Thursday, August 30, 2007

Does An Edwards Staffer Work For Time Magazine?

Eric Pooley of Time has written a fawning profile of John Edwards, which is so flattering -- and so deliberately obtuse on some topics -- that one really has to wonder if the Edwards campaign slipped a mole into Time.

As for deliberately obtuse, check out this paragraph:

"Another challenge is that much of the attention he's gotten recently has been the unflattering kind, stories that question his sincerity and assail his image as a fighter for the little guy by focusing on his pricey haircuts, huge house and hedge-fund job. These viral attacks, spreading from the Drudge Report and other blogs to newspapers everywhere, make a dumb argument. They assume that someone who's wealthy can't be a sincere advocate for poor and working people. By that logic, the healthy can't speak on behalf of the sick, or whites on behalf of people of color. But in politics, of course, dumb arguments can hurt you, which is why some Edwards aides urged him not to build such a big house."

What's really dumb is the argument made in the above paragraph. To my knowledge, no one has asserted that a rich guy can't be a "sincere advocate" for the poor. The writer has either chosen to ignore reality and restructure the "argument" to benefit Edwards, or alternatively, he's just...well...to use the author's own adjective, dumb?

Edwards' problem has not been his wealth; it's been his blatant hypocrisy and his desire to tell the rest of us how to live, while doing something entirely different himself. For instance, advocating that Americans give up their SUVs while he enjoys an energy-guzzling 28,000-square-foot house.

And guess what? Edwards owns two SUVs!

There are many similar examples of Edwards talking the talk but not walking the walk.

Back to the article, another paragraph worth examining:

"By the time midsummer rolled around, the negative stories had crowded out substantive ones about Edwards' proposals, so most primary voters didn't know he had been leading the debate on domestic policy. He was the first to present a credible plan for universal health care. (Obama later offered a similar but less expensive plan that leaves some 15 million uninsured; Clinton still hasn't revealed hers.) He came up with a Gore-approved policy to combat global warming and a well-conceived antipoverty package, including a $1 billion fund to help people facing mortgage foreclosure. (Clinton later proposed a similar fund.)"

Why is the Time writer editorializing that an "antipoverty" package, including a billion-dollar taxpayer-funded mortgage bailout fund, is "well-conceived"? In whose eyes?

And they wonder why so many people no longer respect the "mainstream media"...

A postscript: Yesterday NewsBusters ran a brief story about the lack of coverage of Edwards asking whether Cuba had a government-run health care system.

You know that if that question had come out of the mouth of Giuliani, McCain, or any other major Republican candidate, it would have been aired on TV for days.

4 Comments:

Blogger J.C. Loophole said...

These viral attacks, spreading from the Drudge Report and other blogs to newspapers everywhere, make a dumb argument. They assume that someone who's wealthy can't be a sincere advocate for poor and working people. By that logic, the healthy can't speak on behalf of the sick, or whites on behalf of people of color.

Actually that is exactly what libs argue all the time. In other words, if you are not a minority you cannot criticize any minority. If you are not gay- you cannot critcize or say anything about homosexuality. If you are not an environmental nutjob, you cannot say anything about the environmnet. When it comes to discourse, libs only want it one way: their way. It's not about hypocritical stances to them- it's about what they can get away with. And in this age of the internet they are finding out they can get away with less and less. And that royally ticks them off.

4:14 PM  
Blogger Laura said...

You know, that's an excellent point, J.C. And the flip side of your point is that liberals also assume that if you *are* in a certain "group" there is only one way to think -- you must engage in the expected "groupthink" or your opinion doesn't count, i.e., you're not "authentically black" if you're not liberal. We've even seen the assumption on some TV talk shows this week, in conjunction with the coverage of the Senator Craig story, that if you're homosexual, you *must* endorse gay marriage, or you're not authentically homosexual, but a hypocrite.

Thanks for your thoughts --
Laura

4:28 PM  
Blogger Dana said...

"Why is the Time writer editorializing that an "antipoverty" package, including a billion-dollar taxpayer-funded mortgage bailout fund, is "well-conceived"

A billion dollar taxpayer funded mortgage bailout fund is not helping the poor. It is enabling people who made very irresponsible and bad financial decisions.

We have bought several homes and every time were told we could borrow a big ton of money for a loan. But being responsible people, we figured out what we made, what we could comfortably afford for a monthly payment and then, brilliantly used....commons sense. Go figure.

Its a good post Laura, informative and very irritating.

8:09 PM  
Blogger Laura said...

Thanks, Dana. Building on your point, the bailout fund also hurts homeowners because it takes money out of our pockets -- so we have less to pay our own mortgages with -- and hands it to others.

What's next, an automobile bailout fund, so people who overcommit to cars they can't afford can keep their wheels? After all, the refrain will go, people need transportation to work so they can afford their homes...etc. And so the socialist train will roll on.

Best wishes,
Laura

11:46 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older