John Edwards Political Stunt
The political stunt pulled Thursday by trial lawyer and presidential wannabe John Edwards seems unlikely to change the final outcome of 2008 election or even the Democrat Party’s selection of a nominee. But it should cause honest members of both parties to call Edward’s honest[y] and integrity into question anew.
I read Human Events almost everyday online. I was pleasantly suprised to see that Lars had a column. Ann Coulter, Mac Johnson and now Lars Larson.
20 comments:
Well, at least he didn't serve her divorce papers while she was in the hospital.
Lars Larson is a dick. I wouldn't vote for Edwards myself, but I don't have to be a Democrat to know that if Edwards were a Republican and all other things were equal, Larson would be singing the man's praises in Human Events. I suppose the radical right feels the need to keep the pressure since Coulter has raised the stakes and called Edwards a "faggot." Can't back off now.
daniel -lars is a faggot oh yah so are you!! when are you going to have a positive outlook on life?? You are going to hell with this outlook. love thyne enemy as you love yourself.ok so you are a dick!
On account that Lars can't get the thing published anywhere other than Human Events says alot for the piece. In a discussion off- air with Bob Caldwell, there was a clear disdain and very clear disagreement for the hate piece Lars wrote about Edwards. So all this says is that any fool can write a hate piece about someone who has a wife with cancer. Apparently nothing is off limits for wing-uts
The comments point out the difference between liberals and conservatives:
THe libs call lars a "dick" and a "faggot", while Lars only calls into question Edward's motives and it's a "hate piece."
OK and everything tom and the anons said isn't hateful? The worst adjective Lars used in the column was "wannabe" which is actually a factual statement since he DOES want to be the president.
The lefties and their 'hate America first' nonsense and hypocrisy have made the national news. It stings them badly that one of the chief feminists has labeled edwards as "the first woman President," and in print, no less. Their protests about Lars are as empty as their heads.
A blog post involving Edwards and I get called a faggot... wow.
[sound of liberals hyperventilating]
Lars' article is being rejected all over--I heard it as well today while he was on comcast off the air. As a Republican myself, it is down right garbage that Lars and others would use Mrs. Edward's cancer as a political football. The ultra partisan children that play on this site, including the conservatives, need to check themselves before they go plunking on mom and dad's keyboard.
"The worst adjective Lars used in the column was 'wannabe' which is actually a factual statement since he DOES want to be the president."
That claim speaks for itself. It is a perfect example of the grasping-at-straws that drives this article by Larson, as well as every word that I've seen written in support or defense of his position.
The idea of chastising a woman for acknowledging her health as a political factor reminds me of the reaction to the detainee suicides at Guantanamo Bay, a few months ago. There were people whose first instinct was to look at people in American custody killing themselves as a political statement, and centered their comments on expressions of condemnation and contempt for the dead. There was something deeply flawed in that approach; such a reaction can only be either a disgusting lack of moral perspective, or a disturbing, consuming need to impose a defensive us-versus-them worldview to explain away every ambiguity.
I don't know from where this Lars Larson gets the nerve to make assumptions about a family's motive in deciding how to handle the news of a lethal disease. "Elizabeth can draw any kind of happy face she wants on her husband’s decision to keep on campaigning..." This was condescending, and without a lot of cause to be. Lars Larson knows nothing about what this family has been through - the balance between their compassion for each other and the burden of their connection, however tentative, to the Presidency of the United States.
We have the right - the responsibility, even - to consider the political implications of the announcement. You can even make a case that it was a good strategic move for Edwards. But none of us is qualified to pass judgment on the Edwards' motives, especially a judgment that contradicts the clear and convincing explanations of the Edwards themselves. I have heard insulting claims that John Edwards has "turned to politics" before turning to his family or his God; I would ask anyone who dares to make that accusation how much time they have spent in Edwards' home and head. If there's anything in this world that deserves the benefit of the doubt, it is a person's vow of love and adoration for his family and dedication to their wellbeing. We have every reason to believe that this was a united decision of the Edwards family; unless you can unearth a single shred of evidence that Elizabeth was coerced into letting her husband use her fatal disease as a "stunt," I see no quality of the couple's character that this has in any way diminished.
And I will not allow this ridiculous myth about "lib" name-calling to persist. In my time on this blog, I have been called an "idiot" (along with "kidiot" in reference to my age), "smart-ass," an "intellectual infant," "anti-American," "a traitor, and a waste of air," "loony," "moonbat," "gutless, appeasing," "socialist," and a "bleeding heart turd." Would you point, please, to the convervative restraint in that?
>>> The lefties and their 'hate America first' nonsense <<<
... and there he goes again. The sign of someone with nothing to say: Throw up a straw man, then set him on fire and congratulate yourself on your debating skills.
The "liberals-hate-America" is a bullshit argument. No, it's not even an argument. It does not rise to the level of an argument. What constitutes "hating" America? Criticizing the president? Do the Republicans who criticize Bush also hate America? When Daniel criticizes Bush for not being hard enough on illegal immigrants, does he hate America? Does an evangelical Christian who served his country in the first Gulf War who marches against this one "hate" America? Give me a fucking break, Bear. Pull your head out of your ass.
The lefties and their 'hate America first' nonsense... If that's the best you can do, you've got nothing. NOTHING. Why do you bother posting anything? Go back and try again. Try making a serious argument about anything without hobbling out on your "liberals-hate-America" crutch.
'hate America first'
Hypocrite.
Bear, you constantly question the patriotism of others, but are you able to defend yours? Just because you sit on the extreme end of the right doesn't mean you are more "patriotic" than any "leftist" (a stupid classification).
Your berating and otherwise automatic disapproval of any idea contrary to yours, along with your McCarthyist tactic of classifying said arguments as "anti-American," is proof enough that you detest the open forum of ideas that is the cornerstone of democracy. That sounds pretty anti-American to me.
What really scares the shit out of me is that as much as I detest Bear's politics, I'd absolutely defend his right to say it. I doubt that he would reciprocate those sentiments.
Not only is Lars' column bad form, kicking someone when they're down (perhaps Lars would have more admiration for Edwards if he'd serve her divorce papers, like Newt Gingrich did to his first wife when she was in the hospital after cancer surgery), but I found four grammatical errors in the first two paragraphs.
It has to be a difficult time for the Edwardses at the moment, and armchair quarterbacks who have no clue as to what they're going through are acting in a loathsome way.
hoo, boy! You anti-American lefties are sooo touchy! Carrying a sign with the words "death to America," burning an American soldier in effigy, defecating on an American flag, calling dead American civilians "little Eichmanns," and the usual leftie blather are, indeed, anti-American. You lefties fool no one. anon 8:34, you're wrong. kaelri, except for the profanity, that was a pretty good self-description, for a girl.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=arvL0VuEHeE
Fast Forward to 3:36.....
None of the people you're talking to here have ever said or done those things, Bear. Nor have they supported them any further than defending their right to be done. Indeed, many of us explicitly condemned those methods, upon your request. You've been given more than enough proof that a handful of provocative protesters do not define the majority of the country, including not only liberals but conservatives, veterans, and millions of utterly normal people, who hold the same beliefs. So come off it.
(I'm also not sure why you've taken to referring to me as a female... I don't see what point you're trying to make by it.)
I love America, I'm proud to be an American, and I'm pissed off that assholes like Bear think they have a monopoly on patriotism. FUCK YOU Bear. I put you in the same pond of scum as the creeps carrying the "death to America" sign. You guys deserve each other.
TONY SNOW'S POLITICAL STUNT
The political stunt pulled by White House spokesman Tony Snow seems unlikely to change the final outcome of the controversies surrounding President Bush. But it should cause honest members of both parties to call Snow’s honesty and integrity into question anew.
Let’s start with what we know for certain.
Snow has cancer and few if any Americans would hesitate to say a prayer for his success in fighting it. However, the cancer may only be treatable -- and not curable.
We know that because Snow decided to make the fact public in one of the most craven political maneuvers I’ve seen in some time.
Word came from the White House this week that Snow would would be in the hospital for about a week --but that he was going to “fight” on and that he would return to work soon. With Bush’s presidency ailing, Snow could have simply resigned his position to let the White House get a top-flight replacement on the job full-time. But no.
Tony Snow certainly has the right to make whatever private decisions he likes about his illness, his career, their family or anything else. However, once he takes those decisions to a public stage, the rest of us have a right to evaluate, discuss, interpret and critique what he has done.
I think that Snow has demonstrated his values to America in a way that demonstrates all of the reasons he should not be spokesman for the President of this country.
The White House can draw any kind of happy face it wants on Snow’s decision to return to the podium, the daily briefings and the pressures of advising the president, but what I see is a man who is not doing what’s best for his own family -- and that’s a man I would not trust to speak for the president.
Snow says he chose to leak the cancer news to “reassure the public.” Why does the public need reassurance about something that it’s unaware of?
Would a man like Snow parade his illness to the White House press corps and then announce that he is going to step down from his position as chief spokesman and try to spend his remaining years in exchange for…
AP) White House Spokesman Tony Snow pledges that he will continue on at the job despite the sobering news that his cancer has reappeared …
It almost makes him sound like the hero…
It also makes him sound like the last man I would want speaking for the leader of the United States of America.
Darn you, Kaelri. You posted exactly what I was going to post, thereby taking away my fun for the evening. :)
On a serious note, Bear, I hope that from now on you put the straw man tactic to bed. It is lost among your supporters, opens you up to all sorts of criticism from us, and makes you look like an idiot. How about from now on, take five minutes before posting, try to come up with some sort of cognitive argument (straw men, hollow canards, and any other blatantly erroneous rhetoric should automatically be out of the question) then post. I guarantee, you will receive a lot more respect from not only those you are arguing against, but you will help those you are arguing for.
If you're not convinced, follow the link Kaelri posted and re-read the verbal beat down you received the last time you tried to make the same hollow arguments.
Id Human Events in such deep financial trouble that they can't afford editors?
Is Lars Larson too lazy to proof read an article he submitted to a national publication?
Is the right so mean spirited that they'll applaud attacking a family dealing with cancer?
Post a Comment