It was out of respect for Elizabeth Edwards that O'Reilly, and other "responsible" guardians of the National Framejob known as Our Fourth Estate, had refused to run this story way back then. But no matter, quoth Papa Bear:
What we did do was expose Edwards as a dishonest politician, a man who tried to exploit American military people to prop up his preposterous theory that the United States economy punishes the poor.
Here he's telling the truth. Harrogate is not being sarcastic. Here Papa Bear is telling the Truth that throughout the Spring he attacked Edwards' "prepostorous theory."
Only much deeper into the Memo does O'Reilly actually Lie. It always makes Harrogate a Sad Panda to see Papa Bear lie, when he already has so much to Crow about, what with "Robin Hood" being dead and all. But here is the Lie:
There's no question the liberal media loved the message Edwards was putting out there that America is a place that caters to the rich and hammers the poor. That's why the committed left press ignored the National Enquirer investigation that proved to be true.
Really. It really really really doesn't get any worse than this. Even he ought to be ashamed of himself; knowing full well that there was no point during the Primary where Edwards or his arguments receieved more than a sound-blip, unless it was some Talking Head (like O'Reilly) trying to smash those arguments to smithereens.
What's that? The media is "politically correct" and therefore, Edwards was doomed as a white man running against "history"? Ovaries and pigmentation being more important than questions of social and economic justice? No, these ravings might sound good on a reflexive level, but the real reason they buried Edwards' message from the get-go is that no industry, including the Oil Industry, stands as much to lose by the ascendance of Progressive Politics, than the Media.
Anywho. Thank God nobody has to listen to Edwards anymore. That nobody is really left to take up the mantle of even tangentially challenging the further consolidation of wealth, unless you count Nader (heh). For example, Disney-ABC-ESPN-Anaheim Angels-Etc-Etc-Etc., was tiring of the compulsion to run a sound bite every few months.
2 comments:
I think one of the problems with Edwards is that no one believed him as being credible in his moral crusade.
Bob Shrum has a good piece on the Kerry/ Edwards ticket and the moral failings of Edwards. This is a good representative anecdote about Edwards:
"Kerry talked with several potential picks, including Gephardt and Edwards. He was comfortable after his conversations with Gephardt, but even queasier about Edwards after they met. Edwards had told Kerry he was going to share a story with him that he'd never told anyone else—that after his son Wade had been killed, he climbed onto the slab at the funeral home, laid there and hugged his body, and promised that he'd do all he could to make life better for people, to live up to Wade's ideals of service. Kerry was stunned, not moved, because, as he told me later, Edwards had recounted the same exact story to him, almost in the exact same words, a year or two before—and with the same preface, that he'd never shared the memory with anyone else. Kerry said he found it chilling, and he decided he couldn't pick Edwards unless he met with him again. When they did, Kerry tried to get a better personal feel for his potential number two; as rivals for national office since 2000, shortly after Edwards had entered the Senate, the two men hadn't spent a lot of time together. Kerry also wanted a specific reassurance. He asked Edwards for a commitment that if he was chosen and the ticket lost, Edwards wouldn't run against him in 2008. Edwards agreed "absolutely," as Kerry recalled him saying. If Kerry had shared this at the time, I would have told him what I did later: it was naive to think he could rely on a promise like that. Unlike Joe Lieberman, who'd been plucked from relative obscurity by Gore, Edwards had made his own mark in the primaries. He was ambitious—and if he saw his chance the next time, he was likely to go for it."
Alexandra Pelosi (the Speaker's daughter) directed a documentary about the 2004 Democratic Primary called, Diary of a Political Tourist. In this Edwards looks like an ass.
Edwards discussed good issues and he discussed them well, bu he was not believable when doing so.
Yes, Harrogate encountered that anecdote somewhere else a few weeks ago, cannot remember where, probably from one of the Towhnall columnists. if it is true then it certainly reflects poorly on Edwards. Had Harrogate been Kerry in that situation, he wouldn't simply have been stunned: it would have been decisive--no Veep nominee.
But then it is important to remember that this anecdote might not be true. has Kerry ever actually confirmed it?
Edwards, as you know, has been hammered all along by Conservatives for being so very, very wealthy, even while trying to make poverty the centerpiece of his campaign. Hypocrisy, they say, and now that the scandal has come out, they're doubling-down on this theme.
It is worth remembering that women could not get the right to vote without the support of men for their cause. Civil rights movement for African Americans would not have been effective, had no white people participated. And what advances that have been made for gay rights can largely be attributed to the efforts of heterosexuals.
And it is the height of obviousness that poor and working class people are not going to eb able to fight for their rights in the system (domestic terrorism as a possibility, unfortunately, is another story).
No. It will pretty much have to be the case that the rigged economics of the United States can only be challenged by wealthy people who are brave enough to do it.
Will there be a next high-profile voice to champion the rights of the unmoneyed in America?
Post a Comment