us are gonna change"

my point exactly. i'm not going to be baited into a pissing contest that will just turn into a flame war. i posted a couple of my issues, you don't agree. you posted your opinion of my issues, i don't agree. big deal.

[Edited on January 28, 2007 at 8:36 PM. Reason : .]

1/28/2007 8:35:59 PM

It's almost like Edwards is preparing to be president by building this house. You know, Bush has his ranch he always talks about.

The house is large, but a big part of the price tag is really in the land...100 acres outside Chapel Hill?!?

1/28/2007 9:04:08 PM

depending on exactly where it is, land isn't that exspensive per acre outside of CH. that's why it's starting to get attractive for developers for the rtp and duke/ch medical crowd. alot of the land doesn't perc well either.

1/28/2007 9:15:59 PM

I'd say a house that costs close to $200/sf is part of it too

1/28/2007 9:16:51 PM

I reckon y'all are right. The land's only valued at 1.1 million.

^Your math is wrong. Think about it.

[Edited on January 28, 2007 at 9:25 PM. Reason : sss]

1/28/2007 9:20:25 PM

Quote :

"If you support helping the poor eat then you dont want anyone to be wealthy. but if you support cutting taxes for 1% of the population and paying for those tax cuts by cutting off social services to those who need them to live then you want everyone to be wealthy."

Wow, you like to run with the overstatements don't you. A) Not that many people in the country are actually going hungry. Sure, there are some, but the vast majority of the people his style of class-warfare is aimed to garner votes from are not starving. B) Very few, if any, people need the social services that ANY politician has suggested cutting in order to live. What I think you meant was: Live more comfortably.

I agree that you can still be a wealth creator and want to expand social safety-net programs, so don't think that is my point. However, John Edwards cares nothing about the poor. He cares about galvanizing the middle-class by aiming their own frustration at the rich. Most politicians are insincere, so I can grant him reprieve for that, but he tries harder than anyone I know (except Lou Dobbs) to unite classes against one another.

1/28/2007 10:01:42 PM

^I didn't realize he was doing that. That makes me like him.

The middle class is getting shafted. And poor people can't be to blame.

Who's left?

[Edited on January 28, 2007 at 10:07 PM. Reason : This is mostly a joke.]

1/28/2007 10:03:46 PM

^I realize you're being mostly sarcastic, but the middle class isn't really being shafted as badly as you often hear complained about. The usual suspect is the average tax rate, but that is a whole hell of a lot harder to fix than you might think. It is generally because wealthy people make their money in a far different way than your average Joe. The differences in tax treatment of income weren't created to skew things that way but they were exploited to the point that it upsets a lot of people. A simpler tax code would be a great start to fixing the inequity (or perceived inequity, anyhow).

1/29/2007 12:10:30 AM

Quote :

"Why wont you be voting for him? Is it because those damn lawyers make it so expensive to get health care? "

Well, it's just part of the equation of the fact that behind the young looking brown hair and smile, and all of the fuzzy talk about helping the poor, the man just isn't genuine. This man is responsible in a measurable way for driving up health insurance costs (out of the reach of the poor, by the way) during his career as a trial lawyer. Even before he became a politician, people around Raleigh (and elsewhere also) who knew about this man, KNEW he was a blood sucking ambulance chaser who bullied not only large corporations but also ordinary upper middle class families and business owners any way he could to make a buck. Believe me, I know, because his law firm tried to ruin my family's fortunes once through lies, smoke and mirrors. Is there something wrong with making a lot of money? Of course not. But the way this man made his money is something of an irony when coupled with the way he's speaking now as a politician.
I love the way his huge mansion has a pair of small solar panels on it. LOL, I'm sure they are there for publicity purposes so he can pass himself off as an environmentalist when the CNN helicopters photograph his house.
He's even got a raquetball court in there so his fat ass wife can sweat off a few pounds without having to go mingle with the unwashed masses at the local country club.

Tax cuts to 1% of the people? What's the problem with that? Most of the richest 1% of the people in this country (that's 3 million people) are small business owners. Yes, those extremely productive citizens who supply jobs and paychecks to many more Americans. Tax cuts to small business owners and small businesses are what really helps this country and actually fattens up the paychecks these poor people receive when the small businesses they work for are able to grow and make more money.

Some folks just don't get it. They want the government to control money, health care, drugs, guns, property, everything in life. They want a parental socialist government which lords over it's eternal children.
Folks, some Americans are adults and expect to live in charge of themsleves and their lives, and don't want to be told what to do at every turn by some politician. They want to spend their money and enjoy their property and go to their own doctor as they see fit. They enjoy being free, rather than "safe". They know the government is not entitled to control of their lives and three quarters of their fortunes. And they still have to worry at every turn about some blabbermouth elite liberal claiming to be an "advocate of the poor" trying to control their lives and take what they have. The latest elite blabbermouth happens to live just up the road in a large house outside Chapel Hill.

1/29/2007 9:35:50 AM

If the man can single-handedly take down the health care industry, then just imagine what he could do if elected the leader of the free world. [/sarcasm]

1/29/2007 9:40:40 AM

im pretty liberal, but i just dont like edwards. he basically just used his N.C senate seat just to run for president. he didnt do shit for NC.

go obama.

also, Rudy Guliani (sp?) is getting in the mix i believe.

1/29/2007 9:48:30 AM

yeah, theres just something about him that rubs me the wrong way.

1/29/2007 9:58:01 AM

Quote :

"I reckon y'all are right. The land's only valued at 1.1 million. ^Your math is wrong. Think about it"

I could go and get the actual value of his land and all that. but I'm not going to because I don't care that much about him

but houses like his routinely approach the $200.00/sf mark (living quarters and such, not the rec area)

1/29/2007 9:58:34 AM

haha, wtf? even my parents house was over $200/sqft if you exclude rec space

1/29/2007 10:14:06 AM

nm

[Edited on January 29, 2007 at 10:28 AM. Reason : nm]

1/29/2007 10:17:17 AM

http://johnedwards.com/action/sign-petitions/minimum-wage

Apparently he's pretty keen on petitions to congress.


Here's the e-mail sent out to the listserv that I got the link from.

Quote :

"Dear Jake, As I've traveled the country, I've talked to thousands of people who work one or more jobs and still struggle to keep food on their tables and make ends meet. Righting this inexcusable wrong is a core goal of our work together. In less than 72 hours, the Senate will likely vote on a proposal to raise the federal minimum wage to $7.25 an hour. It's a long overdue change that will immediately help over 13 million people, many living at or below the edge of poverty. But it will only happen if you speak up. Last week, the Senate Republicans filibustered a clean version of the proposal, and now they're trying to force Democrats to either pass billions of dollars more in corporate tax breaks or give up raising the minimum wage. The only way to beat the special interests is to prove to every Senator that the American people are watching. It's time to tell the Senate that American workers deserve a raise - no strings attached: Click here to sign our petition to the Senate, urging them to pass the minimum wage raise without delay. Last year I worked with many of you and with our partners to help pass ballot initiatives raising the minimum wage in six states - so I know first hand how much support this has among working Americans. And I also know it's the right thing to do. There's no doubt the minimum wage is too low: a full-time minimum wage worker brings in just $10,712 a year, less than half of the poverty level for a family of four. There's no doubt it's been too long: in the ten years since the minimum wage was raised -- the longest delay in history -- the cost of living has gone up 25%. And there's no doubt a higher minimum wage is good for the economy: studies show that cities and counties with higher minimum wages maintain or even increase employment levels. The only doubt is whether the corporate lobbyists and their Republican allies will be able to dilute and delay the proposal at the expense of American workers. If we raise our voice now, you and I can help make sure that doesn't happen. Sign our petition to the Senate urging them to raise the minimum wage right away. Creating the working society we believe in -- where every full-time job provides the dignity of a decent income and a springboard to future opportunity -- will require bold fixes for the ways our system treats workers. These include shifting the tax burden off the backs of wage earners, providing full child care benefits for working families, defending the basic rights of workers to organize -- and raising the minimum wage. It can happen, but only if we seize the big moments and speak out for what is right. Please make sure the Senate hears your voice today. Sincerely, John Edwards "

1/29/2007 8:21:03 PM

its called expanding your email/fundraising base.
Petitions encourage people to forward the email to their friends. You send out enough petitions about enough important issues and just watch as your email list explodes

1/29/2007 10:27:29 PM

Well, that and he met with SEIU this week...not a bad time to send folks a reminder of the work he's done on raising the minimum wage.

1/29/2007 11:27:55 PM

its more relevant that they are filibustering. edwards meeting with the seiu isnt really something that needs to be reinforced.

1/29/2007 11:33:15 PM

Um, yes it is.

Edwards isn't trying to win the side, he's trying to win the ball game. The fact that the Republicans may filibuster isn't inconsequential, but that's not the ball game (and he's certainly not going to trump that Iraq petition and the Roll Call ad from last week).

He knows the demographics of the voters in Iowa and Nevada (unionized workers) and he's looking to appeal to them heavily before the first forum of the presidential cycle (sponsored by...guess who...the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees).

He's read the same reports I have about candidates' meetings with the SEIU Executive Board, which said that Obama was the most impressive, and he's moving to woo them back.

1/29/2007 11:57:51 PM

woo them back? if one good speech overcomes 2 years of actually working with unions to organize and raise the minimum wage then i say fuck them.

look at how useful the unions were for Dean in Iowa. I think union support will be huge in Nevada, and no where else.

1/30/2007 9:13:57 AM

Quote :

"There's no doubt the minimum wage is too low: a full-time minimum wage worker brings in just $10,712 a year, less than half of the poverty level for a family of four."

Now he should probably follow this with the percentage of people trying to support a family of four on a single minimum wage job.

1/30/2007 11:04:56 AM

One speech? Try again.

Pick the state with the least number of unions:
[1] Illinois
[2] New York
[3] North Carolina

As for Dean in 2004, unions were not solidified behind his candidacy. I think, in 2008, they'll coalesce better, in hopes of improving their position of influence overall in the Party.

1/30/2007 1:52:16 PM

ooo ooo New York!

i cant find it online right now but i heard it on NPR, that Edwards was saying how in 2004 he may in fact have been too green to be a successful President/nominee. And that he would agree with some critics that he left the Senate too early.

Anyone care to guess who he's trying to undermine with that gem

And as for Unions, I dont believe their power in general elections matters anymore. But for Party decisions and power, I would have to defer to someone with more knowledge on the matter. My opinion is that grassroots/netroots have taken over their position of power within the DNC tho.

1/30/2007 5:02:48 PM

Quote :

"i just dont like edwards. he basically just used his N.C senate seat just to run for president. he didnt do shit for NC."

And for a person who is supposedly trying to help the middle class, he sure doesn't have a damn clue what raising the minimum wage will do. Not going to argue this point again, though. There is a thread for this already.

Just another showboat politician, nothing to see here guys. Just move along.

[Edited on January 30, 2007 at 5:19 PM. Reason : ]

1/30/2007 5:16:53 PM

Here's the story you mentioned, roguewolf: http://tinyurl.com/2f9zco.

I'm could go on endlessly about the Netroots, much to my detriment, but I will say, the unions will continue to be more powerful than the Netroots because:

1. Unions have dues paying members.
2. Unions are more diversified.
3. Unions have gotten people elected.

1/30/2007 6:05:04 PM

I'M GONNA BE YOUR SENATOR NC



SIKE


I'M JUST RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT GUYS, THANKS FOR THE TAXPAYER FUNDED CAMPAIGNING

ps, don't shop at wal mart, unless you have to get a ps3!!!

1/30/2007 7:13:08 PM

^jesus, this guy really gets under your skin for not being a REAL TRU A+ #1 PACK FAN doesn't he?

Quote :

"As for Dean in 2004, unions were not solidified behind his candidacy. I think, in 2008, they'll coalesce better, in hopes of improving their position of influence overall in the Party."

Yeah, they were pretty divided. I know Gephart had the AFL-CIO, which still included the Teamsters and the others that broke in 2005. Thing was, they were the only group backing Gephart and he didn't have the money after them and he flopped.

I almost guarantee Edwards will be the labor candidate in 2008, he's working for it. I'm close to supporting him...


















unless Gore runs.

[Edited on January 30, 2007 at 11:23 PM. Reason : .]

1/30/2007 11:21:32 PM

^^thats pretty much correct

he took more days off from his senatorship than gwb did from his presidency during the time he was running for Pres and then VP...and he's definitely shown some hypocrisy with his stance on walmart depending on the how the situation suits him

[Edited on January 30, 2007 at 11:37 PM. Reason : .]

1/30/2007 11:34:56 PM

^^^That's a good criticism.

The house stuff...not so much.

1/30/2007 11:39:42 PM

How would you say he's shifted on the issue of Wal-Mart?

1/31/2007 2:31:30 AM

John Edwards is unelectable. The man is simply not what America needs or wants.

I don't understand why the national mood is so hard to read. It doesn't take much. The American public is absolutely sick of the Iraq war. They are worried about it; about their neighbors, their sons, and their daughters.

So in this situation, who does the American public want to elect? They want the fucking calvary, that's who. They want a tough son of a bitch who has seen harder times, who can present an aura of clear direction despite the bog we're in.

And who does the Democratic party give us to choose from?

* Charismatic law professor
* Non-charismatic first lady senator
* Charismatic pretty-boy trial lawyer

So far from the Republican party we have:

* Former hard-ass mayor of New York during times of extreme distress
* Hard-nosed maverick war veteran
* Former successful turn-around CEO, governor

Seriously -- is this really where we're at? In this cycle, John Edwards joins a cabal of professional politicians with academic and legal backgrounds striving to take the highest military post in the land. What on Earth are they thinking? And what could possibly drive the electorate to vote for these people?

[Edited on January 31, 2007 at 3:35 AM. Reason : foo]

1/31/2007 3:34:14 AM

^I'll stipulate that is a pretty accurate assessment.

[Edited on January 31, 2007 at 8:46 AM. Reason : v]

1/31/2007 8:45:52 AM

^^ yep

Quote :

"^jesus, this guy really gets under your skin for not being a REAL TRU A+ #1 PACK FAN doesn't he?"

what the fuck did I post above you that said anything about him shunning NCSU, which also perturbs me

he screwed the taxpayers when he was supposed to be OUR senator, out campaigning and missing multiple votes instead of doing what he was elected to do

maybe you're just blinded because he is who is he, but it looks to me that he fucked us and now these idiots in this state want to elect him to a higher office

pretty sad

1/31/2007 9:29:11 AM

In which of his two Americas is Edwards building his $6 mil mansion?

1/31/2007 10:23:02 AM

In the critism of Edwards being unelectable can be justified, but not because of the national mood.

Within the GOP you really have:
- Former mayor with a shadier personal past and mayoral term than Bill Clinton.
- Senator who still supports the same war 2/3 of Americans want to see end and over 1/2 believe was unjustifible.
- A governor that is just as far to the right as the current 28% approved President.

Now the Dems, they arent sitting pretty either. But if you're going for the whole "national mood dictates x is what people want", than its change they want in their President, not more of the same. And the Democratic Party (outside of Hagel) if offering some of that. 2 "main" candidates with little DC influence/corruption but big social ideas. And 1 once dividing "but polls are looking up" carpetbagger who is just as hardnosed as they come.

IMO, we need more of a political and social balance in this next administration than anything else.

As for Edwards, yeah he missed votes and time in the Senate after being there 97% of the time his first 4 years. And you can than also turn around and critize Liddy Dole for the same thing, except she was trying to elect other people.

But if you're going off people b/c of how many times people vote, and not what they vote for/against, or stand for, then your sense of democracy is slightly skewed.

1/31/2007 10:55:27 AM

Quote :

"How would you say he's shifted on the issue of Wal-Mart?"

after previously calling for people to boycott walmart because of their lack of benefits they give their employees, he then basically was name dropping them to get a playstation3 right before christmas...it was only like a month ago

1/31/2007 11:02:03 AM

And obivously i'm just pointing out Republican flaws, but there are legitmate claims that they are too more electable. Just not the ones listed

^ and that wasnt him, that was a "volunteer" who is apparently a really bad suck up. dont you read the news?

[Edited on January 31, 2007 at 11:09 AM. Reason : and]

1/31/2007 11:07:45 AM

Quote :

"But if you're going off people b/c of how many times people vote, and not what they vote for/against, or stand for, then your sense of democracy is slightly skewed"

how he voted when he cared to show up for a vote also prevents me from ever casting a ballot for him

1/31/2007 11:13:13 AM

^^that fact that you put quote marks around "volunteer" shows you know damn well Edwards was behind it

[Edited on January 31, 2007 at 11:26 AM. Reason : .]

1/31/2007 11:26:48 AM

Quote :

"- Former mayor with a shadier personal past and mayoral term than Bill Clinton. - Senator who still supports the same war 2/3 of Americans want to see end and over 1/2 believe was unjustifible. - A governor that is just as far to the right as the current 28% approved President. "

glad i didnt have to post it. someone else already pointed it out.

1/31/2007 11:34:23 AM

they all suck

1/31/2007 11:36:29 AM

actually i do damn well know what happened, but i dont have to sit here all day and convince you. so take it or leave it.

and

Quote :

"how he voted when he cared to show up for a vote also prevents me from ever casting a ballot for him"

you've never been in any govenment organization, have you?

but yes, in a way, they all suck.

1/31/2007 11:40:37 AM