"WASHINGTON -- He launched his campaign in the hurricane-ravaged quarters of New Orleans and traveled through Appalachia, talking about poverty and railing against corporate greed and financial disparities. But something strange happened as John Edwards built his campaign for president: He drew votes from an economically diverse bloc, mostly white men, who were just as likely to be rich as they were to be poor."
This quote is extremely telling to me. Yesterday as I watched John Edwards bow out of the race for President, I was dumbfounded by his message of anti-poverty, that he is the self-proclaimed face of the anti-poverty crusade.
Granted he began his campaign in the torn streets of New Orleans, pandering only to the "blame-Bush-for-Katrina" campaign - he later called upon poverty as the cornerstone of his campaign during his withdrawal. Well, Senator Edwards, that's mere geography.
How is it that the majority of your supporters are white men, just as likely to be rich than poor? How is it that the race dynamic, leaving each candidate fighting for "the black vote" - clearly plays to Obama's favor. He won South Carolina, winning both black voters and white voters. The discussion about race leaves Edwards out entirely as well, existing mostly between Obama and Hillary's wide-mouthed husband, or should I say the Clinton campaign. People think the GOP base is torn? Why is it that the Democrat candidate that wants to raise handouts to the poor black folks of the south is the least supported by those voters?
Most people have said it already - pointing to the $500 dollar haircuts, the "most valuable home in Orange County with a 6 million estimated tax value," what have you -the trial lawyer cougar with money to spare. Give your $55,000 speaking fee to the poor - that's how you can end poverty.
You want to tout a trip with 700 high school students to New Orleans to clean up after the hurricane blew through? Would you do it without cameras following behind? Don't tout it for political gain - put your money where your mouth is.
I can see that John Edwards is a charismatic man. Though I disagree with his political ideology and even his decision to run for President with his terminally ill wife at his side, I believe he can do good. Cut the bullshit double-speak about Two Americas, and start bringing the second America in line with whatever you think is the first.
Edwards should start a foundation to repair broken communities. He should lead mission trips to clean up poverty stricken areas, in the south- starting in his own precious mill-territory, and reaching out beyond the lines of race and financial status. Think of the good that could be done. We get so caught up in the message and "oh, think of what he could have done" as President, and we don't realize that running for office is an extremely selfish career. He wouldn't have ended poverty as President. Though I can't believe I'm about to quote Ron Paul, the President doesn't control the economy. He sure can help the citizens contributing to the success of the economy with tax cuts and such, but he doesn't control it.
I'd rather a President advocate for personal responsibility- working if you're able, ignoring handouts, not getting pregnant four times in five years, realizing the government isn't there to wipe your ass when you shit- you get the picture. I'd rather John Edwards give back, and then I'll believe him when he says he wants to end poverty. It's beautiful rhetoric. Where's the action?
Blaze your own path, Senator Edwards.
1 comment:
What does the end of poverty look like?
John Edwards concluded his Presidential campaign yesterday, but not before securing pledges from Obama and Clinton that they would make the ending of poverty central to their presidential campaigns.
Regardless the road we choose to take, be it a conservative path or a liberal one-- at what point will we consider people out of poverty? Can somebody tell me. Not platitudes like "when every person is living in dignity and without fear" or some other claptrap. I can't measure that, and unless we figure out how to achieve some communistic land of perfection, where everyone is robotically equal, we will always have different strata in society. The poor will always be with us.
So, please somebody tell me-- What does the end of poverty look like?
Post a Comment