All Presidential candidates live in homes that would make a poor person blush

[mdmc]

:shrug:
I missed something? Edwards has a mansion and wasteful light bulbs? Why DU, why?

[hippiechick]

1. Not to mention most Senators and Congresscritters ...

The "People's Houses" are NOT inhabited, by and large, by 'working class Americans'.

[goclark]

5. FDR, JFK and on and on and on

Power has always been in the hands of the very wealty in America.

So what!

So what if Edwards lives in a 3 million $$ house!
That does not mean that he hates the middle class and the poor.

George Bush lives on a pig farm and he could buy and sell Edwards.

His family has wealth and power.

Get over it!

[hippiechick]

8. My point exactly.

Edwards' situation is nothing new, and certainly nothing to vilify him for.
At least not unless we look at the entire system and re-assess the money games it takes to GET elected, at any level.


:shrug:

[salin]

15. Public-funded Elections

only way to change the trend of elites runing "The Peoples' House".

[bigluckyfeet]

2. We are Supposed to Ignore

The multi-million homes so they can act like they represent joe sixpack.

[mdmc]

3. never!

Just remember that the closest thing we will ever get to joe sixpack in the white house is bush.

[JVS]

47. thanks for putting people of modest means in our place, we needed that

[Kahuna]

6. Umm, I never heard any DUer complain about Kennedy going

home to Hyanisport. To behave as if there has never been or is any such thing as rich Democrats is pretty silly to me. There are plenty of them. But now they want to start calling them "libertarians." :eyes: Whatever.

[ShortnFiery]

41. Here!

As good as Kennedy has been with regard to policy, I've always been sickened by their family's wealth and the way *some of them* throw it in our face.

So many here adore Jackie's legacy - but not me. Her designer dresses and other displays of opulence were immoral and disrespectful of those who live disenfranchised and in abject poverty. :(

[JVS]

48. yes. the more one owns, the more one loves the USA

[Kahuna]

4. And there's no Santa either.. And the Easter Bunny is dead..

:hide:

[Nikia]

7. I agree

I thought that it was standard for powerful wealthy people to have homes big enough to have big parties, meetings, and overnight guests. Could you imagine trying to host a couple hundred person dinner party in a 2000 square foot home (which obviously would be more appropriate for a typical 5 person family) and have several overnight guests?
As far as the size and resources, personally I think it is wasteful that in cities, with office space available in the tall buildings downtown, have a company build a large office complex of single or double story buildings in the suburbs. Parking lots and those single story big box stores are very wasteful too. I haven't seen any protestors though.
This is not news or an issue except for a few Marxists we have on DU.

[sandnsea]

13. Move to Oregon

People here protest parking lots and new construction and sprawl, All The Time. We have candlelight vigils when they cut down trees to build. People cry and try to break down the gates to stop the bulldozers. I think some parts of the country just take their forests and clean rivers more seriously, we're saving what little is left in the country. And, btw, FDR almost went broke trying to help people with polio. And the Kennedys are taking serious heat over their objection to the wind farm. Edwards is not being singled out and picked on. Times have changed and turning down the thermostat just isn't enough anymore.

[marions ghost]

25. agreed

Times have changed. It's not OK to just look the other way at environmental degradation, overconsumption and excessive development and feel this debate is merely a case of live and let live.

The area where Edwards built has appalling examples of voracious over-development. It is becoming McMansionland. Beautiful fragile woodlands are paved over like they never existed--and this is supposed to be a good thing? It's the WAY they do it--much more invasive than it needs to be, with no environmental controls. Just flatten and bulldoze (after bullshitting the public). Lip service and lies about protecting "water quality" and other concerns are all the average citizen gets if they try to object. People who live in the path of this kind of destruction are very sensitive to it. The problem is not that trees were cut down by Edwards (and I'm not sure that so many actually were as it was an old farm supposedly). The problem is that this type of development is the norm, in North Carolina and elsewhere. And so it merits discussion.

We have to be honest about Dem candidates too. I am dismayed that Edwards did not show more "vision" in this, esp as far as understanding his OWN constituency, as well as the opposition. I still think he would be a good candidate and I trust he will get by this rather grande faux pas. It is a missed opportunity to make a difference IMO, a mistake, but we need to keep it in perspective.

I am writing to Edwards about this, and I hope others will too. So that he can formulate an intelligent response that really does address the issues of his own constituency. He would be foolish to underestimate this.

[XemaSab]

35. Well put.

:pals:

[ShortnFiery]

42. I hope when we are able to retire that we will make it happen: move to Oregon

I have not done a great deal of research, but from what I've gleaned so far, you are my kind of people, i.e., community and environmentally oriented. :hi:

Right now we live in a somewhat upper middle class neighborhood where people shriek with disgust if one's yard is two shades less green than the norm. Where *showing off* one's wealth by landscaping the hell out of one's yard until there's hardly any grass showing, is considered GOOD TASTE! We are so miserable being drenched in right wing nut-cases and arrogant wannabe wealthy show-offs that we are seemingly counting the minutes until we can retire without having to go on food stamps. ;)

[windbreeze]

9. Unless Kuchinic has moved

since he ran in the last election, his house is one you or I could/would live in...and if you do a search, and look at all their homes....it's amazing the way they fit each individual...
windbreeze

[mdmc]

12. I didn't check, honest

:kick:

[LWolf]

17. Here it is:

[leftchick]

18. thanks for the reality check

Dennis is the "real deal" unlike the raw deal we had the last time.

[Luckyduck]

30. exactly!

:rofl:

[GreenArrow]

19. Lwolf

do you by any chance have a link to the article that picture came from?

[LWolf]

20. It was from an article back in the '04 primaries;

I couldn't find the article, so I googled pics for kucinich to find it again. I think I remember that he had it up on his site for awhile during the '04 primaries, as well.

[GreenArrow]

24. Thanks, yes, I remember the article

I've been trying to find it for a while now, but it seems to have vanished from the web. Maybe I'll just do as you did and search for each candidate and see if I can locate the houses that way. I think the original article had square footage and values information as well.

[goclark]

26. I love Dennis but that doesn't make him a better Pres. than JFK

[windbreeze]

29. no it doesn't...and that wasn't the point I was trying to make by

bringing it up....I thought this thread was about exorbitant living quarters for presidential candidates...so I wanted it known, that was not true for all of them...that there were those, whose feet were on the ground, and who weren't trying to put on airs or impress...I believe I recall the value was in the $20/$30/$40 K range...actually I was more impressed that Kuchinic obviously knew what it's like to be a regular guy...
wb

[LWolf]

32. ? Did I say it did?

:shrug:

[windbreeze]

36. uhhh, I wasn't responding to your post..

I was responding to post #26....
windbreeze

[LWolf]

44. Morning eyes see better than after work eyes, I guess.

I could swear I clicked on a response from "my du" page and got your post.

:crazy:

[windbreeze]

49. n/p to be sure...

I ended up confused too...
wb

[mdmc]

27. thanks for the pic wolfie

cool and the gang

[LWolf]

31. Any time.

:hi:

[G_j]

34. on Kucinich; article from 2004

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0102-04.htm

"There is almost an ascetic quality about Mr. Kucinich; his home, in a forlorn, working-class section on Cleveland's west side, is so sparsely furnished as to be practically bare. He appears to have little life outside his work"

[1932]

46. And Kucinich thinks Edwards was a great guy (he told Jon Stewart that on DS)

So Kucinich doesn't have a problem with Edwards' house.

[leftofthedial]

10. Kucinich and Edwards are the only two even giving lip service

to the class war

(which in my estimation is the driver behind the other two most important issues--destruction of the global climate and the illegal occupation of Iraq).

It is difficult to believe that a candidate has the interests of the working and middle class at heart when he flaunts his own membership in the upper class. (Yes, I know FDR was rich. Yes I know that the American political system is rigged so that only the wealthy or the very well-connected and pliant servants of the wealthy can even afford to run for high office.)

plus, one of the major factors in global warming is American overconsumption. The single biggest strain each of us places on the environment is not our car; it is our house. The bigger the house, the less sustainable (and justifiable) it is.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

11. George and Laura used to live in a very modest house

It was basically a platform in a tree where they lived a very simple and environmentally friendly lifestyle.

[Binka]

21. Oh Baby Now THAT Was Funny! n/t

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

23. I needed that! Thank you!

:rofl:

[marions ghost]

14. I have to agree with those

who say this debate reflects changing times. There is no justification in the argument that all candidates must live in lavish homes because they always have. I will continue to support and vote for Edwards, but he has made an error in thinking that what he has built is not symbolic to many people, especially as he paints himself as a populist candidate in these days of growing scarcity.

I'm just disappointed that he did not see this as an opportunity--to create a truly environmentally sensitive complex. Obviously this place is more than a mere mansion, it is a facility, and a real estate investment. The Edwards' need to calmly defend it on this point. It is not what people think of as a house and can't really be defended as such, without the justifiable criticism that he built himself a palace. Edwards REALLY missed a good opportunity to garner even more support even while he created his shangri-la. It was naive to think he wouldn't be swiftboated on this.

I still support Edwards. This is not the worst thing a politician has done, given the examples in the last few years. But it was very short-sighted.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

16. mdmc, the Clinton home, albeit in Expensive Chappaqua, is modest. I've seen it

from the street and its typical of nice Dutch colonials built in Westchester, but it is not a mansion. The house is about 50 feet from the street and that street is an ordinary cul-de-sac.

My ex-in-laws lived about 5 minutes from the Clinton home, and their house was much splashier.

And mdmc :hi:

[mdmc]

28. Hi

Have you seen Edwards new home? It looks like a nice southern estate. :hi:

[sutz12]

22. Actually, I think their houses would make a poor person 'comfortable'

;)

[mondo joe]

33. Having grown up in a poor neighborhood in a poor city, I don't think anyone

I knew then would blush. I think they'd want it for themselves.

[mdmc]

37. blush, lust, covet

yeah...

[WinkyDink]

39. Yes, the expression is used incorrectly in the OP, FWIW.

[and-justice-for-all]

38. I think they all had jobs and investments....

..long before they came to where they are now.

[ShortnFiery]

40. That doesn't make it right, especially now when the gap between

the rich and the poor is ever widening. IF any of our Democratic Congress members vote FOR themselves to be granted a raise, may they be voted out in their very next primary. :grr:

[rman]

43. True - it's not fair to single out Edwards

Many others deserve the same criticism.

[Tactical Progressive]

45. Political tin ear is the only issue here

Edwards showed he has one.

Even after Bushie moved into his phony ranch and it helped him get elected.
Even after we watched the media show Bushboy 'clearin' brush' over and over and over and over to the hard-workin' Murkins, and it worked.
Totally stage-managed, and as pathetically obvious a contrivance as it was, it was effective nonetheless.

Along comes Johnny, talking front and center about the unfairness of it all, and what does he do? He buys the biggest spread around.

I could care less if John wants to live in a house three times that size on four times as much property. But as he's starting to run a campaign? On the primary issue of economic disparity? You gotta be kidding.

DU is probably one of the few places that will miss how politically tone-deaf this choice was.

Oh well, it's done. If anybody asks me I'll tell them he's a successful guy who needs room to run for President, and we should be lucky that such a successful person still has the best interests of the economically unfortunate at heart.

[Wapsie B]

50. Yes they do.

But the people these smear tactics are aimed at don't stop to think of things like that.