Tag Archives: Edwards

Edwards: “You can’t choose”

John Edwards wants to be president.  One of the issues he is running on is universal healthcare.

  • Families without insurance will get coverage at an affordable price.
  • Families with insurance will pay less and get more security and choices.
  • Businesses and other employers will find it cheaper and easier to insure their workers.

Universal healthcare is one of those issues that sounds good until you question it.  For instance, we keep hearing how many folks are not covered by health insurance.  Yet, the US Census recently provided the smoking gun: nearly half of those reported to have no health insurance are illegal aliens.  Remove those folks from the rolls, and the problem isn’t what is reported.

That does not stop Edwards from wanting to spend $90 to 120 billion annually to insure these people.   Yesterday, Edwards shared a little more of his plan:

It requires that everybody be covered. It requires that everybody get preventive care,” he told a crowd sitting in lawn chairs in front of the Cedar County Courthouse. “If you are going to be in the system, you can’t choose not to go to the doctor for 20 years. You have to go in and be checked and make sure that you are OK.

Would-be President Edwards will remove your right to make medical decisions.

What would be the consequence of not complying with the government’s mandate?

And if he can force you to go to the doctor, he certainly will have the provision to determine if you need to go to the doctor.  Isn’t that how this works in England?  The government determines whether or not you need the service you and the doctor have determined is best?

Proponents of universal healthcare tug on our emotions.  No one wants to be callous and deny citizens basic care.  Anyone who is truly in need should be able to receive services, but as soon as government creates a program, one can be certain that will be bloated and inefficient.  It is far better to encourage the private sector to care for those who need than for government.

John Edwards On Education

John Edwards is a candidate for president. The other day he spoke about education in Iowa. His campaign is so proud of his thoughts it posted the video for all to see.

If we identify a place where the kids are struggling not able to do their job, the school’s not doing its job we need to go in and help the school.

We, of course, is the federal government.

Edwards responds that one of the things he would do as president is to demand that schools record more data about students to determine whether it is failing or not. First off, at least in the schools I am familiar with, these data are already recorded and used. Who will Edwards send to remediate? According to the would-be President, an extra high school counselor is already on the way.

Edwards will help every low-income high school eligible for Title I hire a new college counselor, helping students choose college-track courses and navigate the admissions and financial aid process.

The local high school here has six counselors and a supervisor. From what I understand, the city needs a new building, not another counselor who will earn benefits and go into the local retirement fund, which is already stretched thin. Of course, the federal government is so in touch with what we need in Millville, NJ, Edwards can easily deem that an extra counselor will fix all the ills here. Frankly, I don’t think that is going to get it done.

Finally, Edwards makes a claim many make in that schools spend too much time preparing students for standardized tests.

Emma Claire, my nine-year old just finished third grade where they spend a huge part of the year preparing for the end of grade test.

If the test measures what the student is expected to know, teaching to the test is desired. In New Jersey, the DOE published the Core Curriculum Content Standards. It then developed a series of tests, Assessment of Skills and Knowledge, based on the CCCS. Individual school districts build (or are supposed to)their curricula to meet the CCCS. Why wouldn’t I teach my students what they need to know to perform well on ASK? Why should not the bulk of the year be spent learning the CCCS? Why would a man running for president not want my students to learn this material?

Let’s assume that some students do not perform well on ASK. What do we expect the federal government to do now? According to Edwards, he’ll send in the troops. Do we truly expect those dispatched from Washington, D.C. to remedy these students any better than those in New Jersey? Is the extra counselor going to make the difference?

I am not a teacher.

That is all we need to know about Edwards and the other candidates for president.

Edwards’ Daughter Profits from News Corp.

John Edwards has a credibility problem. That does not bode well for a man who wants to be President of the United States.

The man who would be the most powerful ran away from a debate to be sponsored by Fox News. Then he called on all Democrats to return any campaign money raised from Fox News officials.

It did not take long to remind Mr. Edwards that he earned $500,000 from HarperCollins, a News Corp. subsidiary. Edwards has passed that off stating that he gave all that money to charity.

Now comes a report that Edwards received $300,000 in expenses for the book.  Licensing fees for photographs can be expensive.  But it turns out that is not all the expense account was used for.

HarperCollins paid portions of a $300,000 expense budget for the book to Edwards’s daughter and to a senior political aide, Jonathan Prince.

The would-be president is being squirmy with his boycott of Fox News.  He benefited from Rupert Murdoch’s company, his daughter profited, as did an aide of his.  Yet, no one he is running against is supposed to take a campaign contribution from the company and he will not appear on the network.

This is not a man who is demonstrating leadership qualities.  Should not a president be above this kind of politics?

Just curious, if elected, would President Edwards ban Fox News from covering the White House?

Edwards Disregards Constitution

Presidential candidate John Edwards does not respect the U.S. Constitution. The Tenth Amendment states:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Search the U.S. Constitution. Nowhere will you find education. Education is not a right reserved to the federal government. Just to be certain, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in San Antonio v. Rodriguez:

Education, of course, is not among the rights afforded explicit protection under our Federal Constitution. Nor do we find any basis for saying it is implicitly so protected. As we have said, the undisputed importance of education will not alone cause this Court to depart from the usual standard for reviewing a State’s social and economic legislation.

As important and compelling as education may be, it is a right of state government, not the federal government. This is what Fred Thompson pointed out yesterday.

Contrast the Constitution and Mr. Thompson’s view with that of Mr. Edwards. Edwards, pandering to Melissa Etheridge it would appear, called for schools to teach about homosexuality. Why is a man who wants to head the federal government dictate curriculum? Obviously, Mr. Edwards does not respect education let alone the U.S. Constitution.

Watch from 4:47 onward . . .

Edwards Hypocrisy

Today, candidate for President of the United States, John Edwards said that the government should stop the News Corp. purchase of the Dow Jones.

Today, Senator John Edwards spoke out strongly against media consolidation which threatens the health of our democracy, by calling on Democrats to openly oppose and take the necessary steps to stop the merger between News Corp and the Dow Jones Company/The Wall Street Journal.

What necessary steps to stop the merger would Mr. Edwards recommend? This is a man who wants to lead the entire nation and he doesn’t see that railing against one media source, while rallying his base (on the heals of the Kos Convention), is not a position he or the government should take. While he may perceive a bias from a given media source, it is unfair to forbid it from doing business. What would an Edwards Administration look like if this is what he advocates? What would our economy be like under his administration?

The reason Edwards cites for stopping the merger is that News Corp. is biased against Democrats.

Edwards called on Democrats to oppose the merger in light of the biased and unfair manner Fox News, and other media arms of News Corp, cover Democrats and the Democratic Party.

Edwards, attempting to take the high road, called on his Democratic comrades to return any campaign money that was donated by News Corp. This was directed directly at Senator Clinton who has raised $20,000 from the sordid company.

Of course, Mr. Edwards has a relationship of his own with News Corp. Last year, HarperCollins published Home: The Blueprints of Our Lives. HarperCollins is owned by News Corp. Edwards earned $333,334 in royalties last year for that book.

If News Corp. is so biased, biased enough to advocate the government forbid it purchasing another company, why was it good enough to line Candidate Edwards’ pocket, but not his opponents’?

It looks like I mis-reported income for his book. In addition to the royalties, there was a $500,000 advance from the evil media group to presidential-hopeful John Edwards.

Hat tip to Michelle Malkin for this nugget.

Spend Spend Spend

Watching the CNN Democratic debate this evening is like my grandmother watching QVC: eyes wide open, everybody is spending money!

This week Senator Obama took some heat as he proposed a universal healthcare program under his presidency. He pitched no figures, but some did the research and found that Obama thinks it will cost only $50-60 billion dollars. Of course, that is after he raises an equal amount of taxes on “the rich”.

The Edwards campaign complained about Obama’s plan stating that Edwards plans a “truly universal” plan that will come in at $90-120 billion annually. At least he’s honest.

The last question of the debate was asked by a substitute teacher. She wanted to know the big issue each would tackle during his first 100 days in office. Edwards was the first asked. His answer:

Travel the world.

Seriously. The man has an image issue as he spent campaign funds for his haircuts ($400 apiece) and spa visits. This week we learned that during his run with Senator Kerry in 2004, Edwards renovated his campaign plane on the taxpayer’s dime. Answering that his first move would be to travel on the taxpayers’ wallet does not bode well for his campaign. Edwards is seen as a person living large on other people’s money.

He also wants to send every student to college with tax dollars.

I do not see Edwards lasting through the primary season.

Richardson wants to guarantee a $40,000 starting salary for teachers.  Of course, that will not win him any votes in New Jersey; NJEA’s current campaign is to raise starting salaries to $50,000.

Dodd was unwilling to take a pledge to veto any bill that includes earmarks.  Given that he is unlikely to win the nomination, he insured his place in Congress by hedging.  Back in January, Dodd joined Biden and Clinton in voting against an amendment that would assign the senator’s name to the earmark included in any bill; namely, we would know who is slipping the pork into the bill. Those three presidential hopefuls do not believe the citizens deserve to know who is pushing through pork without vetting the issue.

All I heard tonight was to stop the war and spend.  Democrats need to heed Bob Kerrey’s advice or 2008 is going to be a huge disappointment.

A Right to Healthcare?

I had a good night’s sleep, but Fritz awoke early so here I am catching up on e-mail and feeds before preparing for the day. As I sit here, I have Fox News on. Monday morning at 5:30 a.m. that means a replay of the Saturday morning show, Cashin’ In. This is one of those financial shows I generally do not watch.

One story that was covered was Walmart’s plan to offer medical services on-site. The idea is to have a health clinic that would be low-cost. All were on board with the idea. How could one not be?

Then the discussion moved to the impact this program will have on healthcare nationwide. During that discussion, the question was asked:

Is healthcare a right?

That’s a very good question. It seems to me it is not. I do not recall seeing healthcare in the U.S. Constitution. It is not an inalienable right as proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence. So, our national documents do not hold healthcare as a right.

Could it be an inalienable right that our country does not recognize? Not that I can determine. While man will help out those less fortunate and there may even be an obligation to do so, there is no requirement for a government to provide this. As such, why the call for universal healthcare?

Presidential candidate John Edwards is leading the charge. He states:

The 47 million uninsured Americans often do not get the care they need. Each year, about 18,000 die as a result. Despite the problems of the uninsured and unnecessarily low quality care, our health care system is the most expensive in the world and insurance premiums have grown faster than wages for almost 50 years. John Edwards believes we need to reform our health care system to provide truly universal coverage – not mere access to insurance – and get better care at lower cost.

I am all for better care at a lower cost. But is that a reason for universal healthcare? If not, then what is the reason for universal healthcare? He does not state it unless one infers it is because it is unfair that the uninsured are not insured. That, to me, seems like a losing argument. Lots of things are unfair and I am loathe to think it is government’s role to level the playing field.

Dear reader, is healthcare a right?

Is Edwards Anti-Catholic?

I will not vote for John Edwards for president. The other day I pointed out how he said he would raise taxes to pay for universal healthcare. That’s enough to make Edwards unacceptable to me.

Since then it has been widely reported that Edwards hired Amanda Marcotte. Who? Amanda Marcotte has been brought on as the campaign blogmaster/mistress. She was presumably hired because of her own blog, Pandagon.

Since Marcotte’s initial post on the Edwards site:

The main two questions this brings up are: Why me? And why John Edwards?

As for me, I run and write for a blog called Pandagon, which is one of the top liberal political blogs on the internet and known mostly for insightful and often humorous political blogging. We pride ourselves on being an issues-oriented blog, instead of a blog that mimics the “horse race” coverage of politics that dominates so much of the mainstream media.

The blogosphere has erupted with egregious examples of where Marcotte has been confrontational, rude, and anything but “insightful”.

Today, this post of Marcotte’s from June 2006 made the rounds. Marcotte seems to have been dissecting the Catholic Church’s stance on birth control. Would you classify the following as insightful?

Q: What if Mary had taken Plan B after the Lord filled her with his hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit?

A: You’d have to justify your misogyny with another ancient mythology.

When Candidate Edwards hired Marcotte for his campaign, do you think he vetted Marcotte on the following?

I would add that abortion is a method of birth control, though it is not a contraceptive.

Marcotte is hostile to Catholics.

Catholics aren’t supposed to use birth control except that they are, because not using birth control is fucking stupid.

What about this “insight” do you think drew Candidate Edwards to Marcotte? It seems to me that by hiring Marcotte to speak for the campaign, Edwards has to answer for her pointed views. If Edwards does not subscribe to these views, why would he hire someone who does?

The blogosphere is relentless. Before long, the Edwards campaign will need to answer for hiring Marcotte. She is volatile. She is not reasoned. Yet she is working for a man who wants to be president. Not firing her and apologizing for bringing her onboard, Edwards risks not only throwing away the Catholic vote in America but the vote of anyone who does not think that kind of “insight” should be represented in the Oval Office.

Are you comfortable with the president having a person on staff who not only speaks like a potty but who is hostile to traditional values?