In case anyone is interested, presidential candidate John Edwards will be appearing online at 9:30 EST this evening, talking about Bush’s State of the Union address and answering questions that have been submitted online. I’ve sent in a question on whether or not he would champion a gas tax as president, and, if so, how he’d build consensus for it. I’m sure it won’t be chosen, but I’m still planning to tune in and watch…. Here’s a clip from his email announcing the webcast:
Like many of you, I watched the State of the Union last night and heard more of the same at a time when we need fundamental change. Rather than honest assessments and a vision for the future, we got rationalizations for the failed policies of the past — and small ideas that won’t make a difference in the lives of working Americans. But if Washington can’t face reality and go big, then it’s up to us to show the way. The next president must do more than simply undo this president’s mistakes – the next president must offer a vision to transform America in the 21st century. The American people are ready for something fundamentally new.
We should be talking about the great things we can do for our nation and our world if we put our minds to it. And I want to start tonight…
We’ll talk about our ideas for changing America and take questions from you about the big challenges we face — from ending the war in Iraq to rebuilding America’s Gulf Coast. How are we going to end the scourge of poverty in 30 years? What role do we all have to play in stopping global warming? How do we ensure that every American gets the top quality health care we deserve? And a topic the president did not even mention last night — what can we do to ensure that there will be good jobs and job security for Americans in the decades to come?
This campaign is about more than the presidency, and it’s certainly about more than me. It’s about a whole generation of Americans who are ready to take personal responsibility for ensuring our nation’s greatness…
[note: The photo above was taken a year or so ago, when John Edwards came to Ann Arbor to meet with me. To date, he is the only candidate to seek my endorsement.]
9 Comments
OK, I wasn’t blown away by him, but I admire him for trying to interject real issues into the debate, and for reaching out to America’s youth in the way that he’s done. To my knowledge, he is the only candidate thus far talking about morality, and the widening gap between rich and poor in this country, at least somewhat passionately.
If there is one thing I can gree upon with Rush Limbaugh, it’s that there are issues for which there is no compromise. I am ashamed on my President. I guess he is truly stupid. He is certianly very wrong. He is absolutely wrong about Iraq, Pakistan/Afghanistan, Israel/Palestine, Syria/Iran, natural resources/oil/ethanol, education, health care, jobs, the economy, his buddy Putin/Russia … that there are “hundreds of unaccounted for kilos of soviet-enriched uranium on the market was on NPR today … plus he’s wrong on stem cells, family values, sexual preference, affrimative action, and constitutional law.
Don’t put your faith in Dingell or the other longterm Dems who have long roots in the issues of other centuries and generations. You’ll never see Dingell’s ass in a Prius, mucj less that cute new little Chevy.
We neeeed to put our faith in entirely new generations of politicians from both sides of the aisle who have fresher educations, are more attuned to today’s technologies and who are not yet “invested” in their tenures in congress.
I’m looking at my 2008 Gore/Obama lapel button as I write this. We shall see.
This post is old, sorry, sometimes I’m a slow thinker, but I’ve kept this one with me. MM twice now (first on 1/16?) referenced John Eddie and morality.
The “return to morality” resonates with me. That is what we need, I say, to do what is right. But, the obvious and essential question in our multi-moral society is what is/whose morality? How do we define (and enforce) moral rightness?
I will offer my definition of morality, and if any care to follow this old post, I’d be encouraged to hear other definitions.
In my mind, there is accidental morality and actual morality. Accidental morality is, “I am squeemish around blood and therefore will not crush that asshole’s skull because the sight of blood will make me swoon.” Actual morality is, “I love the sight of blood and crushed skulls and am quite physically able but will not crush that asshole’s skull even though I want to.”
I.e., “Keep you hands offa my body” and “you’ll pry my gun outta my cold dead hands” come from the same, self-serving, hyper-individualist idealogy: protection of self-interest. Self-interest, to me, is the antithesis of morality.
Actual, not accidental, morality, demands self-sacrifice. It’s not a natural preference (i.e., I like women so I’ll ascribe superior moral value to not liking men or I don’t like meat so I’ll ascribe superior moral value to veganism). Actual morality is: I love men and meat but will not eat either for the benefit of other.
If you haven’t figured yet, I’m drunk again … on morality, Corner Brew beer and Canadian whiskey. If a return to morality means we’re all willing to devest our interests for the good of other, whatever that may be, then let’s return, butt quick. If a return to morality means let’s do what comes easy, declare it best, and monsterize those who don’t, then we’re already there.
Okay. That’s the end of my post. I really am drunk. To summerize: I believe morality = self-sacrifice. And, I really am wanting to know how you folks would define morality, and/if such thing exists or is defineable and/or desireable.
Gore-Obama, with Russ Feingold as secretary of state (prez in 2016) . . . Richardson as ambassador to UN . . . Edwards as secretary of Dept. of Opportunity Equalization and Redistribution (need a better name!) . . . Kucinich, head of Dept. of Peace . . . and H. Clinton as attorney-general. Something like that–
Me, drunk too? Yep, on chocolate. Frozen, for sure. Hardly holy, very holey, and still entertaining hope.
I haven’t read it yet, but I suspect the Buddhists would have something interesting to say about morality. As for me, I think at the most basic level, being moral is just not being a dick… The Buddha probably said it better.
And I could see Hillary being a good Attorney General. Unfortunately, I think she’s got her sights set a bit higher.
I like Obama and Gore, to be sure. And each would get my vote in the general. But, I just finished watching Edwards at Dartmouth on C-SPAN. It may be parochial, since he and I was born in the same NC town, but I like him as much as I like any candidate since Rev. Nader. Not once did he talk about making americans rich. He talked about making the world’s wretched better. That speach may change, if he wins the nomination, as it did for the Gore of old. For now, I’m relishing the thought of being able to vote for this incarnation of Jimmy Carter. But, every candidate I love at first disallusions at last, and I die a little more. Still, in more ways than geography, I come from the same place as Edwards, and it’s comforting to find fleeting affinity with someone on C-SPAN.
Ah, but what is “not being a dick” other than not being a Cheney (or DeVos)?
(FYI: by weight and mass, only .000000345865 percent of me is technically a dick.)
Tweaked from the days of Nixon:
“Dick Cheney before he dicks you.”
We are late for this!
I actually think Feingold would be the better, safer attorney-general (man, what a glorious thing to see him in action on the Senate floor on C-SPAN), but I can’t help but want him for secretary of state. Actually for prez (Edwards-Feingold?), but I think he is too dear (tough but somehow still tender) for the meanness of the race. Edwards seems more up to it, despite his tender side(s). Debated the Big Dick, after all.
I know a presidential team would be unwieldy, but I wish there could be a four-person prez team of Gore-Obama-Feingold-Edwards.
Am pie-eyed, as usual.