Author Topic: Senator Edwards (Read 1777 times)

WylieKy · « **on:** March 26, 2007, 02:33:25 PM »

First of all, let it be said I hope Mrs. Edwards all the best and she has my prayers. Second, what kind of man would not only continue, but escalate a stalled political career while being told his wife will be dead in 3-5 years. He is a multi-millionaire, and neither he nor his children will be able to spend the money he has. This boggles my mind. Why not take a couple of years, the good years, and travel with your wife and children. See the sights of the world, live life to it's fullest, BE WITH ONE ANOTHER. I wouldn't expect him to give up his career, just take a few years off. Why, when facing the eminent death of a wife, would you elect to be out of town and away for days or weeks at at time, 18-20 hour work days, media circus, etc..... Third, assuming he cares anything at all for his wife and vice versa, how could he possibly do his best to serve this country while caring for a wife going through one of the most horrible things in human existence? It is one thing for an elected official, while already in office, to serve and care for a loved one at the same time. They didn't ask for it and must do the best they can, but to pursue a presidency with that outcome almost guaranteed in the next 2-5 years is horribly irresponsible and insensitive, and to me, is a great tell on his character.

WylieKy

TNrifleman · « **Reply #1 on:** March 26, 2007, 02:56:03 PM »

I watched Edwards and his wife on 60 Minutes. They answered the questions about their decision to continue his candidacy. They seemed genuine about the conviction that this is the right decision for them. I also hope that she does well with this difficult situation. I respect their decision, but don't completely understand their thinking. Having said that, I really feel the same way you do and think I would forget about politics for the time being. Family must come first.

Almtnman · « **Reply #2 on:** March 26, 2007, 03:23:18 PM »

Just another typical politician wanting power, family comes second.

jgalar · « **Reply #3 on:** March 27, 2007, 03:14:59 AM »

Ever thought that it was HER decision!!!!

magooch · « **Reply #4 on:** March 27, 2007, 03:38:31 AM »

No problem, Edwards isn't likely to win the nomination anyway.

powderman · « **Reply #5 on:** March 27, 2007, 03:24:32 PM »

Edwards is a dumcrap, interested only in serving America, yeah right. POWDERMAN.

Heavy C · « **Reply #6 on:** March 29, 2007, 05:42:51 AM »

Yes, it could have been her decision and it did the job. They garnered complete media attention for 2 or 3 days. I respect their decision, but feel it would have been more admirable of him to say he was pulling out of the race to spend that time with her no matter what she said. I'm all for a positive mental attitude, but campaigning like that will probably have an adverse effect on her condition. I wish her the best.

Echo4Lima · « **Reply #7 on:** April 02, 2007, 09:54:53 AM »

Wouldn't it be interesting if Edwards wins the nomination then, suddenly, she's in remission.......

Man I'm becoming sooo cynical.....

Almtnman · « **Reply #8 on:** April 04, 2007, 04:11:18 AM »

Well, the news this morning is now saying that her cancer may be treatable.

ncsurveyor · « **Reply #9 on:** April 09, 2007, 09:37:41 AM »

As a resident of North Carolina, I really appreciate the up and coming Senator taking the last year of his first term OFF to run the Kerry/Edwards campaign. He spent more time out of state then he did in state doing those wishy washy things like, uh, taking care of his constituents.

I dub him a "male" Hillary Clinton. Just getting some office time in order to pad the resume. I don't know if he really did anything for those few years as state senator.

Its apparent that personal ambition is more important to John. Publically, it may be her decision to continue the campaign, but if she thought she was terminal, I'd expect her to say the show must go on. It would be the best thing for the kids........ Maybe, and I know this sounds bad, but I'm a pessimist, so, isn't it a fact that a presidential candidate has a better success chance if their married? Food for thought.

If my bride told me she was dying, I think I could put a few things on hold, notwithstanding Elk hunts, new guns, even my campaign to become the president of the male belly dancer association - south of the Mason -Dixon line chapter........its safe to say that losing a spouse would be a major life changing event. Might not even care about being president for a while.

Edwards is young, he could take the time.

Almtnman · « **Reply #10 on:** April 10, 2007, 01:09:55 AM »

Edwards' Wife Scared by gun toting 'Rabid Republican'

ironglow · « **Reply #11 on:** April 14, 2007, 02:32:44 AM »

Almtnman;

Thanks for posting that link ! While I sympathize with the Edwards' predicament vis-a-vis the cancer report..some truths should come out..
I heard an interview of Monty Johnson on my XM radio yesterday. Monty has lived on the property, in his present lifestyle, all his life.
His grandfather bought the place during the great depression.

The Edwards just started building their "Taj Mahal", some months ago !
Monty does fine with all his neighbors and has for years..he claims that most all of them have come by and assured him of their belief and agreement with his position. According to Johnson, he and his neighbors are country folk who have lived with hunting as a sport and own firearms of their own.

He usually throws a yearly barbecue for them, but he doesn't expect the new (Edwards) neighbors to attend.

I see it much like a person that builds a new house under the flight path of a major airport...then starts complaining about the "noisy jets"...LOL
Those of us who live in rural areas have all perhaps known some city dude that "built his cottage in the country"...then decided that all his neighbors had to live by city culture and city rules...

The fact that the Edwards' have $$$millions, apparently makes it rough on Monty Johnson.

Most news reports have Mrs. Edwards referring to Johnson's 9mm and his other hunting guns as " weapons of mass destruction".

I guess then by the Democrats own definition...millions of WMD have been found in Iraq...

deltecs · « **Reply #12 on:** April 17, 2007, 12:22:30 PM »

Interesting how Monty Johnsons' handguns are "WMD" and Ruger's Mini 14 is an "assault weapon". Diane Feinstein was quoted a lot in today's media regarding her position on arms. And we all know how close she is to Pelosi. Sarah Brady too llke Elizabeth Edwards was not a politician. Hilary Clinton was not a politician. It is no wonder that we have problems. We've voted for these people or financially supported their causes. Any politician whose party platform is to limit, restrict, or to eliminate firearms is not the one I vote for no matter how good the candidate is. Any candidate that goes against his party platform by voting for firearms limitations doesn't ever get my money or vote again. If more people remembered that maybe we wouldn't have some of these rampages happening and we wouldn't have people like Edwards to talk about. The victims might have had a chance to fight back had possession not been illegal. I too wish the best for the Edwards family healthwise but neither deserves my respect or attention.

NYH1 · « **Reply #13 on:** April 18, 2007, 06:40:40 PM »

Quote from: ncsurveyor on April 09, 2007, 09:37:41 AM

As a resident of North Carolina, I really appreciate the up and coming Senator taking the last year of his first term OFF to run the Kerry/Edwards campaign. He spent more time out of state then he did in state doing those wishy washy things like, uh, taking care of his constituents.

There are probably a lot of people in Texas that feel the same way about George W. as you do about Edwards. I'm sure George W. spent more time outside of Texas then he did in Texas while running for President. George W. didn't resign as governor of Texas until after he knew he won the 2000 election! They pretty much all do it.

At any rate if I was john Edwards I would pull out of the race and spend as much time as I could with my wife. One of the two Illinoisans are going to win the Democrat nomination anyway's and that's just going to put a Republican back in the white house. John Edwards is wasting his and his wife's time in my opinion.

If you're really worried about "gun control", don't vote for Rudy Giuliani. When then New York REPUBLICAN Governor George E. Pataki announced he passed a law that mirrored the federal assault weapons ban, Giuliani was standing right next to him saying what a GREAT LAW IT WAS!

ironglow · « **Reply #14 on:** April 19, 2007, 02:28:33 AM »

I agree;

Just say NO ! to Guliani..or Pataki, should the case arise..

...except in the case where your only other choice would be Edwards, Hitlary or Barak HUSSEIN Obama...

We better start pulling for Fred Thompson, Duncan Hunter or some other sensible candidate..

Echo4Lima · « **Reply #15 on:** April 19, 2007, 05:33:44 AM »

Fred Thompson's the one! He CAN get elected too. Imagine him in a debate with Mrs. Bill Clinton! He'd wipe the floor with her!!

nomosendero · « **Reply #16 on:** April 19, 2007, 05:33:45 PM »

Quote from: New York Hunter on April 18, 2007, 06:40:40 PM

Quote from: ncsurveyor on April 09, 2007, 09:37:41 AM
As a resident of North Carolina, I really appreciate the up and coming Senator taking the last year of his first term OFF to run the Kerry/Edwards campaign. He spent more time out of state then he did in state doing those wishy washy things like, uh, taking care of his constituents.
There are probably a lot of people in Texas that feel the same way about George W. as you do about Edwards. I'm sure George W. spent more time outside of Texas then he did in Texas while running for President. George W. didn't resign as governor of Texas until after he knew he won the 2000 election! They pretty much all do it.

At any rate if I was john Edwards I would pull out of the race and spend as much time as I could with my wife. One of the two Illinoisans are going to win the Democrat nomination anyway's and that's just going to put a Republican back in the white house. John Edwards is wasting his and his wife's time in my opinion.

If you're really worried about "gun control", don't vote for Rudy Giuliani. When then New York REPUBLICAN Governor George E. Pataki announced he passed a law that mirrored the federal assault weapons ban, Giuliani was standing right next to him saying what a GREAT LAW IT WAS!

Don't worry, I won't vote for Giuliani, he is just like a Socialist Democrap when it comes to guns & we all know that. Many of the Northeastern Republiucans are very much like the Democraps, nothing new at all. But he hasn't been nominated yet. If Mr. Thompson gets in the race, he will beat Rudi. If not, hopefully Mr. Hunter or Mr. Tancredo can get their message across to enough people, but I am afraid not.

billy_56081 · « **Reply #17 on:** April 19, 2007, 05:46:37 PM »

If we don't get a better field than Guliani or a commucrat running for president I will vote third party.

BTW Nomo I love your quote.

deltecs · « **Reply #18 on:** April 20, 2007, 11:22:13 AM »

Quote from: New York Hunter on April 18, 2007, 06:40:40 PM

Quote from: ncsurveyor on April 09, 2007, 09:37:41 AM

If you're really worried about "gun control", don't vote for Rudy Giuliani. When then New York REPUBLICAN Governor George E. Pataki announced he passed a law that mirrored the federal assault weapons ban, Giuliani was standing right next to him saying what a GREAT LAW IT WAS!

So, YOU THINK I'M GOING TO VOTE FOR HILLARY FROM NEW YORK, INSTEAD?

wncchester · « **Reply #19 on:** April 20, 2007, 01:57:22 PM »

Edwards didn't plan to run for president last time but his own internal polls showed that he would lose his senatorial reelection bid and that would have killed his presidential ambitions. Thus, he had to run, it was then or never. Of course now, without a senatorial defeat, he thinks he has a good shot. I don't.

I'm sorry for anyone with a terminal illness (even old age!). But if I were a doctor I don't think I would have the nerve to accept Mrs. Edwards as a patient. Pretty John made his millions suing doctors, even when most had done no wrong. When she dies, who would want to bet their future that pretty boy won't go after her medico's money too? It takes a lot of money to be John, do any of you normally pay up to $400 for a haircut?

Which of John's "two Americas" do you live in, his or mine?

nomosendero · « **Reply #20 on:** April 20, 2007, 02:42:45 PM »

Quote from: wncchester on April 20, 2007, 01:57:22 PM

Edwards didn't plan to run for president last time but his own internal polls showed that he would lose his senatorial reelection bid and that would have killed his presidential ambitions. Thus, he had to run, it was then or never. Of course now, without a senatorial defeat, he thinks he has a good shot. I don't.

I'm sorry for anyone with a terminal illness (even old age!). But if I were a doctor I don't think I would have the nerve to accept Mrs. Edwards as a patient. Pretty John made his millions suing doctors, even when most had done no wrong. When she dies, who would want to bet their future that pretty boy won't go after her medico's money too? It takes a lot of money to be John, do any of you normally pay up to $400 for a haircut?

Which of John's "two Americas" do you live in, his or mine?

Oh, come on now wncchester, we have to remember that the Socialist Democraps are the "working man's party", right?

Hypocrites,this group of Socialist Democraps in Congress has ALOT more millionaires than the other party, & they have several !

NYH1 · « **Reply #21 on:** April 20, 2007, 06:05:02 PM »

Quote from: deltecs on April 20, 2007, 11:22:13 AM

Quote from: New York Hunter on April 18, 2007, 06:40:40 PM
Quote from: ncsurveyor on April 09, 2007, 09:37:41 AM

If you're really worried about "gun control", don't vote for Rudy Giuliani. When then New York REPUBLICAN Governor George E. Pataki announced he passed a law that mirrored the federal assault weapons ban, Giuliani was standing right next to him saying what a GREAT LAW IT WAS!

So, YOU THINK I'M GOING TO VOTE FOR HILLARY FROM NEW YORK, INSTEAD?
Did I give you any indication that I think you should vote for Hillary from "Illinois" instead? I was just stating that Rudy Giuliani is just as bad as most democrats insofar as "gun control go's!

wncchester · « **Reply #22 on:** April 21, 2007, 03:08:51 AM »

Oh, come on now wncchester, we have to remember that the Socialist Democraps are the "working man's party", right?

Hypocrites,this group of Socialist Democraps in Congress has ALOT more millionaires than the other party, & they have several ! [/quote]

Oh, yeah. I've been told that. Right. Like H3LL they care for the working class!

I grew up with parents who were dirt poor during the depression, always heard the "FDR was the working man's friend, he saved the country", etc. And that Republicans only cared for the rich. Perhaps some of you have been told that too.

When I got old enough to do my own research and thinking I learned that FDR was elected in '32. By the time for the '36 election, after four years of massive deficit spending and expansion of the federal government, we were deeply in debt but the percentage of people without jobs was higher than when FDR started making things "better". Why? He massively taxed the "rich", taking the money they would have used to grow business and, eventually, provide real jobs and used it to make work for the feds instead! It is a fact, the only expansion of jobs during his reign was in the government. Only WWII changed that, by putting millions in uniform and expanding manufacturing to supply them.

Today's socialist/Democrats want to continue FDRs glorious record of killing the goose that lays the gold eggs. Our non-thinkers provide the voting base for them to do so. Voting Democrats are about half the population, I guess you know that half of our population are, by definition, below average intelligence?

And, NY Hunter, It will be a cold day in h3ll before I vote for ANY anti-2nd ammendment, or anti- any other amendment, politician.

OK, off my too well used soap box. (For you young whipper-snappers, that's a street politician's podium.)

NYH1 · « **Reply #23 on:** April 21, 2007, 05:48:30 AM »

Quote from: wncchester on April 21, 2007, 03:08:51 AM

And, NY Hunter, It will be a cold day in h3ll before I vote for ANY anti-2nd ammendment, or anti- any other ammendment, politician.

Ok, let me put this out there. Hillary wins the democrat nomination and Rudy wins the Republican nomination, which could happen. What are ya gonna do?

magooch · « **Reply #24 on:** April 21, 2007, 07:02:57 AM »

Close one eye and fart.

NYH1 · « **Reply #25 on:** April 21, 2007, 07:36:51 AM »

Quote from: magooch on April 21, 2007, 07:02:57 AM

Close one eye and fart.

That's a good one!

nomosendero · « **Reply #26 on:** April 21, 2007, 08:17:32 AM »

Quote from: New York Hunter on April 21, 2007, 05:48:30 AM

Quote from: wncchester on April 21, 2007, 03:08:51 AM
And, NY Hunter, It will be a cold day in h3ll before I vote for ANY anti-2nd ammendment, or anti- any other ammendment, politician.
Ok, let me put this out there. Hillary wins the democrat nomination and Rudy wins the Republican nomination, which could happen. What are ya gonna do?

Vote third party. No one knows that these are the 2 choices yet, but if so I will not go the "lesser of 2 evils" route as I have done in the past. Under NO circumstances will I this time or anytime vote for a Socialist Democrap, they are for everything that I am againist, that's a given.
The Soc. Dem. platform mandates that.
So, if the Republicans choose a Northeasterner who thinks like a Dem., fine. I will not support that.

wncchester · « **Reply #27 on:** April 21, 2007, 12:37:02 PM »

[ NY Hunter, It will be a cold day in h3ll before I vote for ANY anti-2nd ammendment, or anti- any other ammendment, politician.[/quote].... Hillary wins the democrat nomination and Rudy wins the Republican nomination, which could happen. What are ya gonna do? [/quote]

Ditto on "Vote third party." There is no "lesser of two evils when the constitution is in play.

deltecs · « **Reply #28 on:** April 26, 2007, 03:05:16 PM »

Maybe what we need for the third party platform is the Constitution Party. Its position is for a literal interpretation of the Constitution as written with special emphasis on the Bill of Rights. A Congress controlled by the 3rd party could enact laws that require the Courts and Justices to abide by and apply jurisprudence according to that standard. Not to interpret it in such a manner as to have no meaning. Decisions must be based on the conservative side of the law and not increased to include actions merely in relation to it. ID; Seizure of well maintained private property and then turned over to commercial private enterprise to build a mall and thus increase taxes to the community. Or seizure illegally of weapons after the flood in N.O. No one I've ever talked to, including attorneys, has ever considered this a governments' right of eminent domain to do this. This is very much in line with members of GBO and this post. If the 80,000,000 firearms owners (as quoted from a previous post re doctors) voted as a block, then this 3rd party would be powerful indeed to limit the excesses over the years by our existing 2 parties.