Is Edwards mansion a legitimate campaign issue?

[penguin7]

I understand that he is wealthy and the issue is not money, but doesnt this send the completely wrong message on the environment? There are various interests that do not want any action taken on global warming. These interests are powerful.

If somehow Edwards gets the nomination won't this house become the issue and not global warming? Won't the interests that do not want CO2 reduction legislation put the picture of this house everywhere? Look what happened to Gore. Isn't the Edwards mansion much worse since the Gore house was built 80 years earlier and it is less than half the size.

He is also asking us to sacrifice to fight global warming. How can he credibly do this after building this house?

If Edwards is nominated I see a defensive campaign on the environment. Edwards will continually have to defend his decision to build that house. This house will be one huge distraction.

[sandnsea]

1. Only if it's not 100% green

Why can't we get these folks to do a documentary on helping people green their homes. There's an article somewhere that solar homes are the ones still selling in CA. Democrats should be leading on this, visibly. Where are they?

[wndycty]

2. NO!

NO!

[rodeodance]

3. NO

[displacedtexan]

4. No.

He's nowhere nearly as rich as the Bushes.

And if you think this is a distraction, enlighten me as to your primary candidate's
Green policy... unless it's Dennis K.

[Zensea]

5. Johnny one note!!

Hadn't seen any of your posts in awhile.
On a human level (or penguin level) good to see you're still healthy enough to post.
On another level though, I don't really care that much.

[maximusveritas]

6. The better question is whether it will become a campaign issue

That seems to be what you're getting at. Whether it's legitimate in our eyes is irrelevant. The Swift Boat thing was not legitimate at all, but it still had a huge impact. I think the mansion/haircut stories will have a similar effect if Edwards is our nominee.

[Catchawave]

7. Only at Free Republic

Otherwise, where he lives is very low on my "issues" list.

[Debi]

8. No - and threads about it are just veiled attacks

support your candidate of choice or find a legitimate reason to attack JE.

[penguin7]

14. Isn't electability an issue?

These are the main problems with the house.

1.) It is bad for the environment to build a house this huge for one family.

2.) This sends the wrong message to the electorate.

3.) The house will undercut any Edwards environmental initiative in the general.

I wish those that said no would elaborate a little.

I like to think of myself as something of an environmentalist and this huge house bugs me, but maybe it is because I do not like Edwards for other reasons.

[Debi]

25. electability is a chimaera -

define it for me.

Kerry was slam-dunked into the nomination because of his 'electability' he's not president today (whether it was because of his campaign or because the electiion was stolen the final result is the same - the electable candidate was not elected).

[slick8790]

27. Possibly, in a different world.

But Edwards has put for a very satisfactory environmental plan, and it's a million times better than anything any repub could offer. If it's an issue anywhere, which it shouldn't be, it would be in the primary (where it probably won't).

[saltpoint]

36. Your bias against Senator Edwards is getting kinda obsessional, IMO.

Senator Clinton is riding pretty high in the polls these days. Her people could lecture the Kucinich folks and the Edwards folks on electability, since that's the hinge of dispute regarding her frontrunner status.

When your candidate and my candidate reflect her polling attributions, we can do some lecturin' ourselves, but it's untoward and wayward currently.

Lose the house topic, dude.

[urgk]

47. If Edwards can stop this GOP industrial war-machine...

...and help reverse the reckless dismantling of the US Constitution, I'll be ok if he moves into the RCADome, drives a Mack truck to work and eats roasted bald eagle for lunch.

If he's good for the country, if he makes it less likely that our children will be drafted, if he changes the health care system to benefit someone other than the heads of HMOs, I wouldn't care if he took a solid gold steam engine from his back door to the mailbox every morning.

We need a strong leader. We need someone who can do more than look bewildered during a time of crisis. We need someone with bold ideas about the righting the wrongs we've learned to live with, especially those born of the last 7 years. Those are the things we should be considering. Those are the points we should be debating.

I'm not necessarily an Edwards fan. In fact, Kucinich would be my top choice by far, with Obama as a possible second. But if anyone is elected from the Democratic party, I want to make for damn sure that they're elected on their political merits and not some irrelevant, gossipy, right-wingish bullcrap.

[The Backlash Cometh]

48. This is the kind of liberal overzealousness that the South Park creators

love to attack. Both sides, I might add. They'll attack the liberals who attack Edwards for building the house, and if he doesn't green up the house, they'll join in and attack Edwards too.

I see a South Park episode in the making.

[golddigger]

9. NO!

But, I have been losing alot of sleep over that 400.00 dollar haircut.

Sarcasm dripping...

[golddigger]

10. Self delete

[bhumikag]

11. is he the only one?

i agree that the house will be a distraction but is he the only one contributing to global warming by building a mcmansion??

what about the candidates who travel in a private jet? those who have huge SUVs?? i think edwards is being un-fairly singled out.



bhumika
politics desk,Voxant Newsroom

[zulchzulu]

12. It depends if he has a nice pool table

A bad pool table and I'd be the first to make it an issue.

:sarcasm:

[ChenZhen]

13. No! Only Bush's extravagant ranch is an issue.

[Stinky The Clown]

15. There are legitimate campaign issues .... and there are manufactured ones.

Sad to say, but both kinds matter. In my own view, his house means diddly squat to me. But I'm not the only voter in the world and there's no doubt that some (who knows how many?) are swayed by it.

You may not like that and I may not like that, but we don't matter. The opinions that matter are the ones held by those who were affected by the various campaign issues ..... including the size of Edwards' house.

[pampango]

21. Right. My guess is that the manufactured issue will have to do with hypocrisy

not with the house or haircut themselves. You know, like we do with the "family values" repubs when they stray from the straight and narrow. We don't condemn the behavior, by and large, but the hypocrisy. I assume that with Edwards will face manufactured outrage if he campaigns as a antipoverty candidate.

[Beaverhausen]

16. Should any candidates's home be an issue?

None of them is living an a one room shack, you know. Sheesh.

[jsamuel]

17. No! You are using the same argument that the RW uses against Gore's house.

"How can you be for the environment and have a big house?"

[Hippo_Tron]

18. It shouldn't be

[Cameron27]

19. Probably not,

but since when do we get to decide what the gop uses as a campaign issue.

[Clintonista2]

20. Y'know that the white house is a mansion... right?

[emdee]

22. It's only a way to avoid discussing the real issues. nt

nt

[XemaSab]

23. Lifestyle is important, yes.

n/t

[Milo_Bloom]

24. YES and NO.

It is a STUPID issue and one that shouldn't matter.

There are so many other things that prove Edwards a hypocrite, that we don't need to play the jealously game and attack him for how he used the money he earned.

HOWEVER, it is still an issue that will come up in the general election and would be used to paint Edwards a hyprocrite, along with the actual issues that prove it.

[trotsky]

43. Exactly right.

HOWEVER, it is still an issue that will come up in the general election and would be used to paint Edwards a hyprocrite

Couldn't have said it better. It's a huge liability for the Edwards campaign, whether we think it's an issue or not.

[JoePhilly]

26. Only if the GOP nominee moves into a shack. nt

[flpoljunkie]

28. No.

[Hieronymus]

29. No, and you obviously wouldn't have voted to FDR or JFK because they

were rich and lived in big houses.

[NastyRiffraff]

30. No. eom

[GreenArrow]

31. Legitimate or not, it will be an issue.

Hell, it already is. But the focus will be as much (or more) on John Edwards' own place in his "Two Americas" as it will be on the environment.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

32. No.

The only people I know who are trying to make it an issue (not discuss as we are here) are Republicans.

I'd like think most Dems are smart enough not to follow suit. What's to defend if we, the ones who vote Democratic, don't make an issue of it?

It's like saying people won't vote for a woman or an african-American. The people who feel that way are Republicans. Which is fine since their party sure as hell isn't going to be running either for president.

[saltpoint]

33. Which is why I've always hated the Kennedys. Bunch of spoiled rich people.

[Synnical]

34. So putting this thread on ignore

[saltpoint]

35. The 110th Congress should hasten to pass, before its final adjournment,

legislation MANDATING that only homeless people can run for president.

This eliminates the entire question, does it not, of how big someone's house should be, and whether or not house size is a predeterminant of ideological bent.

But wait. If only homeless people can run for president, one of them is bound to win, and then he or she will live in a REALLY big house in Washington. Kind of its own gated community, as it were.

So a homeless person who won the presidency on the purity of his or her homelessness would be INSTANTLY disqualified from being president unless he or she remained homeless.

You into that plan?

I am. Cuz ya just can't trust rich people. They're aloof and spoiled and stuck up like Roosevelt and Kennedy.

Damn them all!

[2rth2pwr]

37. Won't be an issue. He will not get close enough to Hillary for it

to really matter.

[IndianaJones]

38. no.nt

[enough already]

39. No more than Chappaqua is an issue n/t

[ChiciB1]

40. Only To Those Who Dislike Him With A Vengeance!! Middle Class

people don't get to run for President! Gee, how much does it cost to run these days??

The ANSWER IS NO!!!

[Honeycombe8]

41. Yes. Not because it's energy guzzler, but because it reflects his poor judgment.

There he was, one year away from running for President of the United States on a platform of "Two Americas, one for the rich, and one for everybody else," and he decides it would be a great idea to build or buy a mega-mansion.

Now, I don't begrudge his wealth. He earned it. That's what America is all about...the dream we all want, right? (among other things) But VERY POOR JUDGMENT to make that purchase right before running for Prez and hawking about Americans who are underprivileged. Very poor judgment.

[Forkboy]

42. Only for idiots.

[Apollo11]

44. Well they did chop down a lot of trees to clear that lot

Considering that John Edwards is claiming to lead the pack on climate change, I think he missed an opportunity to build a green home.

It's not too late for them to put some solar panels on the roof. They could also try planting more trees in the back yard!

I notice how often John Edwards mentions his dad's job and his wife's health in speeches. Neither of those issues has any relevance to who should be the nominee.

On the other hand - I like a lot of what he has to say about the issues.

[Vinca]

45. I think the only thing that bothers me about the Edwards home

(other than it's so long it looks like a train), is the bad judgement in erecting it just when he was traversing the country talking about poverty. I know he's a wealthy man and I don't care about where he lives, but it's hay for the opposition - that and the hedge fund and the haircut.

[tinrobot]

46. Was Kennedy's mansion a campaign issue?

No.

[SoCalDem]

49. Not really.. in my little burg

"ordinary folks" can and do buy 7 bedroom houses with around 4700 sq. ft. They are not senators or wealthy lawyers.
It's not unreasonable to think that a wealthy person would spend a decent chunk of change on a house..

Is his "too big"..maybe but who's to decide what's the "right size".?

Do wealthy republicans live in big houses? with servants? with chauffeurs? with nannies?

He has a wife who has a terminal illness, and their family has suffered the loss of a dearly loved child.. they have money and why not spend it on a home that will certainly remain in the family long after they are gone..or will provide a source of income for their kids after they are gone..

he could have picked a better time to build it, but maybe not..Elizabeth's illness had to have played some part.. He may have just wnated to build her her dream home so she could spend some time in it..

I know I will never have MY dream home, but if my husband had the money, he would certainly do whatever he could to see that I got it :)