February
8th 2007
Posted under Election 2008 & Politics
According to the Associated Press, Democratic Presidential candidate John Edwards is “taking heat†over his “lavish estate.†I’m shocked! Liberals are being exposed for their hypocrisy? Naw? Who would have thunk it? Never forget Edwards is an ambulance chaser … err … trial lawyer.Â
Hat tip to Mike Seigle for the link.
Bede on 08 Feb 2007 at 3:10 pm #
John Edwards is teeming with hypocracy. He claims he is for the “little man,” yet in every vote he made on immigration he sided with the big business / cheap labor against the “little man.”
Patroon on 08 Feb 2007 at 7:04 pm #
To me “limousine liberal” is more in regards to policy rather than lifestyle. For example, Walter Mondale, when he was in the Senate, was known as “Mr. Busing,” and sponsored many bills in favor of busing but he enrolled his children in lily-white public and priavte schools. In other words, integration for thee, not for me.
John Edwards voting for more immigration that winds up depressing wages is more hypocrisy to me than what kind of house he buys. Are we not being hypocrites for telling a man what he’s supposed to do with his money, even if he is a trial lawyer? What’s he supposed to do, live in a shotgun shack and bury his millions in hole? Go on a starvation diet? I have more contempt for rich people who try to pretend they’re poor people for a few days than someone who acts like he’s rich.
Filmer on 08 Feb 2007 at 7:48 pm #
“To me “limousine liberal†is more in regards to policy rather than lifestyle.”
I know. I just thought it made for a catchy title.
“Are we not being hypocrites for telling a man what he’s supposed to do with his money, even if he is a trial lawyer? What’s he supposed to do, live in a shotgun shack and bury his millions in hole? Go on a starvation diet? I have more contempt for rich people who try to pretend they’re poor people for a few days than someone who acts like he’s rich.”
That is more complicated. People should be who they are as long as they do not forget their roots. In our current society where there is more upward mobility based on merit, smarts, etc. this is not always an easy line to walk. Appearing to be “new money” should be avoided. Also, blatant conspicuous consumption should be avoided.
Compare the lifestyle/buying habits of old money Boston for example vs. new money Hollywood. I don’t think we are being hypocrites. We are counseling propriety. Like a pastor should not drive too fancy of a car even if he has the money for fear of appearing to profit from doing the Lord’s work. Well perhaps neither should an aspiring politician seeking to be a man of the people live in a mansion even if he can afford it.
Remember in ‘92 how Buchanan caught a lot of heat for driving a Mercedes while complaining about trade? That hurt him with the Union vote.
Patroon on 08 Feb 2007 at 11:21 pm #
No doubt Buchanan’s Merceds hurt him amongst Union voters, especially when bragged about how much better it was than an American-made lemon. Needless to say Mr. America First was tounged tied about it. By 1996 he had fixed that part.
Remember this as well, Roosevelt and Kennedy were very rich men too from inherited wealth (unlike Ronald Reagan) and were seen as “men of the people.” In South as I do recall, trial lawyers are popularly seen as modern day Robin Hoods robbing from the rich corporations to give to the poor which is why they have so much influence with the Democratic Party down there and are their chief finanical backers. I doubt if people are going to hold it against him he took his trial fees and cashed in so long as they got paid.
You make a point however about sense of propreity. But with the neveu
rich nothing is too good for them, even McMansions.