The Difference Between Conservatives and Liberals, in One Minute, on Video
Check out the last minute of this video interview of John Edwards, beginning at 1:00. This encapsulates the difference between conservatives and liberals better than any 10,000-word essay I could write.
The interviewer asks Edwards whether various things should be a right or a privilege. (The difference, of course, is that a mere privilege may be conferred, limited, or withdrawn at the whim of government.) His answers are typical of everything that is wrong with the left:
A college education? A “right.”
Health care? A “right.”
A “livable wage”? A “right.”
Owning a handgun? (The first thing mentioned so far that is contained in the Bill of Rights.) According to Edwards, that’s a mere “privilege.”
American citizenship for someone not born here but who has worked here for one year? Edwards struggles with that one, saying that citizenship has to be earned. There is some crosstalk, but he clearly expresses that it would be a “privilege” — but allows that it would definitely be different if the person had lived here for five years.
Access to the Internet? A “right.”
In a nutshell, the things that conservatives think are good, but that people must earn, Edwards considers a “right” (i.e. an entitlement). By contrast, the one actual constitutional right listed, he considers a “privilege” — something that government may confer, limit, or withdraw, subject to the whim of our Leaders.
As far as I’m concerned, he’s 0 for 6 on this one. It’s a very meaningful insight into the differences between the way the parties view the world.
Thanks to See Dubya.
[…] Pattycakes: As far as I’m concerned, he’s 0 for 6 on this one. It’s worth pointing out that Edwards is […]
SayUncle » Rights v. Privileges (ecfae3) — 6/6/2007 @ 5:45 amIf anything made me understand why the Breck Boy is both a libtard and a member of the party of the Seditious & Sleazy this has to be it…
Thanks for posting this…
juandos (9c8c3b) — 6/6/2007 @ 5:45 amEverything you listed above that Edwards says is a “right” has to be provided by someone else. What if no one wants to provide you with them? Should others — who maybe can’t afford to send their kids to college — be forced to subsidize a college education for others? If all you have the skills (and discipline) for is sweeping floors, should you be paid a “living wage” — driving up the costs of living for everyone who bothered to learn a marketable skill?
In contrast, the one thing that DOESN’T require anyone else to serve you — the right to arm yourself for your own defense — is dismissed as a “privilege”.
Weird.
Rob Crawford (240cf9) — 6/6/2007 @ 6:05 amBerlin explained it (and the dangers): positive liberty vs. negative.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/
One (positive) requires an expansion of the size, reach and scope of the state; the other (negative) leads to a withdrawal or diminution of the state.
For many on the left (and some on the right), there apparently is no danger when the government expands its control over the public sphere when the government is doing it for the “common good” or for the benefit of the citizenry. But when the latter occurs, the people become the wards of the state more than the state becomes the servers of the people.
Of course, one loses the concern about the misuse of the state’s power when one is exercising that very same power. Very seductive (as Tocqueville noted).
SteveMG (a2ab7e) — 6/6/2007 @ 6:05 am[…] The Difference Between Conservatives and Liberals, in One Minute, on Video Check out the last minute of this video interview of John Edwards, beginning at 1:00. This encapsulates the difference between conservatives and liberals better than any 10,000-word essay I could write. The interviewer asks Edwards whether various things should be a right or a privilege. (The difference, of course, is that a mere privilege may be conferred, limited, or withdrawn at the whim of government.) His answers are typical of everything that is wrong with the left: […]
Toys in the Attic » Blog Archive » This is not a good sign (b106ee) — 6/6/2007 @ 6:16 amStill nothing on Libby sentencing?
How do you feel about a pardon?
Semanticleo (710d38) — 6/6/2007 @ 6:41 amWhat does it even mean to say that a college education is a right? Would colleges be expected to admit people regardless of their ability? Would the government be required to create a Last Chance U to admit people not admitted elsewhere?
Crust (399898) — 6/6/2007 @ 6:51 amQ: Huge homes for trial lawyers across the street from trailer parks and shantytowns?
dubya (753723) — 6/6/2007 @ 6:53 amA: Right
Q: Huge lawyer fees from frivolous lawsuits?
A: Right
Q: The ability to choose whether to join a union?
A: Priviledge
Trackbacked by The Thunder Run – Web Reconnaissance for 06/06/2007
David M (b5d889) — 6/6/2007 @ 7:10 amA short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention.
Q: Weekly facial masks and manicures, bi-weekly stylings, monthly color jobs, styling gel and hairbrushes provided for life?
I'm Geekier (d6859b) — 6/6/2007 @ 7:12 amA: Oh, that’s a right, sweetcakes!
It’s pretty simple to support your “two Americas” theme when you invent rights out of thin air.
Politicians listen to smart people. I’d say Bob Shrum is pretty smart guy. He can certainly debate. But Shrum is the kind of political adviser that believes access to the Internet is an inalienable right. Ditto college.
Edwards listens to these advisers because he doesn’t really know anything about politics. He specializes in crafting a defense out of nothing.
Gabriel Sutherland (90b3a1) — 6/6/2007 @ 7:32 amJohn Edwards is crafted out of nothing.
Mark (e7967d) — 6/6/2007 @ 7:43 amIt was just a flat-out mistaken statement. It doesn’t represent the position of any democratic politician, I know of, but it makes a great sound-bite for his opposition.
He’s wrong, and he should admit it, although given the way election politics works, he vely likely never will.
Edwards is my favorite Democrat candidate, but I think he spoke without recognizing the questions he was actually being asked. He misread the form of the question. He’s clearly mis-stating his own positions, at least has he’s generally made them known.
John Edwards doesn’t think people have a right to a living wage, whether they earn it or not. He may very well think they have a right to earn a living wage while in an employment relationship with an American employer, but that’s a different statement. Same with college. There’s no right to a college education, but many Democrats believe there should be a right to the opportunity to pursue a college education. A “right” access the Internet for free? Heck no. But a “right” to freely use the Internet without chinese-type censorship? Definitely.
Phil (427875) — 6/6/2007 @ 8:27 amUmm…. Seriously, though. Edwards does realize this is not the Soviet Union, doesn’t he? Those are all nice things and medical care actually is sort of a right, since you can’t deny treatment, but it sounds like Edwards’ America would be very different from the one we have now, at the very least.
David N. Scott (71e316) — 6/6/2007 @ 9:07 amIn fairness, maybe he thought the handgun question was about the “right” vs. “privilege” of having taxpayers buy one for you.
Or maybe not.
Xrlq (f52b4f) — 6/6/2007 @ 9:31 amIt doesn’t represent the position of any democratic politician, I know of
Other than John Edwards, (Former Presidential candidate, Vice-Presidential nominee, and current Presidental candidate) I presume you mean to say.
Giving the speech history and voting patterns of almost the rest of the current candidates it would seem a easy extrapolation to the position of the rest of the field, save Richardson.
Unless of course you’re unaware of those? Or wish to deny that most of the rest of the field would appear to share the exact same sentiments?
Unix-Jedi (d657d9) — 6/6/2007 @ 9:38 amXrlq:
Maybe we should re-ask the question to the other candidates: as the right to have a government-issued firearm assigned to you…
But I think your take would be the logical extention of the current (D) side of things, you’re owed the “pursuit of happiness” (amongst other things), and shall be allocated by the government.
What the heck. Maybe I’ve been wrong about government programs all this time. Sign me up for the WFTITSA (Weapons for Those In The Second America) program.
Unix-Jedi (d657d9) — 6/6/2007 @ 9:42 amOK, sure, yeah, John Edwards and most democratic politicians are running on a platform of paying everyone a living wage, whether they actually work or not, because it’s their right. They believe the government should provide everyone with unlimited Internet access.
Distortion of positions like this undermines rational discourse. It’s not constructive for either side. If you disagree with their actual positions, that’s fine, disagree and make your case. Do you think defending against the real positions is too difficult?
Phil (427875) — 6/6/2007 @ 9:50 amPhil, the guy knew what a “right” was, in his esteeemed opinion, when he said keeping a gun was not one of them. Are you trying to tell us this was not really Edwards but some Bizzaro Edwards?
Did anybody imagine the Dems could actually find some candidates worse than Hillary!
spongeworthy (45b30e) — 6/6/2007 @ 10:13 amDoesn’t hurt either Israel or Switzerland to issue most adults a weapon. Of course, the obligation is some active duty military service (where you learn how to use the weapon and work as a team) and some reserve “call up” duty.
dubya (753723) — 6/6/2007 @ 10:17 amDistortion of positions like this undermines rational discourse.
What distortion? He’s right there in the video in all his male model glory with his own words coming out of his own $1,000,000.00 worth of dental work mouth.
nk (c66fe9) — 6/6/2007 @ 10:21 amThe real tip-off to the trap was the “one word answer” limitation. Edwards should have recognized he was being ambushed; maybe he did, and just didn’t bother to do anything about it.
It was classic cross-examination technique; as a trial lawyer, he should have recognized it. But he didn’t. And now he’s given a big fat gift to those who disagree with his real policies — a bunch of fake policy statements that are illogical and indefensible.
Phil (427875) — 6/6/2007 @ 10:21 amSteveMG–I noticed that too. The negative right/ positive right distinction really jumps out at you here. And also the George Lakoff Daddy Party/ Mommy Party distinction. Individual responsibility v. gimme-gimme.
See Dubya (30095a) — 6/6/2007 @ 10:39 amI don’t get it, Phil. He says it, then you say it’s not his position. Has his campaign “clarified” his statement since the interview?
Maybe it wasn’t a fair question, but, really, to say it’s not his position after he says it… weird.
Rob Crawford (240cf9) — 6/6/2007 @ 10:46 amAnd Edwards delivers his “rights” in such a breathy, romantic voice.
I’m in an electoral swoon!
Patricia (824fa1) — 6/6/2007 @ 10:56 amSome of us think “conservative” means advocating a smaller government that stays out of its citizens lives.
alphie (015011) — 6/6/2007 @ 11:17 amIs John Edwards someone who, at the end of the day, just isn’t all that bright to begin with? It is sort of ironic, isn’t it, that all the lefties who have derided GW Bush’s intelligence for the better part of eight years now have to defend Edwards’ bad decisions ($400 haircut, multi-million dollar new mansion in NC, huge payment from anti-poverty foundation, etc.) by repeating variations on the “he has bad political instincts” or “he isn’t thinking through the ramifications” theme.
For the life of me, other than his silly demogogic “Two Americas” prattle and his born-again anti-war stance I can’t figure out why so many Democrats find Edwards appealing. It says something about the populist left if this is the best they can do.
JVW (f68c57) — 6/6/2007 @ 12:00 pm[…] unburying it… Patterico See-Dubya Ace […]
No Runny Eggs » Blog Archive » Difference between conservatives and liberals in 45 seconds (3a269b) — 6/6/2007 @ 12:04 pmThe difference between liberals and conservatives is as different as night and day as black and white as good and evil
krazy kagu (484aa9) — 6/6/2007 @ 12:36 pmOh, come off it, Phil. He’s mistating his own position? What does that mean? Do you often mistate your own position when talking politics? These aren’t policy minutae we’re talking about here, like whether the budget item for new postal vehicles should include leather bucket seats. These are broad, easy concepts.
If he’s actually mistating his position what it means to me is he doesn’t actually have any heartfelt positions and doesn’t know what to think without a script from his handlers. I don’t mind a candidate who gets $400 haircuts, but he has to be more than a $400 haircut.
Eric (09e4ab) — 6/6/2007 @ 12:42 pmDo you often mistate your own position when talking politics?
When I’m told I have to give off-the-cuff, one-word answers, without time to think about it, yes, I don’t doubt that I would probably say something stupid sometimes.
This is exactly the sound-bite dumbing-down of politics and the absence of actual rationality that Al Gore describes in his new book. Conservatives have now pinned these one-word answers on Edwards, because it’s so much easier, and quicker than actually reasoning about his ideas.
Phil (427875) — 6/6/2007 @ 12:56 pmIt was classic cross-examination technique; as a trial lawyer, he should have recognized it. But he didn’t. And now he’s given a big fat gift to those who disagree with his real policies — a bunch of fake policy statements that are illogical and indefensible.
Hopefully he won’t have to negotiate anything with any foreign leaders after he’s elected, since they now know his secret vulnerability.
…because it’s so much easier, and quicker than actually reasoning about his ideas.
He has actual “ideas”?
“Scratch Edwards’ surface and you’ll find … more surface.”
But seriously, I seem to recall that old fella taking him apart in a debate or two …
Harry Arthur (b318a5) — 6/6/2007 @ 1:33 pmThis is exactly the sound-bite dumbing-down of politics and the absence of actual rationality that Al Gore describes in his new book.
You mean his latest book? I mistook that for an autobiography.
Harry Arthur (b318a5) — 6/6/2007 @ 1:34 pmWho actually thinks the Breck girl will get the nomination? Discussing him is a waste of time.
Gabriel (6d7447) — 6/6/2007 @ 2:25 pmA decent trial lawyer would have objected to the unnecessary limitation of response. Edwards has how many years as a trial lawyer?
If he knew he was being ambushed and didn’t bother to do anything about it, then he’s not fit to be President. As Harry Arthur pointed out, there’s a distinct possibility that a President might have to negotiate with foreign leaders.
Steverino (d27168) — 6/6/2007 @ 2:39 pmLet’s compare this to the three Republican candidates who raised their hands when asked ‘who doesn’t believe in evolution.’
We’re in the political silly season early. Candidates are espousing views to satisfy their bases. So all in all, considering those three amazing raised hands on the question of evolution (evolution, for f***’s sake!) I’ll take the liberals on the clear evidence that they’re less a threat to our nation’s future and standing as an educated nation, thanks.
multum_in_parvo (ff7b02) — 6/6/2007 @ 2:57 pm… I’ll take the liberals on the clear evidence that they’re less a threat to our nation’s future and standing as an educated nation, thanks.
Even when they believe “citizenship has to be earned”? What have you done to earn your citizenship, today? And can you say “fascism”?
nk (c66fe9) — 6/6/2007 @ 3:33 pmP.S. Come on, the fruitcakebait is all over the place. He’s just spouting the first nonsense that comes into his blow-dried head.
nk (c66fe9) — 6/6/2007 @ 3:40 pmI can’t stand this guy. When he’s spouting off about his plans for health care, all I can think of is how he is single-handedly responsible for women being forced to give birth through unnecessary cesarean surgery, because the OB/GYN’s are terrified of lawsuits like the ones he has filed. I personally know an OB/GYN who left her practice 2 years ago when she could no longer afford the malpractice insurance because of lawyers like John Edwards.
fngJD (49df46) — 6/6/2007 @ 3:55 pmEdwards denounces “predatory lending” and sub-prime mortgages for the poor, but made nearly $500,000 as a consultant to a hedge fund involved in that business.
He started a ‘nonprofit poverty center’ but then used more than 70% of their income to fund a speaking tour and for salaries of those employed by it.
Remember this stuff next time you visit a doctor, if they haven’t closed up shop because they can’t afford the insurance, or know someone paying outrageous tuition fees because taxpayer subsidized Universities are paying this shyster $55,000 to lecture them about poverty.
Right or left, this guy is out for one person: himself.
Sort of like, oh I don’t know, “Bush lied & people died” or “No war for oil” or “The border crossed us”? You know, the quick soundbites that take a complicated issue and try to make it cut-and-dried. Do you think Edwards really has an problem with appearing glib even though he is allegedly a deep thinker, or could it be that he is the blow-dried ambulance-chaser that many of us suspect?
JVW (d921cb) — 6/6/2007 @ 3:56 pmmip, Let’s compare this to the three Republican candidates who raised their hands when asked â€who doesn’t believe in evolution.’
Let’s do. Personally, I’d refuse to answer any of these stupid “raise your hand” questions that seem so much the rage in debates these days designed to do nothing more than to elicit a “gotcha” moment. There are few topics related to the real world that are answerable with a raise of the hand other than, of course, when school children need to leave the classroom to accomplish “number 1” or “number 2”, and even then we have to add one or two fingers to provide meaningful information.
In the instant case, to what does the question refer? Are we talking about micro-evolution which has been conclusively demonstrated to be true or are we talking about its extrapolation into macro-evolution which can’t be demonstrated, has never been observed and is more accurately a religious or metaphysical belief system than true science.
Macro-evolution sort of reminds one of the latest religion – anthropogenic global warming. Guess that one demonstrates my ignorance also.
Harry Arthur (b318a5) — 6/6/2007 @ 4:00 pmLet’s see, which is a bigger threat to our lives and our existence as a nation and a culture, stating that one doesn’t believe in evolution (whatever that means) or stating that one doesn’t believe there is an actual terrorist threat (why, it’s just a bumper sticker slogan)?
Give me a few minutes to ponder that one.
Harry Arthur (b318a5) — 6/6/2007 @ 4:11 pmHarry,
Are you one of the 18% of Americans who believe the Sun revolves around the Earth?
alphie (015011) — 6/6/2007 @ 4:14 pmHe knew how to say more than one word when he felt it necessary, Phil. He did it with the immigration question.
And, do you think this questioner was unsympathetic to Edwards? What’s your evidence of that??
Patterico (eeb415) — 6/6/2007 @ 4:30 pmPoor Phil, his candidate exposed for the blow-dried moron he is.
Reality bites, right Phil?
N. O'Brain (9056e2) — 6/6/2007 @ 4:40 pmWorth 10,000, no, 100,000 words!…
One interesting deliniation is that Mr Edwards sees things which have people sticking their hands in others people’s pockets as rights, while the thing that was mentioned which does not require other people to pay for it for you is a privilege.
Common Sense Political Thought (819604) — 6/6/2007 @ 5:22 pm…
No. A more appropriate question might include the percentage of the American public that questions the relgious dogma known as “evolution”.
It is an easily observable, provable, measurable and falsifiable fact that the earth revolves around the sun, just as it is that living things adapt to their environment (which I term micro-evolution).
What is certainly not observable is the extrapolation of “adaption” to the belief system that complex organisms evolved from less complex organisms over hundreds of millions of years through some largely undefinable natural “force” known as natural selection. All of which is based on the equally non-falsifiable, non-provable, non-measurable and non-observable underlying assumption that all causes are solely naturalistic.
In short, I have many of the same objections to macro-evolution that I often hear expressed with respect to intelligent design. At the very least, however, at least ID attempts to address “Darwin’s black box”: the irreducable complexities that we see in even the simplest forms of life, down to the cellular level.
But your rhetorical question wasn’t designed to elicit information, was it? Nor are “yes” and “no” the only possible answers, as I indicated. I’m not sure whether your intention was a straw man or a false dichotomy, either way …
In any case, the “do you believe in evolution” question is nothing more than an attempt by the questioner to elicit a response to the real question: “do you subscribe to the current secular religion”? The clear implication being that if the answer is “no”, then you’re an intellectual lightweight and your ideas are not to be considered by those of us who are your “scientific”, rational, sophisticated betters.
For this reason I equated it to another current secular religious dogma: anthropogenic global warming.
As Mr. Gore loves to quote: “The problem isn’t what we don’t know; it’s what we’re sure of that just ain’t so” … whether that be 100 million years in the past or 100 years in the future, I am certainly in agreement.
Harry Arthur (b318a5) — 6/6/2007 @ 5:22 pmWhy are the people so against doing anything to prevent Global Warming so for continuing the War in Iraq do you suppose?
The odds of our $100 billion a year doing anything positive for Iraq has been shown to be near zero, yet a small minority of Americans talk as if it is a certainty.
“Doing something” about Global Warming would cost America about a week’s worth of Iraq war funding.
The pro war types undermine their own cause by saying we shouldn’t do something about a threat that isn’t 100% certain.
alphie (015011) — 6/6/2007 @ 5:31 pmThis is exactly the sound-bite dumbing-down of politics and the absence of actual rationality that Al Gore describes in his new book. Conservatives have now pinned these one-word answers on Edwards, because it’s so much easier, and quicker than actually reasoning about his ideas.
Gee, Phil — is this “Al Gore” that you speak of whining about the “dumbing-down of politics” the same Al Gore that said bonafide climate experts who disagree with Inconvenient Truth are “the few remaining skeptics [that] get together with those who think the moon landing was staged on a movie lot”?
Is this “Al Gore” the same Al Gore that complains about the “absence of actual rationality,” but flaked on a debate scheduled for months against Bjorn Lomborg (a Danish critic of Inconvenient) one day before it was to take place after first demanding the format be changed at the last moment (the most notable change being the total exclusion of Lomborg)?
Are you complaining about “one-word answers” being “pinned on” John Edwards and then citing the same “Al Gore” that decries the discouraging of reasoning about ideas, yet who constantly smears those who dispute different aspects of his writings as being owned by “polluters?”
Naw, you couldn’t be talking about that Al Gore. You wouldn’t purposely make yourself sound so stupid.
Would you?
L.N. Smithee (cf4c99) — 6/6/2007 @ 6:12 pmalphie, “Doing something” about Global Warming would cost America about a week’s worth of Iraq war funding.
The pro war types undermine their own cause by saying we shouldn’t do something about a threat that isn’t 100% certain.
Reducing our CO2 emissions 50% below 1990 levels would force a reduction of approximately 80% below current levels. That certainly doesn’t sound trivial to me. This magnitude of action suggests significantly disruptive effects on our economy well in excess of a single week of Iraq war funding. Canada, in fact is already backing away from Kyoto for this very reason.
What possible connection does so-called “global warming” have to the Iraq war?
No one I know questions that the earth is warming. What many of us disagree with is the characterization of the warming as a “crisis”. What we have is modest warming of the average global temperature over the last century with more of the same this century: about 1.7 deg C.
The very best we can possibly do if we reduce our CO2 output by 80% is to reduce any reasonably predictable warming by less than 1 deg C, arguably within the realm of error of our measurement capability. Even if we could reduce the entire human output of CO2 to zero, we’re talking about 6-1/2 gigatons annual reduction. Decaying vegetation alone accounts for about 160 gigatons and the oceans produce far in excess of that.
Based on the preponderance of the Greenland ice borings, temperature leads CO2, not the other way around. From 1940 to 1975 there was a worldwide cooling trend while CO2 continued to rise, what is the explanation for that if CO2 increases cause temperature increases?
Have you read any of Bjorn Lomborg’s analysis? He makes the very valid point that we should focus or limited resources on “doable” things, particularly in Africa, like fresh drinking water supplies, fighting AIDs, providing affordable electrical power, combating malaria, etc. These are battles we can fight and win. We don’t even know if the warming we’re experiencing is anthropogenic and even if it is, it’s modest and we can deal with it. Not to mention that there are many positive aspects of warming that far outweigh the negative.
I do have to ask the “Goldylocks question”, though: What is the ideal average global temperature? It is currently about 15 deg C. Is that too hot, too cold, or just right? Says who? On what basis? How do you know?
Have you looked at Al Gore’s AIT with a sceptical mind? Do you really trust the political process brought to us by the UN? On what basis?
Harry Arthur (b318a5) — 6/6/2007 @ 7:03 pmJVW: the thing that I like about Senator Edwards is he’s willing to stand up and say he was wrong about something. Very few politicians will do that.
Consider, for example, the difference between his approach to his vote on authorizing the use of force against Iraq — he’s owned up to it and apologized for it — and Senator Clinton’s: in the last debate she denounced the war as “Bush’s War” and did not acknowledge her part in helping it happen.
The former seems significantly more honorable and forthright than the latter.
aphrael (9e8ccd) — 6/6/2007 @ 7:12 pmAnother good introduction to the “Paul Harvey version” (the rest of the story) can be found in the WSJ on line article cited by L.N. Smithee in #48 above.
Harry Arthur (b318a5) — 6/6/2007 @ 7:14 pmaphrael, of course Sen Edwards has come to his discovery that he was “wrong about the war” as Americans have increasingly lost interest in it and as it has gone less well than initial “combat operations”.
He may very well be willing to admit his errors and he may very well be taking advantage of a trend in the polls. I’m not convinced which is correct.
I would argue that another admirable trait in a politician can be the willingness to see one’s popularity erode significantly yet stay with a course of action which one firmly believes is correct. This can likewise be either a positive or can be considered stubborness.
Harry Arthur (b318a5) — 6/6/2007 @ 7:24 pmaphrael, another problem I have with Sen Edwards, and others’, reasons for initially voting for the war was that they were duped by that idiot, Bush but they’ve since learned the truth.
Does strain one’s credulity ever so slightly, doesn’t it?
Go back and read a few of their speeches given in the lead-up to the war, particularly those now so strongly opposed, e.g., Sen Edwards. You’ll find his comments then interesting now.
Harry Arthur (b318a5) — 6/6/2007 @ 7:40 pmA politician from the Democratic party makes statements totally in line with standard Democratic thought. And you think this is out of the ordinary?
[Note to Phil: Whichever Democratic Party you are referring to, it can not be the Democratic Party of the United States of America, North America, Sol III, Via Lactis] The only defensible explanation of his remarks would be that he actually meant “economic or material necessity in modern society”, and not a political right, but somehow I doubt that is what he meant.
No, Edwards said what every Democratic politician would have said. No need to for anyone’s knickers to get knackered.
What would be far more interesting, and productive of information, would be the Republican candidates be questioned as Edwards was. It would probably open a few eyes if they demonstrated how close to Edwards their answers were. I rather suspect that Guiliani, McCain, and Romney would say very similar things, and possibly some of the others. The differences between the Democratic and Republican parties lie far more in the interest groups to whom they would divert tax money than in any real principles.
kishnevi (db1823) — 6/6/2007 @ 7:54 pmWhat would be far more illuminating would be
This was awesome interviewing. That 60 second spurt was one of the most useful for the public interviews I’ve ever seen.
I’d love to see everyone going for the Presidency to get these same questions before their campaigns rehearse answers for them.
“ambushed”
jpm100 (a99bf7) — 6/6/2007 @ 7:56 pm“ambushed” – sad defense.
jpm100 (a99bf7) — 6/6/2007 @ 7:57 pmWhat possible connection does so-called “global warming” have to the Iraq war, Harry?
Well,
Texas pumps out 25% of America’s CO2 emissions and I’ll bet that Texas companies recieve at least 25% of the war pork from the Iraq war, for one thing.
The obvious connection that the Texas oil companies have to both issues is another.
Whatever will Texas do once their boy comes home to cut brush?
alphie (015011) — 6/6/2007 @ 9:09 pmWell Al Gore better pack his bags, because once he’s finished turning our world into a pre-historic culture, he’s off to Mars and
fngJD (49df46) — 6/6/2007 @ 10:44 pmNeptune to show the inhabitants of those planets the error of their ways. It’s just too bad that he wasn’t around about 20,000 years ago when the last glaciers covering North America began to retreat. It must have been all those hunter-gatherers and their damned SUV’s.
I just don’t get these people who latch onto the next big crisis. Why can’t we accept that climate change is a natural phenomenon. I’m not saying that human don’t contribute in some small fraction, but the majority of the change seems to be natural. We have had warm periods, and extreme cold periods. A lot of scientist agree that we are merely in a warming trend on the cusp of another ice age. Enjoy it while it lasts.
Mr Arthur wrote:
Of course, if we did somehow turn the corner in Iraq, destroy the terrorists and have the democratic government become really stable, Mr Edwards would be telling us that he made a mistake in thinking that his original vote was a mistake.
Dana (3e4784) — 6/7/2007 @ 4:41 amfngJD wrote:
Because their leaders see all things which produce energy (the energy that they like to consume as well as we do) as somehow evil, while their minions are suffering not from global warming but intellectual cooling.
We could, of course, revert back to nature, get rid of all of our evil hydrocarbon emissions — and have a world in which most people were barely making subsistence, and the average man died by forty.
Dana (3e4784) — 6/7/2007 @ 4:46 amActually, I a) responded to you already by saying I don’t have anything original to say, and b) did a post linking Beldar’s musings on bail.
Sorry if I’m not dancing to your tune strictly enough.
I wouldn’t like it.
Patterico (eeb415) — 6/7/2007 @ 5:15 amLet’s compare this to the three Republican candidates who raised their hands when asked â€who doesn’t believe in evolution.
Vatar (085be7) — 6/7/2007 @ 5:22 amLet’s compare it to the 9/10 of Democrat candidates who are against English as the national language, something that 85% of Americans support.
Semanticleo has a rather interesting habit of such behavior.
Heh.
Pablo (99243e) — 6/7/2007 @ 5:24 amSemanticleo got under Althouse’s skin? Good for him. I’ll think more kindly of him from now on. đź‰
nk (c66fe9) — 6/7/2007 @ 6:26 amPablo;
Context is everything. If the host wishes to be unresponsive, sobeit. But don’t launch a fusillade of bluster about the rudeness of the question, which btw, she didn’t answer.
Semanticleo (710d38) — 6/7/2007 @ 6:59 amHow do you feel about a pardon?
I wouldn’t like it.
Please elaborate as to why
Semanticleo (710d38) — 6/7/2007 @ 7:01 amTexas pumps out 25% of America’s CO2 emissions and I’ll bet that Texas companies recieve at least 25% of the war pork from the Iraq war, for one thing.
The obvious connection that the Texas oil companies have to both issues is another.
I so hate to be negative but this comment makes no logical sense whatsoever. “I’ll bet” and “obvious connections” are not arguments. I suspect you’re smart enough to engage on a higher intellectual level than this.
Harry Arthur (5af33b) — 6/7/2007 @ 7:10 amWhy not a pardon? It seems to me that Libby was convicted of a particular crime and sentenced for another crime for which he wasn’t even indicted.
Harry Arthur (5af33b) — 6/7/2007 @ 7:13 amPhil’s gotten awfully quiet. I hope he realizes his position was utterly indefensible.
Steverino (d27168) — 6/7/2007 @ 7:27 amWhy?
Lord Nazh (d282eb) — 6/7/2007 @ 1:14 pmHaving arrested more than 2000 heroin and cocaine addicts during my police career, his gibberish reminds me of what is called “magical thinking” that is, dialogue that sounds like genius to the intoxicated, but only jibberish to the more lucid listeners. This YouTube interview puts the big three to shame… If only their reporters could be so astute and focused… Thank God for the Internet!
Clark Baker (8fd1b7) — 6/7/2007 @ 9:58 pm