Hillary Says Buy Health Insurance Or I'll Garnish Your Wages

It's so nice to hear her admit it though, but remember she claims she doesn't support socialized health care. That's only a "right wing attack" on her. When she was confronted about how her socialized health care plan, and how it would harm minorities, she flat out denied this would be the case. However, with her most recent statements on garnishing your wages ... one can't help but imagine a poor black family that chooses to pay their rent over buying insurance having their pay suddenly taken away from them by Hillary. What's more important Hillary, a roof over your head or health care?

Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton said Sunday she might be willing to have workers' wages garnisheed if they refuse to buy health insurance to achieve coverage for all Americans.

Remember, Hillary said she doesn't support socialized medicine. So why did she attack Obama for not requiring everyone to get health insurance?

The New York senator has criticized presidential rival Barack Obama for pushing a health plan that would not require universal coverage. Clinton has not always specified the enforcement measures she would embrace, but when pressed during a television interview, she said: "I think there are a number of mechanisms" that are possible, including "going after people's wages, automatic enrollment."

Hmmm, require everyone to get coverage, if they don't ... punish them by garnishing wages. Yeah, that's not socialized medicine.

Clearly Hillary is going after Edwards supporters, and Johnny's official endorsement. Remember Edwards wanted to garnish wages also, and there was a little scandal involving Hillary and Edwards teaming up a while back.

So, Now John Edwards Is A Conservative On Immigration?

We all know that Edwards doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of winning the Democratic nomination. Mainly because he's a kook, and not a smart one either. However, he has latched onto the most important issue among 2008 voters ... immigration.

Most Americans support a hard-line stance on illegals, and Edwards has (up to this point) been the exact opposite of what the American people want on this issue.

We must remember that there is an election to win, and Edwards being himself hasn't been getting it done. So ... it's time for the tried-and-true Democrat strategy to gain ground in an election ... change yourself.

Huffington Post:

At the debate and on ABC's This Week this past Sunday, Edwards drew a distinction between himself and Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, saying he disagreed with New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer's proposal to grant drivers licenses to undocumented immigrants. Clinton backs the proposal as a way of solving crimes and promoting road safety.

Moreover, Edwards said that while states should have say over the issue until comprehensive reform can be passed, once reform is enacted, licenses should only be granted to those immigrants who are on the path to citizenship.

Now his base (Huffington Post, Daily Kos types) are not too happy with his complete reversal of his stance on illegals.

Edwards' stance contrasts sharply from what he advocated as the Democratic vice presidential candidate in 2004, when he was unequivocal in his support for issuing driver's licenses to the undocumented.

So how does a candidate who has embraced progressive stances on many critical issues from 2004 to 2008 shift conservative on immigration? The answer, some analysts say, lies in the political dynamics of Iowa, the first caucus state.

First off, I'd like to point out that Edwards' new stance on licenses is not a conservative position as is being stated in the quoted post. True it is more conservative than the typical liberal stance, but not quite conservative.

As for this being a tactic to win the all important Iowa ... it's more likely than not, very true.

I've been reading what some liberal bloggers have been saying about Edwards' turnaround, and they seem to miss the point. They are critical of Edwards because this new stance is "conservative", but that is not the issue. The crux is that Edwards, like Clinton, has decided that it is more important to lie to potential voters in order to win. I credit Obama for not having done this.

We now have two of the three Democrat front-runners who have openly shown you their willingness to tell you what you want to hear rather than what they believe. That should be far more upsetting to liberals than Edwards taking a "conservative" stance on an issue.

Edwards Actually Has A Good Idea

I've been saying this since I was in the military in the 90's. There is already some cooperation between some nations, and it is very effective. The organization should be volunteer as far as combat personnel are concerned, and only allow intelligence sharing that is strictly terrorist related. As long as there are protections from sharing info vital to national security, and the independence of those nations is respected ... it's a damn fine idea.

AP:

Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards is proposing an international organization to fight terrorism through shared intelligence.

This is far better than his previous plan to combat terrorism.

He then attacked Bush as being the only guy in the history of the world to make mistakes with terrorism, and he said some other stupid, untrue things ... like:

"Today, terrorism is worse in Iraq, and it's worse around the world," Edwards said in excerpts provided by his campaign. "It means the results are in on George Bush's so-called global war on terror and it's not just a failure, it's a double-edged failure."

Notice he failed to address Clinton's policies, and he did not give a reason why global terrorism shot through the roof in 1998. You and I know it was the fatwas, but he doesn't.

The interesting part of his comments that terrorism is worse around the world is technically false, and at best a spin.

As you can see from the graph below from the Terrorism Knowledge Base ... global terrorism is WAY DOWN this year from last.


If you look at this graph, you will see that terrorism in Iraq is also far less this year than last.


He also failed to note that outside of Iraq and the war in Israel last year ... global terror was significantly reduced. You can't count Iraq and Israel in the terror count because they were battlefields, and the argument has always been that the rest of the world was/was not safer since Iraq. Well, it is, and there is no way to deny it.

Now that those corrections have been made in what Edwards had to say ... his plan is still good.

"Those nations who join will, by working together, show the world the power of cooperation," Edwards said. "Those nations who join will also be required to commit to tough criteria about the steps they will take to root out extremists, particularly those who cross borders. Those nations who refuse to join will be called out before the world."

I really don't know what he means by "called out." This seems to be Edwards' version of Obama trying to act tough because they have a reputation for being weak. We all know Edwards won't do anything but talk about countries who refuse. He won't take any real action against those nations that don't support anti-terrorist activities, and he's been critical of others who do want action against those countries.

He did make a very laughable statement in his speech regarding the Cold War.

Edwards accused Bush of focusing on Cold War institutions designed to win traditional wars instead of cooperation with allies to take out small hostile groups. He also accused him of "an exclusively short-term focus on the enemy we know" and "a foreign policy of convenience that readily does business with whoever is available and regularly turns a blind eye when our allies behave wrongly or fail to cooperate."

Once again another Democrat completely ignores the coalition of allies assisting us in this conflict. Even though there are more of them than the first time around.

The rest of his statement was hypocrisy at its best. He is willing to turn a blind eye to our allies doing bad things, and the Dems are notorious for continuing to focus on Cold War institutions that are now obsolete. That is the focus of appeasement.

John Edwards Asks: Is Cuba's Healthcare System Run By The Government?

H/T: Newsbusters

As reported by ABC ...

When an Iowa resident asked former senator John Edwards Thursday whether the United States should follow the Cuban healthcare model, the 2004 vice presidential contender deflected the question by saying he didn't know enough to answer the question.

"I'm going to be honest with you - I don't know a lot about Cuba's healthcare system," Edwards, D-N.C., said at an event in Oskaloosa, Iowa. "Is it a government-run system?"

Newsbusters astutely points out that it is difficult to believe than any adult, let alone a former senator and presidential candidate, would not know that Cuba runs their own healthcare.

Remember When John Edwards Said All Of The Money He Received From News Corp Went To Charity? Yeah, He Lied.

After Edwards attacked Hillary for accepting money from Murdoch we discovered that he too had accepted money from Murdoch. When confronted with such truth Edwards did as Edwards does ... he lied. He said that all of the hundreds of thousands of dollars he was paid by News Corp went to charity. What he forgot to mention was that two of those charities included his daughter and senior political aide ... oops!

Michelle:

“Every dime of the money they gave to me has gone to charity,” Edwards told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer earlier this month, suggesting News Corp. was trying to “silence” him because he opposes media consolidation. “This is a personal attack in response to me saying something that is not personal: I do not believe we should consolidate the media.”

His spokesman, Eric Schultz, said the charities include Habitat for Humanity and College for Everyone. Edwards did not mention the previously unreported fees to Prince and to Edwards’ daughter.

This guy must be sharing Obama's fact checker because they are both all over the place.

Are Hillary & Edwards Teaming Up?

Check out this little chit chat that Hillary and Edwards engaged in after the debate.

They discussed limiting the number of candidates to be allowed at the debates, and Hillary even called some other candidates "not serious." Hillary also fessed up to an official campaign policy of limiting the debates.

Bonus:

Kucinich is uber pissed!

Doctors Responsible For Terrorist Attacks In London, Scottland

Yet another piece of evidence to prove that poverty is not the cause of terrorism. Sorry John Edwards ... looks like you were wrong.

John Edwards' Daughter Picks Hillary

BWAAAHAHAHAHA!

At least we know he's a good father. He did teach his child to think after all.

John Edwards Will Fight Terrorism With Peace Corps

This is neither a joke or spin if that's what you're thinking. Edwards is actually proposing to fight terrorism with a peace corp type entity. Now that's thinking John ... that's thinking.

NY Sun:

Senator Edwards is outlining a new national security strategy that hinges on the creation of a 10,000-person civilian peace corps to stem the tide of terrorism in weak and unstable countries.

Mr. Edwards's plan, which he presented in Manhattan yesterday, comes less than a week after he called President Bush's war on terror a "bumper sticker slogan" and said the current national security strategy has not made America safer.

Oh boy. Does anyone remember being told by your teachers to just walk away, or try talking to a bully? It didn't work, did it? The only thing that did work was to sock that bully right in the nose so he left you alone. When are people going to realize that some people just can't be talked to.

The plan Mr. Edwards presented yesterday — which he dubbed "A Strategy to Shut Down Terrorists and Stop Terrorism Before It Starts" — calls for a 10,000-person "Marshall Corps" to deal with issues ranging from worldwide poverty and economic development to clean drinking water and micro-lending. He said investing in those areas would shore up weak nations and help ensure that terrorism does not take root there. That, he said, would allow the country to stop potential terrorists before they even join the ranks.

Ah yes ... the old premise that poverty causes terrorism. What a shame that we don't have any proof of that in any western country. Sure our poor may get involved in crime, but there is a difference. That whole bin Laden millionaire thing must not be a concern for Edwards.

You can't run the country if you don't understand the idealogical issues here. Edwards has yet to explain how his 10,000 strong peace corp is going to counter the effect of Islamic schools that preach killing the infidels.

Edwards wants to make this a cabinet level position which will require assistance from our allies. He's not well versed on history folks ... I know.

He drew some criticism from people who deal with this issue regularly.

The president of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, Clifford May, said he was "skeptical" of Mr. Edwards's proposal.

"Humanitarian aid is a good thing. I approve of that. But it doesn't really have much to do with the causes of terrorism," Mr. May said. " Mohamed Atta, the lead terrorist on 9/11, was based in Germany, was well-educated. The causes of terrorism are several, but poverty is not one of them."

Edwards also wants to shift tactical decisions from the military to civilians.

Mr. Edwards is also proposing shifting more responsibility for tactical and operational decisions to military personnel from civilian leaders.

LGF had this to say about Edwards:

John Edwards is trying to get to the left of Dennis Kucinich (who wants to replace the Department of Defense with a “Department of Peace”) by proposing that we “fight” a nonexistent war on imaginary terrorists by creating a peace corps.

There's nothing like starting your weekend off with a presidential hopeful wanting to fight a non-existent war with a peace corp, and allowing civilians to make the tactical decisions instead of the military.

John Edwards Says War On Terror Is A Political Slogan, A Bumper Sticker. Hillary Says We Are Safer Because Of Bush?

Edwards is the most annoying kind of idiot there is. We all know this isn't the first time he's said that he doesn't believe the War on Terror is real, but this is the first time he's been stupid enough to say it one day after a terrorist plot was foiled right here in the United States.

It happened today at a Democratic debate hosted by Saint Anselm College in Manchester, N.H.

Not only did Hillary disagree with Edwards, but she said we ARE safer because of Bush's policies. Everyone grab your coats, and snowboards, cause hell has just frozen over.

Here's how it went down ...

AP:

Democratic presidential candidates clashed on Sunday over whether the Bush administration had made the country safer from terrorism after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards called President Bush's global war on terrorism a "political slogan, a bumper sticker, that's all it is" in the second televised debate pitting the eight Democratic contenders.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, who is the front-runner in national polls, said she did not agree with Edwards characterization of the war on terrorism.

As a senator from New York, "I have seen first hand the terrible damage that can be inflicted on our country by a small band of terrorists."

Meanwhile, the non-existant war on terror hit home this weekend.

As fun as it was to see Hillary and Edwards go at it ... there is nothing in the world sweeter to hear than this:

Still, she said, "I believe we are safer than we were."

HOLY MOTHER OF GOD! She actually admitted that we are safer, and Bush's policies have been working ... at least to a degree.

Kucinich had some interesting things to say as well:

Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich said the war on Iraq should not just be blamed on Bush, but on the Congress that authorized it.

U.S. troops "never should have been sent there in the first place," he said. Rather than debate timetables and benchmarks, the Democratic-controlled Congress should "just say no money, the war's over," he said.

What a novel idea ... actually blame those responsible for sending the troops in the first place.

Iraq wasn't the only topic that yielded noteworthy responses.

To a question on whether English should be the official language in the United States, only former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel raised his hand in the affirmative.

But Obama protested the question itself, calling it "the kind of question that was designed precisely to divide us." He said such questions "do a disservice to the American people."

No Obama, if you take an elementary look at history you will see that a single national language unites a nation ... it never divides it.

John Edwards Says He'll Look Into WTC 7 ... Let Me Help John

One of the funniest videos to come out of the current campaign. Not only does Edwards not know what the truther is talking about, but he promised to look into it when clearly he won't. There is no need to look into it. Sane people know that, but here is a quote from someone who was there, Deputy Chief Hayden:

Yeah. There was enough there and we were marking off. There were a lot of damaged apparatus there that were covered. We tried to get searches in those areas. By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it, nobody’s going into 7, there’s creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned. Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side? Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it. Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many? Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.

More eyewitness accounts here.

Is Elizabeth Edwards Sabotaging Her Husband's Campaign?

When Elizabeth Edwards' cancer returned I had the same reaction as most of you. I wished her well, and figured John Edwards would be dropping out of the presidential campaign. That was the buzz question the day we heard the news of Elizabeth's illness until we were told otherwise. Like many of you ... I was stunned to hear that John Edwards would continue his push for the presidency. This may just be the newlywed in me, but if my wife had cancer there would be no way in hell I would run for president. Even if I were the front runner for the presidency, something John Edwards is not, I couldn't stand to leave my wife's side while she was dealing with such circumstances.

The Edwards campaign has been a sinking ship filled with scandal, and stupid statements since its outset. He never really had a chance against Obama or Hillary in the first place, and he has kept digging himself into hole after hole. So why would he then choose to chase his dream, and leave his wife's side? Not only will he be preoccupied with campaigning to give, what most would consider, proper spousal attention, but if he were to win he would be able to give even less attention to his wife than before.

This is not the course of action I would have chosen, but to each his own. Given the field of candidates, the circumstances, and John Edwards' young age ... I can't understand his decision even if his wife did tell him to continue his campaign for the White House. CNN reported that Elizabeth would not let John abandon his race. At least, that's according to a friend of the Edwards family. John Edwards himself said:

"From our perspective, there was no reason to stop. I don't think we seriously thought about it."

Again ... as a husband I couldn't feel good about myself having not, at least, seriously considered ending my campaign to enjoy my wife, and I assume my wife would have been hurt by such a statement.

I did have a call into my show one night in which the caller suggested that maybe this was a win, win situation for Elizabeth Edwards. On one hand her husband loses, and they can spend more quality time together. On the other hand Elizabeth may die as the first lady, and will surely be remembered for all time. A little grim, I know, but an interesting point. Maybe Elizabeth Edwards didn't want her husband to end his quest for the White House because she wants it just as bad. We'll never really know what discussion the Edwards family has had in the back room, and I'm certain the idea of quiting at least came up. The question is ... who won? Was the press conference just a show to demonstrate that Elizabeth is strong, and will support her man even if she wanted him to quit?

There is some anecdotal evidence to suggest that maybe Elizabeth Edwards really did want her husband to end his campaign, but he refused. Mrs. Edwards has always conducted herself with great class, and hasn't had a serious controversy or blunder that I can think of ... until now. Usually blunders happen the first time around running for the presidency ... not the second. When I say blunder ... I mean stupid actions that have no purpose but to destroy your campaign. I'm not talking about misspeaking during a live interview. We're talking really stupid behavior not staged by campaign advisers. That's where Mrs. Edwards' actions fit right now ... stupid.

Think about this for just a minute before you get mad at me for fabricating a story to hurt the Edwards campaign (as if Mr. Edwards isn't doing enough himself). A woman who has always conducted herself with great class all of a sudden starts attacking people verbally, and personally, after she announces her cancer has returned, and her husband says that he didn't even think about quiting? Sounds like a recipe for a scorned wife if I ever saw one, and I have.

Remember the neighbor of the Edwards family who put up the Rudy Giuliani sign? At best this was a politically active neighbor who might have wanted to take a jab at Edwards. At worst this was a neighbor trying to bait Edwards into a fight to embarrass him publicly. Surely the Edwards campaign met with the family to address how to handle the neighbor's sign, and I'm betting that publicly assaulting said neighbor was not in the playbook. I assume the Edwards family was told to ignore the sign, and if asked, express their support for their neighbor's political activism. For two months ... it worked.

Two months went by with no problems between the Edwards family and their neighbor. Almost two months after the sign surfaced ... Elizabeth's cancer returned. Then a couple of weeks after that Elizabeth lost control, and said this:

Elizabeth Edwards says she is scared of the "rabid, rabid Republican" who owns property across the street from her Orange County home -- and she doesn't want her kids going near the gun-toting neighbor.

Whoa! That's a pretty drastic change from the Elizabeth Edwards we've all known the past few years. Kerry's wife would be expected to make a statement like that, but not Elizabeth Edwards. Name calling of such a personal nature usually loses you a campaign, and maybe that was Mrs. Edwards' goal. Not only is it not positive politically, but it doesn't paint the Edwards family as very good neighbors. Surely as neighbors the Edwards family could at least be cordial to the Republican across the street.

"I wouldn't be nice to him, anyway," Edwards said in an interview. "I don't want my kids anywhere near some guy who, when he doesn't like somebody, the first thing he does is pull a gun out. It scares the business out of me."

Well, maybe not. Mrs. Edwards wasn't quite done yet, however. She said her neighbor:

Refuses to clean up his "slummy" property just to spite her family.

Just to put this all in perspective ... we have Elizabeth Edwards calling her neighbor rabid (2x), slummy, and she said she wouldn't be nice to him. Did I forget to mention that she has never met Monty Johnson, the neighbor. Those are some pretty vicious things to say about someone you've never met before. The Edwards family has been disrespecting Mr. Johnson's property rights since before they even bought their land.

The day they looked at their property, the couple and several Secret Service agents parked on his land and walked across the street into the woods.

Johnson approached the agents and asked what they were doing on his property. "The Secret Service let me know it wasn't my concern," he said.

Given the start to their relationship, or lack there of, I would assume that it would be Mr. Johnson who wouldn't be nice to the Edwards family ... not the other way around.

So is Elizabeth Edwards a woman scorned? Is she trying to derail her husband's campaign? I don't know, but it would make sense to me, and I wouldn't blame her one bit. Mrs. Edwards' unusual, mean-spirited behavior can not be attributed to her cancer, and I'm not going to go there ... I'm not HuffPo. If you sit back and think about it you might just find yourself pondering the possibility that she is trying to bring the Edwards campaign down. Let's face it, John Edwards has little chance of winning the Democrat nomination, and he's young so he will have a chance to run in the future. If, and I stress if, Mrs. Edwards wanted her husband to end his campaign, but he said no ... this would be a perfect way for her to sabotage him without calling attention to marital problems.

There is also one little bit of information that is very important in this story. Mr. Johnson has demanded an apology, but Mrs. Edwards hasn't issued one at the time this was written. If someone is really concerned about the public's perception of them for a campaign ... they always apologize. Yet none from either Mr. or Mrs. Edwards to date ... very suspicious indeed.

Edwards On Imus Spat: "I Believe In Forgiveness"

I'll bet you do John, but do you also believe in apologies?

Edwards doesn't like to apologize for the offensive things he's done, and clearly his wife doesn't either. Of course, he'll take all the forgiveness in the world for his misdeeds ... he just won't forgive. Perhaps Edwards can show us all how to forgive, and forgive Fox News and join in the Democrat debates. Unlikely, however, cause he's ducked the Fox debate for a second time.

"What he said is wrong because it's wrong. It has to be condemned, we have to speak out when people use this kind of language," Edwards said. "This is a very serious matter, it should be taken very seriously."

I'm glad you agree John. Thanks for your permission to continue to beat your wife with her own words.

As for my take on Imus: I'm still trying to figure out how a white guy becomes a racist for calling two white girls "nappy-headed." Also, since when does Al Sharpton defend white rights?

Elizabeth Edwards Calls Poor Neighbor Slummy ... Neighbor Demands Apology

I know you're thinking it, but I won't say it. There will be no correlation between the cancer and the sudden discriminatory rantings of Mrs. Edwards. This is NOT HuffPo!

What got his goat, he says, was Edwards' calling his 42-acre property "slummy."

Johnson rents one of the two buildings at the front of his property to a mechanic. The gravel lot is strewn with cars waiting to get fixed.

I know the Edwards family is not used to this little "trend" known as small business, but does she have to call it slummy?

It also turns out that the Edwards family has been disrespecting their poor neighbor even before they purchased the property.

The day they looked at their property, the couple and several Secret Service agents parked on his land and walked across the street into the woods.

Johnson approached the agents and asked what they were doing on his property. "The Secret Service let me know it wasn't my concern," he said.

Bonus:

He's demanding an apology from Mrs. Edwards!

In the meantime, Johnson said he doesn't have hard feelings toward Edwards, but he does expect her to say she's sorry.

"I think she owes me an apology," he said. "And I won't feel right until I get it. If this is how they treat people in the White House, America is in for a helluva time."

You can read the full article here, and my previous post on this here.

John Edwards' Family Running Rabid, Rabid Republican Neighbor Off His Land

Remember the guy who put up a pro-Rudy sign across the street from the Edwards' $6 million compound? Yeah ... Elizabeth Edwards is afraid of him.

Elizabeth Edwards says she is scared of the "rabid, rabid Republican" who owns property across the street from her Orange County home -- and she doesn't want her kids going near the gun-toting neighbor.

You know how those gun-toters are ... scary people. If only our founding fathers had been sensitive enough to ban guns. Since the Edwards family has never met Johnson in person ... why are the afraid of him?

Edwards, the wife of Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, particularly recalls the time neighbor Monty Johnson brought out a gun while chasing workers investigating a right of way near his property.

Ok, that's a little creepy. Unless you believe Johnson's side of the story.

But Johnson defended the occasion he brandished a gun, saying those ON his land didn't have the proper approval.

Maybe if they finally met each other they could at least be cordial.

"I wouldn't be nice to him, anyway," Edwards said in an interview. "I don't want my kids anywhere near some guy who, when he doesn't like somebody, the first thing he does is pull a gun out. It scares the business out of me."

So Elizabeth Edwards refuses to be nice to her neighbor? Not very neighborly Mrs. Edwards. I guess she isn't going for the sympathy vote anymore.

Here's the meaty part of the story.

Edwards views Johnson as a "rabid, rabid Republican" who refuses to clean up his "slummy" property just to spite her family, whose lavish 28,000-square-foot estate is nearby on 102 wooded acres.

Remember, she's never met Johnson.

Johnson, 55, acknowledges his Republican roots. But he takes offense to the suggestion he has purposefully left his property, including an old garage he leases for use as a car shop, in dilapidated condition.

Johnson said he has lived his entire life on the property, which he said his family purchased before the Great Depression. He said he's spent a lot of money to try and fix up the 42-acre tract.

"I have to budget. I have to live within my means," Johnson said. "I don't have millions of dollars to fix the place."

Good job Johnson! Way to stick the "Two Americas" argument to her.

Here's another reason the Edwards' don't like Johnson.

Johnson, who has posted a "Go Rudy Giuliani 2008" sign on a fence just 100 feet from the entrance to the Edwards' driveway, has criticized Edwards for the scale of their nearby home. The property and home, which includes an indoor basketball court, an indoor handball court and an indoor pool, is valued at $5.3 million.

There is a very sad story here that shows the true demonic personalities of the Edwards' family.

"I thought he was supposed to be for the poor people," Johnson said. "But does he ever socialize with any poor people? He doesn't speak to me."

Johnson said he has put his property on the market, in part blaming the high property taxes for his decision to leave. He also wants to move for another reason.

"I don't want to live somewhere where someone's always complaining about me," he said.

To summarize:

• A poor Republican man's family has owned this property since before the Great Depression.
• A rich Democrat family builds a mansion next door in 2003, and never introduces themselves to poor neighbor while campaigning to help the poor.
  
• Poor Republican neighbor endorses Republican candidate for president.
• Rich Democrat neighbor, who is running for president, gets mad that poor Republican neighbor endorses his opponent.
• Poor Republican neighbor likes the second amendment.
• Rich Democrat neighbor doesn't.
• Poor Republican neighbor doesn't have the money fix up his property to his neighbors liking.
• Rich Democrat neighbor is mad that their poor Republican neighbor can't fix up their property, but offer no assistance while campaigning to help the poor.
• Poor Republican neighbor is being run off of his property by new rich Democrat neighbors.
• Rich Democrat neighbors are happy that poor Republican neighbor is going to move because they are afraid of him, and would refuse to be nice to him anyway because he is a poor, rabid Republican.
  

The real story here isn't that Mrs. Edwards is calling her neighbor (whom she's never met) names. It's that a rich Democrat family moved into a new neighborhood, and forced a poor Republican to move off the land his family has owned since before the Great Depression. All while campaigning to help the poor.

Two Americas indeed.

John Edwards Was Forced To Vote For Iraq

Reason 1,435,001 to not vote for John Edwards ... he's easily controlled.

Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards was skeptical about voting for the Iraq war resolution and was pushed into it by advisers looking out for his political future, according to an upcoming book by one of his former consultants.

Dew az yer towld boyah!

John Edwards Upset At Being Called A Faggot

I can understand being upset about that. Most of us would be pretty mad if Ann Coulter called us a faggot, and the whole world heard it. The problem is that Mr. Edwards himself has no place to be upset because he is nearly as guilty as Ann. In my opinion ... he's far worse.

Why? Well faggot, as I outlined here, isn't an attack on homosexuals anymore. It is a slang word used to insult a whole host of different people. Often it's used in a non-serious, jesting manner. Much like the word gay. Just because you say them doesn't mean you are insulting gay people, and only the hyper-sensitive among us will make that argument anyway.

Employing people with a long history of anti-religious comments on their blogs is clearly more of an insult than using the word faggot which has broad meaning. In fact, the things Edwards' former employees had written over the years were far more vile, venomous, and insulting than anything Ann Coulter has said.

While at Berkeley Edwards shot back at Ann:

"I think it is important that we not reward hateful, selfish, childish behavior with attention. I also believe it is important for all of us to speak out against language of this kind; it is the place where hatred gets its foothold, and we can’t stand silently by and allow this kind of language to be used."

That's hilarious ... well at least coming from him.

Back in February Edwards talked with Wolf Blitzer about his employees, and the criticism they were getting. Edwards dismissed the criticism as coming:

"particularly from people on the far right of the political spectrum."

So would it then be ok for Ann Coulter to dismiss the criticism she's receiving because it comes primarily from people on the far left of the political spectrum?

Even more hilarious is that Edwards knew of the hateful thing these women have been spewing all over the internet BEFORE he hired them, and still chose to give them employment.

EDWARDS: "Well, I said, as soon as I found out about this, that a number of the statements that had been made by these women before they ever came to work for my campaign were statements that I rejected, strongly disagreed with. I spoke to them directly and personally. They both assured me they had no intention of denigrating anyone's faith. They apologized. They said they would not do it in the future while working for me. I took them at their word and I stood by them because of that.

To top it off ... he didn't fire them because of this, this, or this. They both resigned (maybe with some pressure) while Edwards reaffirmed his support for them.

Edwards speaks of not rewarding, or giving attention to people who make statements like Ann made, and I don't disagree. You have no place to speak that way when you yourself gave attention, and rewarded two people responsible for far more offensive statements than were made about you at CPAC.

Mr. Edwards (aka soon to be ex-presidential candidate) ... you can't take the high road when you are the one who paved the low road.

I wonder if Bill Maher's comments will get the same coverage from the AP as Ann's?

UPDATE:
Now Edwards is talking about Jesus!

Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards says Jesus would be appalled at how the United States has ignored the plight of the suffering, and that he believes children should have private time to pray at school.

Edwards, in an interview with the Web site Beliefnet.com, said Jesus would be most upset with the selfishness of Americans and the country’s willingness to go to war “when it’s not necessary.”