This week’s barbershop segment came out today. On the docket? We talked about immigration policy, about Michael Vick’s legal troubles, and we talked about John Edwards’ campaign and his anti-poverty platform. Makes for interesting listening–check out the way that even the pros have drunk the koolaid on Edwards. There are significant risks in tying one’s ability to speak to a subject to personal style/appearance/background. We wouldn’t want a serial killer running our police departments…we wouldn’t want a firestarter running our fire department. Why should we expect someone running for President to actually be poor?
Holler at me and let me know your thoughts.
Doc this was in my opinion the worst;hey if I’m drowning and someone toss me a line. I’m not going to question his motivation.In a barber shop format can the participants discuss how to ,of cutting hair?Some subject should be left to the experts,Obama has come out with a poverty program and I would say it was motivated by Edwards but who cares.
I think it shouldn’t matter if the candidate is rich or poor. I’m not sure who made the point on the npr piece about the fact that a poor person doesn’t really have the chance/opportunity to run for president. Yes, this is indeed the reality of our electoral system and as such we need to work with what we have. If a “rich” person has developed a plan to help the poor, then their idea should be heard and discussed based on its feasibility and relatability (sp?) to the population in question.
But, I do think motivations are important, because they can give us clues as to how/when/if the individual is actually going to implement those plans or if its just sweet talk until the elections are over. (At least, in theory that’s how it should go).
I guess I just want to know if this is bunch of hot air, or is the candidate truly committed to effecting change during their term.
What I didn’t get a chance to say (and I said more that got cut out) was that there are issues that candidates “put out there” solely for the purpose of getting votes.
Poverty ain’t one of them.
So the idea that Edwards isn’t genuine, when talking about poor people–people who don’t normally vote, who almost can’t by definition give money–because he’s paid is a nonstarter. In fact it’s worse than that…but I like the brothers on the barbershop so i can’t be too hard on them. : )
I’m completely pragmatic, I don’t really care why someone does something. Motivations are completely unimportant to me in terms of the political and economic spectrum. What good is someones intentions if it hurts instead of helps? And who cares why someone improves education for the poor as long as they do. All that matters is the results, motivation is unimportant unless it can negatively effect things.