John Edwards can kiss the gay vote goodbye -- or he could if he were comfortable around such people.
Robert Shrum, the veteran Democratic strategist who worked on John Edwards's 1998 Senate campaign in North Carolina, does not remember his onetime client very fondly.In his new memoir, "No Excuses: Concessions of a Serial Campaigner," Shrum recalls asking Edwards at the outset of that campaign, "What is your position, Mr. Edwards, on gay rights?"
"I'm not comfortable around those people," Edwards replied, according to Shrum. He writes that the candidate's wife, Elizabeth, told him: "John, you know that's wrong."
Maybe we can get registered Democrat Fred Phelps to start showing up outside Edwards campaign events. He can just make his signs read "John Hates Fags".
And Shrum also makes it clear that Pretty-Boy John is an intellectual light-weight with a temperament unsuitable for the White House.
While praising Edwards as a man of "many innate political gifts," Shrum says he hoped the senator wouldn't run for the White House in 2004: "I was coming to believe he wasn't ready; he was a Clinton who hadn't read the books."When Shrum called to say he had decided to join the presidential campaign of another former client, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Edwards was angry. "I can't believe you would do this to me and my family. I will never, ever forget it, even on my deathbed," he quotes Edwards as saying.
Dumb.
Inexperienced.
Emotionally unstable.
That's John Edwards.
 |
Trackback Information for This Could Hurt
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://blog2.mu.nu/cgi/trackback.cgi/213782Listed below are links to weblogs that reference 'This Could Hurt'.
Comments on This Could Hurt
Hah - dumb, inexperienced, emotionally unstable, intellectual lightweight. If he promises to takes months off on vacation in Crawford, Texas, and to hide like a little girl in the frace of danger, he sounds like Bush's clone!
|| Posted by Dan, May 24, 2007 06:57 AM ||1) The major difference, of course, is that this is the assessment of a political ally, not his irreconcilable scorched=earth enemies.
2)Given today's communication technology, is there even a particularly compelling reason for the President (any President) to live in Washington? I'd argue no -- and so this President's working vacations (on which he is always instantly available) are a non-issue -- to anyone with a lick of common sense, which lets out most liberals.
|| Posted by Rhymes With Right, May 24, 2007 06:06 PM ||Lots of republicans say the same thing about the boy king.
He's a lazy sack - lazier than anyone - even Reagan. Sure he can be reached, but when he is reached in an emergency, he sits there stupidly reading a child's book, before hiding like a little girl, instead of standing up like a real president would.
When he's in Crawford, he's not working - he's on vacation. Clearing brush, riding bikes, and generally acting like the spoiled frat boy he is.
|| Posted by Dan, May 24, 2007 06:40 PM ||No, Dan, it is only the irreconcilable Left who says such crap. And besides, if Reagan is your standard, that must mean that W is the greatest president of your lifetime (I'd argue it is Reagan himself who is the measure of moder American presidents).
And hell, Dan, it is only the idiotic, anti-American Left that believes that the President should have panicked a room full of kids and run straight into the teeth of a terrorist attack, potentially allowing the terrorists to succeed in their effort to decapitate the American government.
|| Posted by Rhymes With Right, May 24, 2007 06:47 PM ||Hah - you're delusional. Look at Bush's approval ratings - unless the country is 70% democratic now, there are a lot of republicans who have seen Bush as the failure he is.
Reagan was a criminal who was out of his mind for a good portion of his presidency.
I don't think he should have panicked a room full of kids, and I don't know anyone who does. A real president would have politely excused himself, assessed the situation, and been in DC or NY by mid-afternoon. A coward who hid in the TANG during Vietnam would, once again, hide in an airplane in the US.
Even if something had happened, the government would not have been decapitated. Rove and Cheney were safe, and, besides, the Constitution has ways of dealing with succession.
|| Posted by Dan, May 24, 2007 07:31 PM ||Bush's approval rating has nothing to do with the assessment of his intellect or qualifications. And as for Reagan, I think you'd find most historians disagreeing with you -- but if you are correct, then we need to elect more like him.
Let's look at what Bush did do on 9/11 -- he finished up what he was doing while preparations were made for his departure and he left the school in a manner that caused a minimum of disruption to a building full of school children. I call that a good, professional move.
Imagine the disarray that would have been caused with the death of a president during the national crisis that was 9/11. While there are provisions for succession in the Constitution, the impact on government during such a crisis AND the impact upon the national psyche/morale would have been severe. Heck -- it is why every plan for an attack upon the US includes provisions for removing senior officials to safety rather than simply letting them ride it out in Washington. Your position is, my friend, utter idiocy tinged with pathological hatred.
And congratulations -- you've managed to insult reservists and guardsmen. Way to go.
|| Posted by Rhymes With Right, May 25, 2007 03:40 AM ||A whole lot of Republicans I know are calling him an idiot who can't be trusted with the executive branch. It's only a few "dead-enders" (remember that term from the Bush administration??) who still stand by him.
History will judge Reagan however they will - it's hard for us to predict. He armed Iran and illegally got involved in Nicaragua - 30 members of his administration did jail time - he ignored AIDS. I'm pretty certain, though, that he won't go down as a worse president that W, though. But, again, history will tell.
As for Bush's cowardice on 9/11, I understand the urge to make excuses for him. By 10 am or so, the attacks were finished and all planes were grounded, except for the fighters circling major cities. Other people were brave enough to go in and do their duty - Bush simply wasn't that brave. It's no surprise - he never has been a brave person, and we knew that when he was elected.
And please don't misconstrue my earlier statement as an insult to reservists or guardsmen. Unless they used their father's influence to get into the TANG to avoid Vietnam, they are not in a similar situation to Bush.
|| Posted by Dan, May 25, 2007 04:06 PM ||No, Dan, you said that reservists and guardsmen are cowards.
As for the rest, I believe the term for what you have said is "delusional".
|| Posted by Rhymes With Right, May 25, 2007 06:32 PM ||No, I didn't. Quote me if you can. You can't.
I can find a quote where you called the troops "losers", though, to your everlasting shame. And thought you were being funny.
|| Posted by Dan, May 25, 2007 07:28 PM ||Dan -- you indicate that National Guard service during time of war makes one a coward. You cannot construe that comment any other way. I will, however, give you a pass on the reservists, though I don't see how you could distinguish between the two.
But hey -- you supported the uber-coward Clinton, who actively dodged not only the draft but also military service when his number came up.
And as you always seem to ignore, the thing you refer to was a part of a satirical critique of Senator Harry Reid's statement that the war is lost -- which does, no matter how you slice it, make the American soldiers fighting it losers. If you would like to disavow harry Reid and call for his resignation, I'll take your criticism seriously.
|| Posted by Rhymes With Right, May 25, 2007 08:38 PM ||No quote, huh? You "construe" whatever you want, you got caught in another lie.
|| Posted by Dan, May 26, 2007 08:01 AM ||You stated that honorable service in the national guard during time of war makes one a coward -- don't try to weasel out of it. If the president is a coward for serving in the TANG during Vietnam, so is every other Guardsman during that war -- and every Guardsman since. You simply cannot have it both ways. So do not accuse me of lying -- and quit lying yourself.
|| Posted by Rhymes With Right, May 26, 2007 09:01 AM ||I didn't say that, did I? Quit trying to put words in my mouth. Bush has never served honorably at anything.
|| Posted by Dan, May 26, 2007 10:50 AM ||The Department of Defense has said otherwise about the Service of George W. Bush for some 35 years. It is therefore clear that the only possible interpretation of your statement is that national Guard service during time of war is not honorable and is, in fact, cowardly.
But if you want to play that sort of game, let's get into the "honorable" service of John Kerry, who volunteered to go home from Vietnam after getting scratches that wouldn't get a student sent home from my high school.
So just admit it -- either national Guard service is honorable and not cowardly (and therefore you have slandered the President), or you believe that National Guard service during time of war is an act of cowardice. There is no other option available.
|| Posted by Rhymes With Right, May 26, 2007 04:38 PM ||Construe yourself.
|| Posted by Dan, May 26, 2007 07:01 PM ||In other words, you refuse to take a position. I'll leave it up to the readers to determine whether you have simply slandered the President out of political spite (what you folks call "swift-boating") or whether you have denigrated the honor and courage of every person who has ever served in the National Guard -- or both.
|| Posted by Rhymes With Right, May 26, 2007 08:03 PM ||No, I'm ignoring your annoying littlw word nonsense. Everyone who reads me knows that I did not write that, and your complete failure to find a quotation where I did proves me right. Bush did cocaine and missed service while he was "serving" in the TANG. He used his father's connections to get in there, to avoid going to Vietnam. If you want to call those truths "swift-boating", so be it.
RWR - have you noticed a pattern? You get yourself all mixed up and foolish-looking when you make stuff up about what other people are saying. You called our troops losers when you fabricated a quotation by Reid. Now, you're playing all kinds of word games and looking foolish because you said I insulted reservists and national guard members, but, when I called you on it, you were unable to find a quotations hwere I did it. Again, all because you made stuff up.
Wouldn't it be better if you just stopped making stuff up?
|| Posted by Dan, May 27, 2007 07:06 AM ||Actually, Dan, you indicated that service in a national guard unit during time of war constitutes cowardice. There is no other way to interpret your words except as a statement that service in a national guard unit during time of war constitutes cowardice -- unless, of course, you would like to admit that you are applying a wholly different standard to one man than you apply to any other member of the national guard who has been discharged under honorable circumstances -- in which case you are nothing more than a political hack.
And I won't go into another discussion of the concept of satire with you -- you are clearly too dense to understand it, or too dishonest to admit to understanding it.
|| Posted by Rhymes With Right, May 27, 2007 12:20 PM ||I understand that you thought it was funny to call the troops losers. Happy Memorial Day. Go wash your mouth out with soap.
|| Posted by Dan, May 28, 2007 08:41 AM ||Dan -- I found no humor in it.
Indeed, i posted that picture to indicate teh full implications of Harry Reid's statements about the war and the troops fighting it.
On the other hand, you have intentionally called members of the national guard during time of war cowards -- that cannot be denied. Unless, of course, you admit that you intentionally slandered the president for political purposes.
|| Posted by Rhymes With Right, May 28, 2007 10:13 AM ||dCDFSX urudibngtdfl, [url=http://wkuniwzrzpmv.com/]wkuniwzrzpmv[/url], [link=http://duhgdiyewawc.com/]duhgdiyewawc[/link], http://wamxxywxvapa.com/
|| Posted by vweqdtpa, October 20, 2008 12:34 PM ||Post a comment