Talk:John Edwards

I don't know how notable opposing the surge is, since every Democratic candidate I'm aware of opposes it. It would be more notable if he *weren't* opposed to the troop surge.  :) Kolbe 13:38, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

I don't think most were at the beginning though, and considering it is still a very hot and immediate topic, I think it's relevent. TheisonMarsh

Actually, now that I think about it, the fighting global warming is probably in the same nature. The most significant thing about his campaign is the "Two Americas" theme, and fighting poverty. At least, from what I get of him. Still, I wouldn't oppose including it again, since I think he's the one who has pressured Hillary the most to apologize for her vote. And I think he has apologized for his vote, too. Kolbe 21:30, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Well thank you for reconsidering, and I appreciate finding a sane person to debate something with on here. That is actually why I think it should be included (what you said about him apologizing for his vote), that, and what I said earlier about it still being a hotly debated topic. Furthermore, I wish there was more info here on his topics besides same-sex marriage. Those sentences are longer than the ones about any other topic and I feel that is disproportionate to its importance as a topic. TheisonMarsh

I only meant to remove the image and not the "Further reading," but a search inside on amazon.com did not reveal any mention of John Edwards in the book. Rather than just throw a link up, maybe explain what its significance is?

Political Views

Can we cite articles proving that malpractice suits by trial lawyers is the reason that the Health Care System is in as bad shape as it is, please? ObiBinks 17:13, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

Recommend

Conservapedia:Manual of Style/Politicians - Myk 02:26, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Changed to match the style. Feel free to add/edit. Need to source some of the statements, too. Oh, and link other to articles, like John Kerry. Kolbe 00:54, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Have to agree with PF Fox

RobS, sorry to disagree with you, and I am normally a Coulter fan, but I believe that she has crossed the line in calling Edwards gay and making remarks about his dead son. His son died in service to our country; in an extremely unpopular war, he stood up and made the sacrifice. That should be honored by giving his father some peace. Also, his wife's dying... I cannot imagine how much that hurts. Like I said, I'm a Coulter fan, but enough is enough here. What she did is truly un-Christian.-Phoenix 00:52, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

Cites have been added with transcript of the exchange. and no, Coulter did not say she like to see Edwards killed. RobS 00:57, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

Citation is used to stand for facts; not opinions. The value-word "attacked" is not supported in the cites. I honestly don't think we should cover this issue at all if it's that divisive. I don't want to break with you, but seriously, what she did was wrong. We should either handle it neutrally - "E. Edwards called in to express concern," with value-neutral adjectives & adverbs - or not cover it at all.-Phoenix 00:58, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

Well, I'm not an Edwards fan, and in this episode what Coulter had said just was not said first. If Edwards had said something that despicable about Cheney, if he had looked the other way or agreed with what Bill Maher said about Cheney, then this article is not going to look as though Coulter and only Coulter was the bad girl here. Karajou 00:59, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

Karajou, I see that concern. Therefore, I address it by making a neutral fact-statement. Is my solution acceptable? Notice it passes judgment on no-one.-Phoenix 01:00, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

To me, the exact quotation by Coulter would have been fine; it is what she said, and obviously Mrs. Edwards did not like it. But the fact remains that Coulter repeated what Bill Maher said on GMA, and the attack on her subsequent to that is what caused it. Karajou 01:02, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

So is the edited version by me - my attempt at mediation - better? Feel free to edit it by inserting the exact quote. However, I like my language because it ignores emotions.-Phoenix 01:04, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

it's OK. Karajou 01:06, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

Great. I try, sometimes, haha. Goodnight all.-Phoenix 01:07, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

Why remove the offensive quotes by Coulter that prompted the phone call? --PF Fox 01:13, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

If the quotes are to be put in, the entire exchange has to be there, and that includes exactly what transpired on GMA that led to the quote. Karajou 01:24, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

In case anyone is wondering, this is the exact quote by Ann Coulter, and by looking at the history of the article, anyone can see that part of this quote was taken out and used as if she issued a direct threat against Edwards:

"Oh, yeah, I wouldn't -- I wouldn't insult gays by comparing them to John Edwards. That would be mean. But about the same time, you know, Bill Maher was not joking and saying he wished Dick Cheney had been killed in a terrorist attack. So I've learned my lesson. If I'm going to say anything about John Edwards in the future I'll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot." Karajou 01:33, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

Socialist policies?

As a socialist myself, I really wouldn't consider John Edwards to advocate socialist policies. The only one I can think of is health care, aside from that he's a mixed economy sort of chap. --Afi 17:33, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

• we want a tax code that rewards everyone’s work to build everyone’s wealth--John Edwards
• everybody has a responsibility to help everyone else get ahead-- John Edwards [1]
• from each as he is able, to each according to his needs-- Karl Marx

RobS 18:11, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

I'm not sure I follow your reasoning, RobS. You're claiming that, because some of his statements sound somewhat like Karl Marx's, he advocates the same policies he does. That doesn't follow, does it? --Afi 14:03, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

You cited the expenditure side of the ledger, I cited the revenue side. The link I provided has much more than what was quoted, for example,

There is nothing new about the shouts of class warfare. And there is nothing new about saying that some leaders are giving big tax cuts to their wealthy friends on Wall Street. They said it all a hundred years ago.

The whole speech is the politics of envy, pitting "rich" against poor. And we have this double speak:

Everyone who works should have a chance to build up their wealth—the wealth to offer their family security in time of trouble, the wealth to pass on a better future to their children.

and then condemns the GOP with

they are trying to make the elimination of the estate tax permanent.

So which is it? Are workers entitled to pass on their accumulated wealth to their children or not?

Our tax code should honor every kind of work—the work of a doctor, a mill worker, a janitor.

What about the work of the investor, without which nobody works at all? RobS 14:28, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

Served one term

"Edwards served in the Senate for one year," it says in the section "Political Career." You mean one term. Chartero 20:38, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

• Thanks for detecting that error! --şŷŝoρ-₮K^{/Ṣρёаќǃ} 20:52, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

The National Enquirer

The National Enquirer has published a John Edwards/Rielle Hunter love affair and love child. Even though the National Enquirer is a tabloid, should relevent investigations prove true, this will make his page.--jp 19:54, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for the heads up, Jimmy Olsen! In related news, Weekly World News reports it has pictures of Bat Boy! If investigations show these pictures are real, we'll add it to Bat Boy's page. --Jareddr 22:27, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

Snake Oil Salesman

Ummm...I deleted it because it's pretty self-evident that it's NOT appropriate for an encyclopedia AND it makes no sense. "Considering all that has happened and Elizabeth with cancer, snake oil salesman?" What does that mean? What does "considering all that happened" and "Elizabeth having cancer" have to do with "snake oil salesman?" --Jareddr 22:13, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

The term seems descriptive to me, and informative. I caution against deleting informative material simply because you don't like it.--Aschlafly 22:17, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

If you want to call him a snake oil salesman, then do so. But the phrase itself, "Considering all that happened and Elizabeth with cancer, snake oil salesman?" grammatically MAKES NO SENSE. --Jareddr 22:19, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

Attacks on Ann Coulter is Worth a Sub-Section? LOL!

Are you kidding? Yesaliberal 15:48, 14 August 2008 (EDT) Make that the biggest sub-section! Bigger than his cheating, bigger than his run for president, bigger than his political career! Wow! You guys slay me! Yesaliberal 15:50, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

Future

This passage makes no sense:

The general feeling is that this scandal has put a serious career ending dent into Edwards' political prospects. Considering all that has transpired plus Elizabeth has terminal cancer, John Edwards only has a future being a snake oil salesman. It has removed him from Vice President consideration, hampered all hopes for Presidential convention speeches and of his becoming Attorney General, should a Democrat win in November.

Who has this general feelings. From reading most editorials and watching pundits, the consensus seems to be he will lie low for the election season and then come back and try to repair his image. Aside from the fact that saying things like:John Edwards only has a future being a snake oil salesman is petty and childish (not to mention grammatically awful) Politicians and sex scandals go together like.... politicians and sex scandals. There have been many Republican SS and just as many Democratic SS and few politicians simply drop off the face of the planet once they go public. Jamal Greene 15:24, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

Watch out Jamal Greene, your statement will be ignored, and you will be criticized for the spelling of "scandel." Let the ad hominem attacks begin! Yesaliberal 15:37, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

Are you making ad hom attacks on CP sysops? Sarcastic idiocies are not the way to build an encyclopaedia. Wise up. Bugler 15:40, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

I don't if that was addressed to me or to the last poster, but I most certainly did not make any ad hom attacks against anybody Jamal Greene 15:44, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

You're right Bugler. This is no way to build an encyclopedia. Yesaliberal 22:40, 20 August 2008 (EDT)