2/4 Meet the Press - John Edwards

[markvid]

I am getting dizzy from this hypocrite changing his position mid-stream.
Typical Clinton strategy.
Talk in generalities and confuse your audience, pander to both sides of an issue, so they're not sure what you mean.

And, now, when asked to explain why in 2004, he still said he made the right choice to vote for war, he said, wellll....it was in the middle of a long political campaign, wife was just diagnosed with breast cancer.
So, you made your choices and wanted to lead the country off of it, but now are saying it was stupid, while you were telling everyone you were the best to run the country?
This man is an idiot.
Go chase another ambulance.

 

[TheSportsPredictor]

Re: 1/4 Meet the Press - John Edwards

He'd be better off never changing his opinions. Then he could be president for two terms!

 

[PeteyPirate]

Re: 1/4 Meet the Press - John Edwards

He'd be better off never changing his opinions. Then he could be president for two terms!

Word.

 

[Billy Monday]

Re: 1/4 Meet the Press - John Edwards

When people learn more about complex subjects, sometimes they change their minds about things. It comes with being an adult.

That being said, I agree it is annoying to watch Edwards and Hillary sometimes. You can tell they are trying so very hard to pander to both sides of an issue and not be pinned down on positions. They're constantly calculating what they should say and how it will poll instead of just taking a stand.

 

[D-Backs Hack]

Re: 1/4 Meet the Press - John Edwards

Just curious if our Sunday morning talk-show police think that these are examples of "changing your position in mid-stream" and "talking in generalities":

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/04/mccain-flip/

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/04/mccain-benchmarks/

My hunch is that the script of the Straight-Talkin' Saint will continue unabated.

 

[Frank_Ridgeway]

Re: 1/4 Meet the Press - John Edwards

I am getting dizzy from this hypocrite changing his position mid-stream.
Typical Clinton strategy.
Talk in generalities and confuse your audience, pander to both sides of an issue, so they're not sure what you mean.

And, now, when asked to explain why in 2004, he still said he made the right choice to vote for war, he said, wellll....it was in the middle of a long political campaign, wife was just diagnosed with breast cancer.
So, you made your choices and wanted to lead the country off of it, but now are saying it was stupid, while you were telling everyone you were the best to run the country?
This man is an idiot.
Go chase another ambulance.

You know, I expect this kind of thinking on a non-journalism board I frequent. But here we are journalists -- our newspapers make corrections, write stories that take the opposite tack of previous ones after we find new information, and sometimes we completely alter our entire marketing and presentation philosophies once we find that existing ones no longer work. And yet there are those here who will bash a politician for changing his mind? If we had a colleague in the newsroom who was incapable of changing his mind, who stuck to one outlook in spite of all evidence to the contrary, we wouldn't value his opinion much. Yet some of us think pure stubbornness is a virtue in politics? Since when?

 

[Lamar Mundane]

Re: 1/4 Meet the Press - John Edwards

Colbert is the Mark Twain of our time.

When the president decides something on Monday, he still believes it on Wednesday - no matter what happened Tuesday."....

 

[Ben_Hecht]

Re: 1/4 Meet the Press - John Edwards

He's tapdancing as fast as he can. He has certain built-in advantages -- most notably, his basic
geographic base, which has been gold for the last two winners. Think he's transparent, vapid,
and far too liberal for my tastes, but believe he'll last a long time in this race.

If the dems had a non-senator with some pizzaz, this race would be shaped differently . . . but they don't . .. and it's not.

 

[markvid]

Re: 1/4 Meet the Press - John Edwards

I am getting dizzy from this hypocrite changing his position mid-stream.
Typical Clinton strategy.
Talk in generalities and confuse your audience, pander to both sides of an issue, so they're not sure what you mean.

And, now, when asked to explain why in 2004, he still said he made the right choice to vote for war, he said, wellll....it was in the middle of a long political campaign, wife was just diagnosed with breast cancer.
So, you made your choices and wanted to lead the country off of it, but now are saying it was stupid, while you were telling everyone you were the best to run the country?
This man is an idiot.
Go chase another ambulance.

You know, I expect this kind of thinking on a non-journalism board I frequent. But here we are journalists -- our newspapers make corrections, write stories that take the opposite tack of previous ones after we find new information, and sometimes we completely alter our entire marketing and presentation philosophies once we find that existing ones no longer work. And yet there are those here who will bash a politician for changing his mind? If we had a colleague in the newsroom who was incapable of changing his mind, who stuck to one outlook in spite of all evidence to the contrary, we wouldn't value his opinion much. Yet some of us think pure stubbornness is a virtue in politics? Since when?

Frank, my point is he changes his mind constantly to what he thinks will suit him the best.
The people, in 2002, think the war is a good idea? He's for it.
In 2004, it's still fashionable to support the troops while slamming the war. So he's still for it.
It's 2007, now the war is being derided on all sides. He's now against, but was only still for it in 2004 because he was exhausted by the campaign and his wife's breast cancer.
It's ridiculous how he bases his own beliefs on polls.

 

[Columbo]

Re: 1/4 Meet the Press - John Edwards

I am getting dizzy from this hypocrite changing his position mid-stream.
Typical Clinton strategy.
Talk in generalities and confuse your audience, pander to both sides of an issue, so they're not sure what you mean.

And, now, when asked to explain why in 2004, he still said he made the right choice to vote for war, he said, wellll....it was in the middle of a long political campaign, wife was just diagnosed with breast cancer.
So, you made your choices and wanted to lead the country off of it, but now are saying it was stupid, while you were telling everyone you were the best to run the country?
This man is an idiot.
Go chase another ambulance.

Edwards almost had me fooled four years ago.

Hypocritical, empty-suit fraud.

 

[Lamar Mundane]

Re: 1/4 Meet the Press - John Edwards

Welcome to politics, jackasses.

Empty suit, umm that's what W was in 2000 and is now. The man has no worldly curiosity and it's costing us dearly.

I agree that a non-Dem Senator with a personality would cruise to presidential victory. I think Mark Warner would have fit that mold. If Bill Richardson can raise money he can be the kind of uniter this country needs.

He has the foreign policy experience needed along with fiscal responsibility that translates well into the Democratic mold - you know one that doesn't include budget deficits which in case anyone forgot W inherited a quarter trillion dollar surplus and has turned into a quarter trillion dollar deficit.

 

[Editude]

Re: 1/4 Meet the Press - John Edwards

Edwards will not be alone in tap dancing around/through issues this time. With only about the middle 20 percent up for grabs, both sides will tailor their points to catch as much of that as possible.

 

[TigerVols]

Re: 1/4 Meet the Press - John Edwards

I am getting dizzy from this hypocrite changing his position mid-stream.
Typical Clinton strategy.
Talk in generalities and confuse your audience, pander to both sides of an issue, so they're not sure what you mean.

And, now, when asked to explain why in 2004, he still said he made the right choice to vote for war, he said, wellll....it was in the middle of a long political campaign, wife was just diagnosed with breast cancer.
So, you made your choices and wanted to lead the country off of it, but now are saying it was stupid, while you were telling everyone you were the best to run the country?
This man is an idiot.
Go chase another ambulance.

Edwards almost had me fooled four years ago.

Hypocritical, empty-suit fraud.

Me too.

 

[Lamar Mundane]

Re: 1/4 Meet the Press - John Edwards

Did you always know W was a fraud?

I did. Don't blame me b/c I never voted for W. Two more years and our national nightmare will be over.

 

[Moderator1]

Re: 1/4 Meet the Press - John Edwards

That's what I said four years ago.

 

[Frank_Ridgeway]

Re: 1/4 Meet the Press - John Edwards

I am getting dizzy from this hypocrite changing his position mid-stream.
Typical Clinton strategy.
Talk in generalities and confuse your audience, pander to both sides of an issue, so they're not sure what you mean.

And, now, when asked to explain why in 2004, he still said he made the right choice to vote for war, he said, wellll....it was in the middle of a long political campaign, wife was just diagnosed with breast cancer.
So, you made your choices and wanted to lead the country off of it, but now are saying it was stupid, while you were telling everyone you were the best to run the country?
This man is an idiot.
Go chase another ambulance.

You know, I expect this kind of thinking on a non-journalism board I frequent. But here we are journalists -- our newspapers make corrections, write stories that take the opposite tack of previous ones after we find new information, and sometimes we completely alter our entire marketing and presentation philosophies once we find that existing ones no longer work. And yet there are those here who will bash a politician for changing his mind? If we had a colleague in the newsroom who was incapable of changing his mind, who stuck to one outlook in spite of all evidence to the contrary, we wouldn't value his opinion much. Yet some of us think pure stubbornness is a virtue in politics? Since when?

Frank, my point is he changes his mind constantly to what he thinks will suit him the best.
The people, in 2002, think the war is a good idea? He's for it.
In 2004, it's still fashionable to support the troops while slamming the war. So he's still for it.
It's 2007, now the war is being derided on all sides. He's now against, but was only still for it in 2004 because he was exhausted by the campaign and his wife's breast cancer.
It's ridiculous how he bases his own beliefs on polls.

I'm not a big fan of Edwards, either, but I like that he's guided by polls. He listens to the public. I am not voting for someone to rule over us like a monarch, I am voting for someone to serve us like a public servant. You see it as him telling us what we want to hear. I see it as a willingness to subordinate his will to the will of the people. Now I don't think I'd vote for him in the primary, but his flexibility is a big plus as far as I'm concerned, especially after suffering through six years of pure stubbornness.

 

[Yawn]

Re: 1/4 Meet the Press - John Edwards

I am getting dizzy from this hypocrite changing his position mid-stream.
Typical Clinton strategy.
Talk in generalities and confuse your audience, pander to both sides of an issue, so they're not sure what you mean.

And, now, when asked to explain why in 2004, he still said he made the right choice to vote for war, he said, wellll....it was in the middle of a long political campaign, wife was just diagnosed with breast cancer.
So, you made your choices and wanted to lead the country off of it, but now are saying it was stupid, while you were telling everyone you were the best to run the country?
This man is an idiot.
Go chase another ambulance.

Damn, I'm sorry. I missed this thread.

He also waffled on his stand on homosexuality; saying his position was based on "I'm a Southern Baptist" yet he said homosexuality was not a sin, which puts him on the opposite side of the very denomination he was crediting for his position on gay marriage. The man has no convictions. For or against gay marriage, can you really trust this sonofabitch? I thought I could enough to consider voting for him this time around. Not freakin' now.

 

[Piotr Rasputin]

Re: 1/4 Meet the Press - John Edwards

Did you always know W was a fraud?

I did. Don't blame me b/c I never voted for W. Two more years and our national nightmare will be over.

Not sure what a lame-duck president has to do witb a discussion of one of the 2008 candidates, but okay.

 

[Frank_Ridgeway]

Re: 1/4 Meet the Press - John Edwards

Damn, I'm sorry. I missed this thread.

He also waffled on his stand on homosexuality; saying his position was based on "I'm a Southern Baptist" yet he said homosexuality was not a sin, which puts him on the opposite side of the very denomination he was crediting for his position on gay marriage. The man has no convictions. For or against gay marriage, can you really trust this sonofabitch? I thought I could enough to consider voting for him this time around. Not freakin' now.

My personal religious convictions are such that I do believe in Hell, and I hope there is space reserved in the hottest region there for those who presume to judge another person's fitness as a member of any religion.

 

[User 1019]

Re: 1/4 Meet the Press - John Edwards

Did you always know W was a fraud?

I did. Don't blame me b/c I never voted for W. Two more years and our national nightmare will be over.

Oh, yeah. And the Great Savior will come riding in on a beautiful stallion and, poof, things'll be so much better.