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.
18 comments:
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.
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.
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).
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 - 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!
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.
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
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