It seems that the latest UNC celebrity ? who’s Not Using UNC For Political Gain, We Swear ? was in Oklahoma recently. A report:
Former vice presidential candidate John Edwards, whose rural roots and blue-collar background resonated with Oklahoma voters during last year’s presidential primary, returned to the state on Saturday to address the Oklahoma Democratic Party’s state convention.
During an afternoon press conference, Edwards touted his plans to fight poverty and help energize local Democrats in state races, but stopped short of shedding light on his own future political plans.
See, it would help to have a plan to tout, first. But Edward’s plan is basically this:
? Accept phony UNC position
? Do nothing other than campaign ? see, the nominal directorship verifies he really cares about poverty
? Hope the ruse works by 2008
In Edwards’ defense, one has to “dance with the one that brung ya.” The phantom issue has always been his biggest success ? remember his “message of hope”? Right now, I think, his message to Democrats as he travels the nation can be summarized: I have a plan to fight poverty. What is your plan? Let me get back to you on that.
Not that it matters, because when the time comes, his sycophantic press will gleefully repeat that he has a “plan” to fight poverty. The closest he has to a “plan” is washed-up socialist ideas, to wit his address to the law school graduates at William and Mary:
Edwards suggested four ways to help fight poverty: discuss the problem and put the issue back on the national agenda; work to raise the minimum wage; offer universal health care and child care for parents who need it; and help working families, save, get an education and buy their own homes.
Let’s go over those one by one:
1. “discuss the problem” ? this does nothing for the problem but does soothe the men-are-perfectible leftists who think that “awareness” of a problem magically becomes the solution; nevertheless, at least this proposal does not exacerbate the problem
2. “work to raise the minimum wage” ? if that work succeeds, it will only make it more difficult for those in poverty to find work; this “solution” distinctly exacerbates the problem (how much is UNC paying this guy?)
3. “offer universal health care and child care for parents who need it” ? if followed, this too increases the costs to employers to hire somebody; if it does anything for those in poverty, it will make it harder for them to find a job (does Edwards know what poverty is? he seems to think it means below “middle class”)
4. “help working families, save, get an education and buy their own homes” ? there are no policy prescriptions placed here, so ostensibly it could help “working families,” if not those in poverty, provided that help comes in the way of tax relief or a reduction in regulations and other governmental intrusions into the market that artificially raise prices (but likely he just means taking money from working families “for their own good”)
