Well, former North Carolina Senator and Vice Presidential candidate, John Edwards announced last week that he was running for President in 2008.
Not so surprising for anyone who has been following the political news since the last Presidential election.
What makes Edwards unique is his campaign agenda.
No matter what you think of Edwards, no matter what your party preference or perspective on what the nation needs in its next President, you have to admit that Edwards has placed the issue of poverty front and center on the agenda for public discussion between now and November 2008.
As a matter of fact, he is the only major candidate in either major party who has done so.
I'm grateful he has. It's time we stopped ignoring poverty and the poor.
Edwards made his announcement in successive interviews with the major network, morning news programs from New Orleans.
No accident in that choice of cities either.
Almost a year-and-a-half ago Hurricane Katrina devastated the city of New Orleans. In spite of a host of promises from public officials, the city still lies largely in ruin. The poor have suffered the most.
The city was a good choice for a candidate who will make challenging poverty the centerpiece of his candidacy.
I have no idea what Senator Edwards' chances are, but I know he will make the race interesting.
And no one who listens to the conversations he will provoke will be able to ignore American poverty any longer.
26 comments:
Larry ... this is just a question, I am in no way being malicious, but if a Republican did the same thing, would you say he was putting poverty front and center, or would you say that it was just a political stunt.
Because regardless of who the candidate is, if they had done this, I would think it a stunt and not actual concern. Maybe that's my being distrustful of politicians. I don't know
I think you could classify the war on terror, abortion, gay marriage as "stunts". If Edwards runs, he will do something about poverty. However, most partisan hot button (abortion, gay marriage, etc) issues are simply stunts -- attempts at garnering votes that never pan out.
I think if you take a look at Edwards career, you'll see he is actually serious about poverty.
Justin, fair and very good question. I appreciate you asking it.
Yes, I would have said the same thing if John McCain or Rudy Gulianna or any other Republican candidate led with this agenda.
I don't share your cynicism about political leaders who lead with concern for the poor simply because today in America the issue is a very low priority for most people.
In the past, long ago, I supported Sen. Mark Hatfield (R-OR) who always promoted efforts to better life for those at or near the bottom.
Here in Dallas I have worked with and supported Congressman Steve Bartlett, County Judge Margaret Keliher, Council member Gary Griffith and many others who happened to be Republicans. I also have commended others when they spoke up for the voiceless.
Poverty should never become a partisan issue. And I will support any and all who take it seriously.
One last note. In the case of Mr. Edwards I have had the good fortune to visit with him privately and one-on-one on two occasions. It is very clear to me that he is sincere in what he says.
anonymous,
I do think they are stunts. The republican party has become the party of bigoted right wing religious nutcases. The original ideas of conservatism are gone.The whole premise was that government should be as small as possible and should set up things to where it is most favorable for people to succeed in life. Those ideas are gone.
I think that most politicians are hacks. I don't like Edwards for many reasons, one of which is that he has all this populism talk about two america, but he's wealthier than 98% of americans. He's worth upwards of 70 million dollars, mostly made off the backs of the poor who were trying to sue companies that harmed them. He takes a huge cut of the settlement and the rest goes to the people who were hurt.
How is that not despicable to anyone else?
What about Mr. Jefferson,(Democrat Louisiana) He got a standing ovation yesterday. Do you think we all should hide $90,000 dollars in our freezer?
I would encourage you to read accounts of cases John Edwards worked on. Like the one for the child whose "insides" were ripped out in a shallow wading pool because of a faulty drain cover -- a fault that the company had refused to correct, which was easily correctable at a very low cost (with a couple of bolts, if I remember correctly). Because of Mr. Edwards work, that family received needed money to provide care that was essential -- money that the courts found was needed because of the negligence of the company at fault.
If it is despicable for lawyers to make money off of the misery of others, is it despicable for companies to do their best to "avoid" paying when they are at fault, thus keeping their money?
I encourage anyone to read the life story, and the legal experiences, of John Edwards.
Is his stance a stunt? I don't think so. Anyone who has followed the life of John Edwards, including in recent years, will know that he genuinely cares about the needs of the poor.
Randy Mayeux, Dallas
Justin, I guess what bothers me is that you are so antagonistic towards government, rather than finding ways of working through it you simply want to abolish it, without respecting and understanding it's positive uses.
And seriously, you are always sidestepping Larry's comments to bring up your own pet issues.
Government is not going to go away. Learn to respect it and how it can be used to help God's mission of bringing renewal to this corrupt earth.
How I am side stepping Larry's issue?
Before I ever read this post, when I saw John Edwards had announced his candidacy in NOLA, I thought "stunt". The same thing I thought when I saw GWB on the aircraft carrier.
I legitimately wanted to know if Larry would have said the same thing if a Republican had made that his issue. He answered the question, but whoever made the first anon comment, jumped to conclusions to think that I just thought it was a stunt because it was a democrat, and that I don't think the religious right uses the same stunts with different issues. Of course they do. SUch is modern politics. I don't like that.
I miss the days where politicians were statesmen and were not tied to party loyalty and interest groups. Of course, that lasted about 8 years, when George Washington was in office.
I realize government isn't going to go away. I just have a different vision of government than you do. I am not an anarchist by any stretch of the imagination, but I do think that more freedom is better than less for people. Do some abuse it? Absolutely. But because we are all free, we can make the decisions to end companies that we find unjust... many people disagree with walmart, and they choose not to shop there. Now wal mart has made steps toward changing things in order to appease people who have issues with their business practices. We have that power.
I don't think the government utilizes its resources in the best way to help those in poverty. It could do it in a much better way. The same old same old has not done what it attempted to do. Democrats have been in control in NOLA for a long time... yet the people are still impoverished. Same in Memphis, and many other depressed urban areas.
Something needs to change. But many don't want to change. They want to use the same tired methods to fix things, but just give them more funding. I don't think more funding is the issue. I think that we need fundamental change in the way we deal with poverty.
Justin, hang in there friend! Thanks for all of the posts from everyone!
First, an impression about government and how it can be. Gerald Ford's death brought to mind a very tough time in our nation's history. But it was also a time when political "enemies" found ways to work together and to like each other while still taking opposing sides. Jimmy Carter's eulogy for President Ford was amazing. The two had become best friends and even when Carter was President, as he said in his speech, he had Ford briefed at least once a month on issues. It was a day quite different from what we have seen the past several years.
Government is not going away and we need to make it work for us in a better fashion. I believe it can.
As to New Orleans and Memphis being controlled by Democrats, two comments. Stupidity and a lack of concern for the poor is not segregated to any one party! The Dems have not always done a very good job with the issue. Having said that, both cities over the past almost 30 years--certainly since 1980--have been in states where policy decisions were made to cut back on the poor. Those city governments were limited by a political philosophy that championed "localism" on one had, while cutting funding to local governments on the other.
My only concern is to address the issues facing low-income families so that we can break the destructive cycle of poverty in our cities and in our rural areas.
Let's keep talking to each other.
John Edwards is a man of character. He may not have what it takes to get to the White House, but he has character. Yes, he's made lots of money, and worked hard doing it. Remember the movie about Erin Brokivich? Lawyers get a cut when they win the case . . . when they put everyting at stake to help people who can't help themselves. When there's abusive of trust, we have a right to make those companies accountable (sue them).
I don't think anyone is arguing that when companies do something wrong that they should pay for it. The problem is, that some of the settlement costs on these suits are out of control... and the advertising dollars spent to bring in many people who claim to have ill effects from what ever product... something about that isn't right. People smarter than I am are trying to figure it out, and John Edwards is one is who is tryingto block those people from fixing a system that isn't working correctly. Maybe Edwards is a good guy in a sea of bad ones, but tort lawyers have a bad rep for a reason.
Larry, on the issue of funding to local governments... it is a two fold problem, I agree with you. Cities need some sort of state funding. However, the problem is many urban cities lies within a philosophy to which you and I probably don't agree... but I will tell you what's happening in Memphis from my point of view.
Crime and poverty rise in the city (for whatever reason). This drives people to the suburbs and depletes the tax base of the city. The city then raises taxes to try and make up for lack of funding. Crime, combined with higher taxes, drive more people out of the city. Tax base once again falls. City services (police, fire, HUD, etc) are now underfunded, which starts this cycle over again.
I think a drastic cut in property taxes would help bring in more money to the city. Even if taxes are lower, if you population goes up enough, then you will bring in more cash. But the city of Memphis doesn't want to cut property taxes. Neither do democrats in the federal government. This is what I don't understand. Cutting taxes (especially income taxes) in almost every case, brings in MORE revenue to the government. Why wouldn't Democrats want to do that? I don't know the answer, but from some I've spoken with, its because they want to punish people who are wealthy for being wealthy. I don't think that's a good philosophy, and I hope you don't agree with that.
Also, I'd like to apologize. I can be pretty caustic online (I promise I"m not like this in person) and I'm not sure what the reason is. I get excited talking about things like this, and sometimes I get overly excited and say (type) things in a way that comes off as very, well, mean. I don't mean to do that. I am trying to do better, but I'm learning that I have some personality flaws that are tough to overcome. I promise to try and do better though.
Right now, my vote is for John Edwards.
A lot of politicians campaign with a vague, happy talk agenda that gets us nowhere.
John is addressing an epidemic. Poverty affects every aspect of people's lives, and putting it at the centerpiece of his campaign agenda shows me much more substance than what we've seen out of other Presidential hopefuls.
Justin, I am also a Memphis guy. I have lived in the area most of my life. It is so unfortunate that Memphis has suffered from some of the most corrupt political figures I have ever seen, namely the Fords and of course the King, Dr. Herrington. As long as you have such corrupt figures, who also seem to have cornered the market on arrogance, you are going to have serious problems. To me the grand example of the ills of Memphis is the "Mall of Memphis," which today is just a vacant lot. It was at one time the pride of Memphis, but when the surrounding area became crime infested people moved away and business dried up. We can all learn from Larry. I have said it over and over. He is a person who will always bring civility to the discussion. People need to be able to freely express their ideas without having their head chopped off. As far as Edwards I don't know enough to have an informed opinion, but that will come. It would take a near miracle for me to vote for a Democrat, but it could happen considering my present low opinion of most Republicans.
Justin - Let me preface this by saying I know Larry will tell me not to get so angry at your comments because people are free to say what they want on this blog and people have said alot worse about Larry and he has always "held his tongue"; however, this is one time I will not listen to Larry because I must respond to the lawyer bashing comments, which apparently you picked up from the "right wing talking points" on some right wing conservative (read here, "whacko")web site.
I am one of those lawyers who represent people who have been injured by corporate America, which you seem disgusted by. You really are clueless when you talk about John Edwards some how taking advantage of the clients he represents because he takes a fee for his services. Our clients don't pay us for our services or expenses as the case progresses. We get paid at the conclusion of the case and only if we win for our clients. 99% of these clients woud not have a lawyer if they had to pay for their services on an hourly basis ( like the rich people do). But what about the corporations, which pay large law firms millions of dollars to have 10 lawyers on every case in order to try to beat the poor guy? I guess in your world of thinking it is perfectly ok for a corporation who has injured people ( and often 100s or 1000s of people) to spend hundreds of millions of dollars paying big firm lawyers ( who are usually right wing republicans, by the way) to do whatever they can to keep the company from having to pay a dime to the people the corporation injured. I am very proud of what I do for a living, and I am proud of what John Edward's does ( or did) for a living. And, by the way, you have no idea how much money the lawyers in my profession happily give away to help other people. If you think lawyers who represent people against corporations are so "evil" , I would love for you to visit with my clients and see what they think about what lawyers like me do for them. If you would like to get out from behind your venom - spitting computer and see what lawyers do for people, give me a call at 214-292-2600 and I will open your eyes to a whole new world. Although I am sure we have a lot in common when it comes to many of the concerns raised here every day, you really need to quit drinking the " far right wing cool aid" ( as it is finally not the hip thing to be) and join us back here in reality, my friend.
Proud Lawyer and Supporter of John Edwards. David Deary
PS. I read your comments again, and it struck me that your real issue with John Edwards might be that his success as a lawyer has made him WEALTHY... and I know how it just kills ultra - right wing republicans ( notice I did not say "conservatives" since there is a big difference) to see a democrat succeed, especially one that can use his wealth to run for office.
Thanks for each comment on this post. I appreciate the conversation.
David, I've got to say that your post is the best in my opinion! Of course, only you could have said what you did. Since I've known you longer than either of us want to admit and since I know your high ethical standards, I am so glad you said what you did. It is unfair to condemn Mr. Edwards and most lawyers who represent the interests of citizens. I am glad you practice law and I know you do a great job of bringing justice to the community here in Dallas.
I guess what I am saying beyond "thank you," is simply that I am very proud of you and I am proud to call you my friend!
Mr. Deary
I have no problem with lawyers representing people who have been legitimately harmed. I have no problem with corporations being punished for maliceful wrong doing. The things that I have a problem with are people I see on television every day trying to get more money from insurance companies, doctors offices, and companies, who may or may not deserve it. You may very well be a legitimately nice guy, who doesn't operate in shady ways, but are you honestly trying to say that all trial lawyers are good guys who are trying to help people, not just make a quick buck? I wouldn't ever say that all corporations are good guys who don't intend to take advantage of people. Some do. Just like some lawyers (especially those in certain legal areas) use the system to benefit themselves, not other people. Its just a fact of life.
My problem is not that John Edwards is wealthy. I don't have a problem with people being wealthy. I have a problem with the hypocrisy of wealthy "liberals" (I hate throwing those terms around, because in many ways, I am liberal) who try to put walmart out of business, yet send their aids there to buy gifts, or who insist on putting that vast majority of the tax burden on those that are creating the jobs for the rest of the people in this country, and who continually use class warfare to set people against each other to promote their political agenda.
John Edwards has millions upon millions of dollars. Until recently, he had two multimillion dollar houses. Since I've been reading Larry's blog, I hear about how we need to give more to the poor and simplify our lives. I am ALL FOR THAT. What I have a problem with is when people like Edwards (or Kennedy or Kerry) who are ridiculously wealthy not by building a business and being productive, but by being in the lucky sperm club, or marrying well, or suing companies, tax the crap out of my father and many other great men like them because they "make too much" despite the fact that they are giving away upwards of a third of their income, more in some situations, because they don't feel like the government knows best how to solve the problems of poverty.
Maybe you can't understand that, because you are on the side of those that feel like they are better people than we pleebs who may occasionally vote republican, or who feel like its important that people be free to use what they've earned to help people most effectively. I know, we're idiots. Stupid. Rednecks. Etc. We don't like being looked down upon by people who make multimillions of dollars and then tell someone making 120 grand a year who has 3 kids in college that they are too rich and need to pay 35 percent of their income in taxes.
Its all about arrogance, David. You look down your noses at people who don't think like you, and you dismiss people and say they obviously don't care as much as I do. Does it make any sense why people are put off by the democratic party. The Republicans have screwed things up in a humongous way, and the its still a bitterly divided congress and country. Its because average people don't like to be looked down upon by the aristocracy. They don't like to be told by these patricians whose houses are worth mroe than they will make in a life time, that they aren't sacrificing enough for the poor and that they don't care.
This is probably the longest comment I've ever written on a blog, so I'm going to stop. I may or may not be back for a while, I don't know. I feel like I have ideas about how to help the poor and I want to do it. But, whenever I chime in about something I'm attacked as being brainwashed by the right, or crazy stuff like that. I'm looked down upon, talked to condescendingly. It happens nearly everytime I post on here. Every time.
ANd I lash out, frequently. I shouldn't. I should hold my tongue. But when people start making judgements about me as a person, its hard not to. I may be the first to initiate arguments on occasion. I apologize for that. Many times, however, as soon as I offer my opinion, I am belittled and called names, and I don't appreciate that, and that's when I lash out. Not saying that its ok for me to do so, or that its justified, but that I'm passionate about what I believe and who I am, and its easy for me to lose my temper when someone questions my character.
And Larry,
It is disheartening to me to read your congratulatory post to David after he made personal attacks against me. Some of the things he said were just as "venomous" as what I have said, yet he gets a pat on the back. I'm just shaking my head. Its unbelievable.
Larry,
This is interesting:
What do wealthy people owe to charity?
Justin,
I've watched you on this blog for several months now... I can tell you that if there is any arrogance directed towards you, much of it has come first from you
And when you come across with the air that you know everything already, people are only going to respond with the same sternness.
If anything, Larry has been incredibly nice and respectful of you on this blog in response to many of your outbursts (though others may have been harsh with you). Just please don't drag Larry through the mud.
Dear David
I really think you need a drink. Just calm down. I promise it will all be ok. Justin is young. His picture seems to indicate this, so cut him some slack. I think that the main reason why people get so worked up over some lawyers is that the average joe of which is am one only hears the high profile cases where the lawyers do make ungodly amounts of money and it only talks a couple of those to really tick people off. David I have enjoyed this blog because there is so little of what you did, as in attack, but I guess a little every now and then is ok. God bless you all.
Justin,
All you have to do to gain the approval of these folks is TALK about the problem, not DO anything about it. Just like Edwards, you can TALK about it, and suddenly you are a hero to the "social gospel" set. Nevermind that he has made over 70 million dollars, which is probably more than all the people served by CDM will make in their collective lifetimes....Just TALK about it.
As far as the inane opinions of some here, like David, who think that Edwards is a hero for "sticking it" to the insurance companies, this just displays their shortsighted ignorance. They think that the money trail stops at the insurance companies, and that the general public, especially the poor, have won some kind of victory over "fat cats". AMAZING. Let me educate some of you people on simple economics:
When an insurance company is sued, and is ordered to pay damages of 50 million dollars, they get the 50 million dollars in only one way: charging higher prices to their customes. Their customers are normal people, many of whom are poor. Many of these people cannot afford the increases, and lose their health coverage. Many of these people choose their health coverage over other necessary items, like regular meals, non-covered health care, etc... Additionally, businesses that pay all or part of their employees' health coverage get the increase, and do one of two things: 1) drop their coverage, which hurts the working class and the poor, or 2) layoff employees to absorb the cost increase, which creates more poor.
Meanwhile, Edwards has made more than his clients ever won, and has the absolute AUDACITY to go stand in the middle of a bunch of poor blacks in a hurricane ravaged city and preach to the rest of us about "Two Americas". There are certainly two Americas: The America where talk is important, and actions don't matter, and then the America that some of us live in, where we go about our business, help the poor, and just don't toot our own horns about it.
Meanwhile, Edwards, and presumably the poster David, work their hardest to make sure that it is more and more expensive for those of us in "normal America" to live our lives and help others. GOOD JOB...MISSION ACCOMPLISHED. Have fun TALKING.
By the way, doesn't Edwards support abortion rights? Doesn't he support the idea that a poor black woman can go to an abortion clinic and have her unborn child forcefully sucked out of her womb and killed? He voted against banning partial birth abortions. He voted to allow abortions on military bases (where many poor people end up). He has a 100% rating from NARAL!!! What COMPASSION for the poor. Oh my...
WAKE UP!!!!!!!!
Justin, sorry that my comments offended you. I can tell you that my words in support of David were not meant as a slap to you. It is simply that I have known him for many years and I know what an honest, caring and concerned person he is and I know that he brings that to the practice of law.
Generalizations about people by race, class or profession are usually not too helpful. I was simply encouraging David, not attempting to take a swipe at you. Your opinions are valued here, even though we don't always agree.
I must say it does trouble me that some folks post very harshly and then refuse to sign their names. I could set this up so that people must identify themselves, but I have resisted that to encourage more conversation. I wish though that if you have a negative comment to make--and your comments are welcome--that you would sign your name. That seems only fair in my opinion.
One last thing: this post was not intended as an endorsement of Mr. Edwards' campaign. My point was that he had chosen to make poverty a key issue in his run for the White House, a move I consider encouraging.
To all of you John Edwards supporters, remember he said, in all seriousness, during the '04 election, that if John Kerry were elected, Christopher Reeve would walk again! Keep that in mind when he talks about poverty. On that topic, isn't the best way to end poverty to help get those people jobs & teach them to motivate themselves to keep their job, while not having kids out of wedlock. Since 1964, the Great Society & War on Poverty have transferred over $6 trillion from the haves to the have-nots & we still have the same problems. So money is not the problem. To take money from ones own pocket & give it away is laudable. To take money from someone else's pocket & give it away is theft.
Justin - When did we meet? I am sure we must have met at some point since you are so sure about the type of person I am. Oh, we have never met and you don't know me? Figures, doesn't it.
Your 12:17 pm post was something else. You used all the right "buzz words" and "talking points". I would love to attack the heck out of your nutty, off - the - wall comments but I don't want to upset RC. And I don't have the time to educate you because I actually have to work for a living.
David Deary
David,
I sincerely apologize for making broad sweeping statements of which I have no factual basis. I understand being miscategorized by others, probably more than you know. Like when people tell me that because I don't agree with massive government spending on anything other than roads, people assume that I hate poor people. Couldn't be further from the truth.
Since you don't know me any better than I know you, obviously we can't make correct judgements about each other. But I'll try to clear some things up. I am NOT a fundamentalist right wing republican. I was, before I started thinking for myself, but those times have changed. Actually, I don't even have a political party (though if I did, it would probably be one that I made up, because no party, even small ones, believe the things that I do) and as for now, I don't vote because, like David Lipscomb and James Harding, I believe that Christians should stay out of government as much as possible. I have a problem going into the ballot box and pulling the lever for the lesser of two evils. Though I know that governments can be used by God to accomplish things, I cannot in good faith support any war, no matter how "just" it may seem. Christians shouldn't be violent or support violence in any way. I think that our immigration system should be as lenient as possible for, especially impoverished hispanics who come here only seeking an end to poverty. And even when they come here illegally, I say we should do everything possible to help them in any way. I'm actually working up a post on my blog about what Philemon has to say about american christian's stance on illegal immigration.
I just recently passed the exam to be a real estate agent and hope to eventually go into development, creating nice communities in the inner city and mingle the wealthy with the poor, some what like the project Larry's working on.
I am not an unmitigated jackass. I just play one on the internet. I do disagree with some things that people do. Like I said, I disagree with how some, note, some trial lawyers abuse the system to become extraordinarily wealthy. I don't think that's right. Helping people who have legitimately been wronged by companies... I have no problem with that. But I don't think that EVERY trial lawyer is a sleazeball trying to make a quick buck off corporations. Do you think that every CEO of a corporation is a terrible person? I hope not. SOme of them are bad and I dislike the bad ones, but others are doing wonderful things with their money and with their companies.
Like I said, I apologize, and now you know a little about me. Hopefully that can clear up any misunderstandings you have about who I am. I know you left your number, and I plan on calling you in the near future. THis is ridiculous that we're having a dumb fight over the internet like this. I was wrong for some of the things I said, and I apologize for that. I hope you accept it.
Justin - I accept your apology and extend mine to you as well. Yes, there are "bad apples" in every profession, but no one should paint with a broad brush. To answer your question: I represent a large number of corporations, so obviously I don't hate corporations, large or small. Good luck in the real estate business. call me anytime you want to talk.
David.
Post a Comment