Giuliani and Edwards Steppin’ Off

John Edwards has finally decided that coming in third in every single contest bodes ill for his White House dreams, and has decided to stop using his own and donor money on campaigning.  You can’t argue with the wisdom of the decision, but it does leave something of a void in the Democratic primary.  Who will publicly tell Hillary what her next big proposal should be, so she looks like a leader?  Who will be the Dems’ “Nice hair” guy?  Who will IMAO make gay jokes about?

Edwards may have seemed like the single least influential candidate (who actually mattered) on the Dem side, but I’m not sure that’s the case.  My hunch is, he’s going after a cabinet position, or even the VP spot.  I just wonder if he’ll keep playing Hillary’s Svengali now that we can’t hear him anymore.

On the Republican side, surprising absolutely nobody, Giuliani’s Florida-only campaign policy was a miserable failure, and he took solice in the arms of John McCain.  Funny… I didn’t know RINOs moved in herds.  I suppose Huckabee’ll be along shortly.

Confusingly (though not surprisingly), Ron Paul continues to both raise and waste tons of money on his freight train to nowhere.

I grow daily stronger in my conviction to vote for none of these clowns in the Primary.  We’ll have to see what the GE has in store.  I can pull the lever for Romney, and even feel okay about it.  I may have to be enticed with food to leave my couch if McCain gets the nod.

-Streu-

Edwards Says “Jump” …

As I mentioned here a day or so ago, John Edwards challenged other Democratic nominees to, among other things, adopt a $9.50/hour minumum wage.  Which, as I also mentioned, is a horrendously bad idea.  Among the reasons I listed previously, there’s also the fact that a minimum wage increase like this would create inflation, while giving no relief to those workers who originally made the same or more than the new minimum wage (employers, for reasons of basic economy, rarely raise larger incomes in a direct ratio to the minimum wage increase).

However, Hillary Clinton took the bait.  And, as I might have guessed, she’s making it look like she’s leading the charge, while her campaign credits her with more strong, bold leadership.  Hillary simply and neatly neglects to mention that it wasn’t even her idea.  Seriously.  I could write this woman’s script.

I don’t mind when Dem candidates play “mine’s bigger than yours” — I do mind when they play it with our money, our economy and our future.

Ohhhh… Edwards is the Anti-Poverty Candidate

I had wondered about that.  I’d really like to see a debate between him and the pro-poverty candidate.  Whoever that may be.

It’s great to be against poverty.  Noble, even.  But the question is, is it appropriate to use government money?  The article I linked above pits John Edwards against Hillary Clinton in an “I’m more anti-poverty than you” battle.  It’s an interesting read.  And disturbing.

Edwards, like most Democrats, has this wacky idea that money belongs to the government, and that money will work the way the government says it should.  While Hillary claims to have “lifted more people out of poverty” in the ’90s than anyone anywhere (though she wasn’t president), Edwards wants to challenge her to commit to a $9.50 minimum wage.  Oh — and he claims that, as President, he will have the power to strip Congress of their healthcare package if they refuse to do what he says.  I’d like to read that paragraph in the Constitution.

But that’s the problem with Democrats, isn’t it?  The Constitution doesn’t mean all that much to them.  Sure, they’ll take a paragraph here — an amendment there … but if it stands in their way, it becomes just another cumbersome document to overcome.  It is not within the government’s purview to hand out taxpayer money.  It is not within the authority of the President to bribe, cajole or blackmail the Legislature to “fall in line.”

Finally, regarding the minimum wage, it’s been said before, but it bears repeating:  raising the minimum wage is bad for businesses, bad for workers and bad for the economy.  Think about it this way.  Edwards wants to help the poor.  Edwards, like many, would note that “the poor” are products of bad schooling.  So, if you’re an employer, and you have to pay somebody 9 bucks to do a job, who are you going to hire?  A kid from a good school, who is competent at the job?  Or one of Edwards’ “poor” who, because of bad schooling, is not as competent?  It’s a no-brainer.  And so, to quote a Dem favorite, “the rich get richer… the poor get poorer.”  That’s the best-case scenario.  More likely, small business will go under because they can’t pay their employees, creating a larger unemployment rate.  Larger business will continue to move operations elsewhere, laying off American workers, adding to the unemployment rate.  Getting the trend?

Anti-poverty or no, good intentions don’t always make good policy.  I just hope America learns this lesson before it bankrupts us.

-Streu-

John Edwards Joins WGA Strike

Anyone who thinks this is anything more than a publicity stunt, consider this: where was Edwards during the UAW strike?  I’ll let Yahoo! News answer this one:  “We did not find results for John Edwards UAW strike.”  They suggested I change my spelling, or use “different words that mean the same thing” (who do they think I am; a Dem presidential candidate?).

Of course, as his campaign intended, he’s being praised as “the only candidate” to show up at the strike.  Maybe because other candidates have issues of national import to deal with.  Just a thought.

Don’t get me wrong here — I agree 100% with the writers on this one.  They are absolutely right to strike, and if the TV industry doesn’t get its act together here, it stands to lose its most valuable assets. 

However, for Edwards to show up here can only be seen as pandering, and does little for his image as an elitist.  You have to remember, this is the same person who claims he worked with an unscrupulous housing lender (and make millions doing so) in order to learn more about the poor.  Then, during his famed “poverty tour“, (were there t-shirts?  It’s just not a tour without overpriced t-shirts.) he was so condescending, most people didn’t even know he was talking about them.

So, of course, of all the strikes and issues facing this country, Edwards would choose the white-collar and (frankly) relatively unimportant world of entertainment as his venue of communion with the workin’ class.  Even if they do make about twice (and in many cases more) than the vast majority of the real workers of America.

Which is fine.  We wouldn’t want him to get dirty or, you know, break a nail.