Instapundit's Anti-Edwards BS
Well, there's this.
This is not worth the powder to blow to hell, but:
1. I'm averse to ostentatiously rich people, so I'd probably be fairly unhappy myself if somebody built such an absurdly extravagant house nearby.
However,
2. Insty is just cheating on this one. Edwards didn't say anything that suggested that she was looking down on her neighbor because he was "less wealthy" or "different."
3. She was worried because he seems to be rather eager to pull out the shootin' irons.
4. And she wasn't wild about his car farm.
Now, having grown up around people like Mr. Johnson, I can tell you that they make me nervous, too. And I was raised in a family that was perfectly at home with firearms, and perfectly willing to employ them if necessary. But someone who brings out the guns at first sight of someone on his property is crazy and dangerous.
Furthermore, my folks had about ten rusting vehicles on their property at last count, and I can tell you, it's not the most aesthetically pleasing sight. If their place were visible to anyone else, I'd complain on behalf of the other party. It's not about wealth, it's about ugly. (In my dad's defense, the vehicles are mostly kept behind the shed, so most of them aren't visible from the house.)
But, of course, Insty wasn't even trying to be fair or accurate. It's just recreational snarking.
Well, there's this.
This is not worth the powder to blow to hell, but:
1. I'm averse to ostentatiously rich people, so I'd probably be fairly unhappy myself if somebody built such an absurdly extravagant house nearby.
However,
2. Insty is just cheating on this one. Edwards didn't say anything that suggested that she was looking down on her neighbor because he was "less wealthy" or "different."
3. She was worried because he seems to be rather eager to pull out the shootin' irons.
4. And she wasn't wild about his car farm.
Now, having grown up around people like Mr. Johnson, I can tell you that they make me nervous, too. And I was raised in a family that was perfectly at home with firearms, and perfectly willing to employ them if necessary. But someone who brings out the guns at first sight of someone on his property is crazy and dangerous.
Furthermore, my folks had about ten rusting vehicles on their property at last count, and I can tell you, it's not the most aesthetically pleasing sight. If their place were visible to anyone else, I'd complain on behalf of the other party. It's not about wealth, it's about ugly. (In my dad's defense, the vehicles are mostly kept behind the shed, so most of them aren't visible from the house.)
But, of course, Insty wasn't even trying to be fair or accurate. It's just recreational snarking.
posted by Winston Smith at
5:32 PM
2 Comments:
The people who run for President are not remotely ordinary. Well, except maybe for Dennis Kucinich, so I'll just rephrase: People who credibly run.... Some of them were born into ordinary circumstances (Nixon) or worse (Clinton) but by the time they run, they're not normal.
Bushists like to pretend this is not so, hence pere's pork rinds and fils's "ranch". But it's the stupidest sort of "so's your old man".
The weak-minded still believe that they'd enjoy having a beer with Duhbya, when it's obvious to anyone who'll believe their own eyes that no one in that family has the common touch.
And, no, I don't make the analogous mistake of thinking that I'd love a cold one with Al Gore. With his old man, sure, but not with Al.
Ms. Edwards was indulging in a little recreational snarking herself, negatively associating her crazy neighbor with the Republican Party.
I have grave concerns about Sen. Obama's inexperience and voting record that's to the left of Ted Kennedy, but I sincerely appreciate that he's interested in being my president and leading not just his party, but all Americans.
Mistress Hillary has expressed no such desire, either, bashing Republicans when the occasion permits.
Our two parties and ideologies are making this country a miserable place lately, I think we'd all agree. And we should agree that that's a bad thing.
Of the Democrat top three, only Obama is a uniter, not a divider.
Yes, WS, there's a good point in there about the guy breaking out his gun when the suits showed up, but I suspect with his family's long history in that area of South Carolina, scaring off the revenooers is an honored tradition. When the suits come skulking around, no good will come of it, rest assured.
But Sen. Edwards' wife didn't stop there, using her national platform to embarrass her neighbor's slovenliness. And I have no truck for a "Two Americas" candidate who will "fight" for a theoretical 51% against the other 49. John Edwards is already a devisive figure, by his own intention and design.
On the GOP side, I couldn't fully support any candidate who goes for Democrat throats either. (It's my observation that both Bill Clinton and Dubya were able to contain their frustrations and not bash the opposition party until their sixth year in office. A nature of the beast thing.)
So far, Rudy and McCain have eschewed the politics of personal destruction. They are not running against the Democratic Party. It's my guess that Fred Thompson would (and will) follow that dynamic, too. And Mitt Romney, as an ex-governor of a liberal state would as well, although I don't see him gaining traction with GOP base, not to mention independents and the anti-religionist left.
I don't think Ms. Edwards has harmed her husband's candacy for First Gentleman because this was a gaffe. But I think she has exposed his Two Americas candidacy by showing it for what it truly is. John Edwards is not running for the presidency; he's running against the others who want it.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home