Reasons NOT to vote for John Edwards

John Edwards would be a bad President. This judgment is based on my personal assessment of his leadership abilities and his policies. There are many logical reasons not to vote for John Edwards which I will explore on this blog. I hope that you join me in this important discussion by posting comments and sending me your "reasons" at johnrawls@johnedwards.org. In order to maintain the integrity of an intellectual discussion, there are two rules that will govern all content on this blog: 1. personal attacks will not be tolerated and 2. every "reason" must be factual and must cite sources.

Saturday, April 28, 2007

Reason #3 Four-Hundred Dollar Haircuts

John Edwards often talks about how there are two Americas in this country; one America for the privileged and another America for the rest of us. The $400 dollar haircuts do not jibe with this populist rhetoric. John Edwards campaigns about the horror of there being "two Americas" and then we find out that he is living the most unnecessarily lavish and excessive liefestyle.

11 comments:

John Rawls said...

I guess nobody wants to come out and defend John Edwards on this one...

Anonymous said...

Mr. Rawls,

Allow me to respectfully disagree with you on various points you make critiquing Sen. Edwards and his bid for the presidency.

When it comes to politics, the US Congress, Senators, both current and former, political candidates, especially those on the "left" side of the spectrum, I am normally unusually idealistic.

However, in brief reply to a few of your criticisms of Sen. Edwards, perceived hypocrisy regarding positions he has taken, past and present, and particularly, my reply to this $400 haircut nonsense, I say this:

Unfortunately, these days, one needs to be independently wealthy, as is Sen. Edwards, to make an even long-shot bid for a major, hotly contested statewide office, let alone the White House. If respective candidate is not independently wealthy, he or she is most likely a washed-up long-serving well-known statewide officeholder or federal officeholder of some sort.

Therefore, and I admit to sounding rather cynical and "resigned" to the lousy status quo of the state of modern-day politics in America, campaign finance reform (or lack thereof, etc, etc), the voter is faced these days with only wealthy candidates, or those with enough "DC and lobbyist" connections, Hollywood friends, business/corporate pals, it runs the entire ideological and demographic gamut, the whole game of "you scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours," of elective office; so that EITHER WAY, the candidate will be well-funded, whether their policy views might seem hypocritical or not, whether it is the high-price contributors to their campaigns who are corrupting them (or the mere element of, say, John Edwards' money he amassed as a trial lawyer in North Carolina).

I HATE to say this and it truly breaks my heart as an idealist and one who truly wants for public financing of campaigns and the like, I AM NOT Diogenes the Cynic here (or Mitch McConnell for that matter)...but the $400 haircut is not and should not be an attack on Edwards or his use of campaign funds, etc, but rather, an attack on MEDIA HYPE. Ever since 2004, critics, both ideological and journalists just trying to get those wonderful, UNSUBSTANTIVE ratings, the aforementioned have been going after Edwards for his hypocritical, trial lawyer, wealthy, "pretty boy persona."

In conclusion, give me a Democratic candidate, (limiting the current overall presidential field), that is not truly a hypocrite in some way or another...whether it be for purely cynical strategic purposes, or a Senator, or Governor who is running, say, who, at some point, merely changed his or her mind on an issue, or two issues or three. I DO NOT want to come across as Diogenes again or Mitch McConnell...but rebut this with a candidate, a currently high-profile, well-funded, nationwide, federal politician/candidate, etc, who IS NOT A HYPOCRITE in some form or another...or who is not A. independently wealthy, or especially, B. inherently and inevitably corrupted by the corporate lobbyists, etc.

Regards,
Truly an Idealist

cgallus said...

i will really vote for you edwards

cgallus said...

that looks weird there edwards but i will still vote for you

Phil said...

In Edwards defense, he was under the impression that he was paying for his haircut with his own money, rather than out of his campaign finances.

What you have to consider is that presidential candidates like Edwards work about 18 hours a day and for those 18 hours, they are very busy. There simply isn't enough time in the day to stick around and pay for dinners or clothes or haircuts so one of his people pays the bills.

There was a mix-up and one of his people paid for the haircut with his campaign money, rather than his personal bank account like he was supposed to.

My final point is, John Edwards isn't the only senator to get a $400 haircut.

John Rawls said...

Frankly, who paid for the haircut seems like a pretty irrelevant question. That has nothing to do with the point that I made in my original post. Also, phil, I would very interested to know which other Senators have paid for 400 dollar haircuts? Senator Barbara Boxer or Hillary Clinton?

Anonymous said...

You should hyphenate "Four" and "Hundred" in the title of this post.

It looks like you're saying he got four $100 haircuts instead of a $400 haircut.

The Ranch said...

Your comments are very insightful. Most Americans have to pay for their own haircuts - they can't just expense them to their employers. If Edwards is trying to show us that he will be a good steward of the taxpayers' hard-earned money, he is setting a very poor example with his use of his campaign funds. Edwards' contributors should demand refunds.

morgan said...

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=14&entry_id=16809

Urbanpink said...

Edwards admitted that this should not have been charged to the campaign, and refunded it. In every other respect criticizing a candidate for getting an expensive haircut is a silly distraction from every single other salient issue in America. Plus everyone criticising his haircut is saying "he SHOULD do as I do" but how often do they expect themselves to do things a certain way that others do. This kind of class warfare is ridiculous--if you follow this kind of logic then we should all cut our own hair since some people can't afford to pay someone to do it. That used to be true in my family. Hypocrisy is so easy, isn't it?

Anonymous said...

Who cares how much he spends on haircuts? It's HIS money.

Is this really supposed to discredit Edwards on the issue of poverty? Let's see, Edwards grew up poor, got an education, worked hard and became a millionaire.

He's an expert on eliminating poverty, because he's done it in his own life. We should all listen to him.