Geesh , who in their right mind thinks that calling the war on terror a 'bumper sticker' slogan is gonna garner large support from the American voter ?
And then to buddy-up with Danny 'I Love Chavez' Glover. . . . .just what the hell was he thinking ?
Notice how I worded this . I didn't ask you if you agreed with Edwards , I asked if he , or his advisors , think that positions like that would garner large support from the American voter .
2007-06-11 07:53:55 · 25 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Maybe it's a set up... He's to test the waters for the other liberals running. "Let's see if John gets away with this, and this...?" The ploy is to see how radical you can be and still get a free ride in the liberal press and seem like a viable candidate. In the end, he'll make the others seem very "reasonable", though both the other main candidates are in agreement with him on the issues.
Either that, or the guys a mad man.
2007-06-11 09:28:24 · answer #1 · answered by fruitypebbles 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I don't know who is advising him. Oh, he is serious enough, just not Presidential material. If this guy was worth the trouble, he would have dropped out of the race to spend every minute with his dying wife (if in fact she is dying and not just trying for sympathy votes). Then after she died, he could return to politics and be hailed a great humanitarian. As it is, he is calling for the same crap that Lyndon Johnson did back in 1964. We have seen already that NONE of that worked at all.
The problem with poverty is NO ONE can solve it except the person who is in it. All governments can do is give an opportunity and the USA is the land of opportunity. Before the government got into the business of charity (Lyndon Johnson), people (not drunks) who were about to become homeless or were hungry were all fed and helped by the churches. By it being done on a local level, the neighbors were the ones to evaluate whether this person was a leach or actually in need of assistance. The Liberals have thrown God out of so many things and they think if they don't work, they should just shove some more money at the problem. Our money, of course, not theirs.
2007-06-11 13:34:34 · answer #2 · answered by plezurgui 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The only thing I can think of is he's trying to carve out a niche for himself.
Obama has the ground further to the left of him by saying, "I opposed the war 4 1/2 years before you did."
Hillary has the over-my-*ss excuse of "I didn't really think the President was going to use the war authorization after we gave it to him" (which has to be about the weakest excuse one can craft. It's like saying, "I didn't think he'd REALLY use the gun after I gave it to him, officer."
I'm not sure what vote Edwards is going after with this one. Given his "I was wrong" statement in the debates over his support of the war, I am guessing...and "guessing" is the key word here... is that he's trying to claim the ground where Iraq was a diversion from the real war on terror in Afghanistan. I think he's going to try to not come across too soft by saying that the war on terror should be more than a slogan. It should be a policy that focuses on terror and Al-Qaeda, and not Iraq.
Will it sell? Time will tell.
2007-06-11 08:06:47 · answer #3 · answered by Pythagoras 7 · 5⤊ 0⤋
He's serious but he's dooming his own candidacy. His handlers obviously are not the brightest bulbs in the box. I actually flinched when he said that about the "bumper sticker." He just can't seem to move up in the polls, and this stupidity is part of the reason why. He's desperately trying to distinguish himself from the front runners Clinton and Obama, but this is not the way to do it and win votes, that's for sure. Bye bye Edwards!
2007-06-11 08:22:40 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
I really do think this time Edwards is a fluff candidate with no credibility based on his earlier support of his anti-christian bloggers and now this. Edwards just has not looked credible at all in this race and he even has longer in the Senate than Obama but looks less knowledgeable than Obama on most issues during the debate. To me he is the least serious major party presidential candidate that I have seen in over 20 years and we even have lil Dennis K in that mix.
2007-06-11 08:01:34 · answer #5 · answered by ALASPADA 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
He may be seriously pandering to the far left for their vote and support. He may even, with that liberal base, get the Dem's nomination for the Presidency. He will never win the 2008 election though. The left does not represent the majority of Americans. Not even close. His pandering to them will be the end game for his White House dreams.
2007-06-13 01:44:54 · answer #6 · answered by Mother 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The biggest person steering the John Edwards campaign is George Soros. He has been funding him though pacs and other methods to get around the campaign finance regulations. I suspect that the deal was simple, virtually unlimited funding, if and only if, Edwards pushes Soros' fring left wing agenda.
2007-06-11 08:27:07 · answer #7 · answered by Jon B 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The Breck Girl is the only openly honest left wing candidate. There's a lot of voters in that group. The Che Guevara crowd doesn't care what he says, they will vote for him.
2007-06-11 08:14:00 · answer #8 · answered by Matt 5 · 4⤊ 0⤋
The only thing that I can say about Edwards is that he didn't have one hair out of place during the last Dem debate.
As far as Glover goes, he's not even worth an honorable mention.
2007-06-11 07:58:20 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 7⤊ 1⤋
John Edwards is riding high now, but all this is going to be difficult to explain in the primaries...along with those $400 haircuts!
2007-06-11 17:14:39 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋