"Edwards Statement On The Rejection Of New Orleans As Site For Presidential Debate"

[Blackhatjack]

It is about time the Democratic Party put New Orleans front and center as John Edwards has done. Nothing characterizes the indifference of Bush Republicans to the pain and suffering of their less fortunate citizens in a time of crisis like New Orleans. The lack of 'recovery' as the basis for not holding a Presidential Debate there is not a sufficient reason for this decision, but in fact is ONE OF THE REASONS TO HAVE DEBATE THERE. "Out of sight, out of mind" seems to be the issue here.
Edwards was right to issue the following statment:


http://johnedwards.com/news/press-releases/20071120-new-orleans-debate/

Edwards Statement On The Rejection Of New Orleans As Site For Presidential Debate
Nov 20, 2007 12:31 PM

Chapel Hill, North Carolina

"It saddens me to hear that the Commission on Presidential Debates rejected New Orleans' bid to host a debate in 2008 citing evidence that the city has not recovered enough to host the event. I strongly believe this decision was a mistake and I urge the Commission on Presidential Debates to rethink their decision.

"As a nation, all of us have a responsibility to do everything we can to help rebuild this great city, and holding national events in this city, like a presidential debate, will help New Orleans move forward. I have made rebuilding this city a central part of my presidential campaign because I believe we cannot stand on the sidelines as President Bush continues to fail the people of New Orleans.

"The truth is America is not the country of the Superdome in New Orleans after Katrina. We can prove it by fulfilling our moral responsibility to get New Orleans back on its feet. At a minimum, when I am the Democratic nominee, I will push to make sure we hold a presidential debate in New Orleans. And, as president, I will make sure that our government does everything in its power to help restore the city."

[flordehinojos]

1. isn't the commission on presidential debates run by a majority of republicans?

I mean, aren't there more kissabushass than there are democrats? Or, have democrats and republicans blended so well into one amorphous, heartless, money swallowing, fascist tank, that it really does no matter what the count of democrats vs. republicans really is? Perhaps none of them want America to see what the blackwater goons are doing in new orleans because, whatever they are in doing in new orleans is going to be, or already is, a blue print for the rest of america.

[Richard Steele]

2. He makes a good point. K&R

[Hoof Hearted]

3. I lived in Willow Springs during the trial of that little girl

I admired his work, and I was grateful his services were available to that family.

An image formed then through observation still remains - I find him to be a little too slippery. Too much aw-shucks Mayberry bullshit from a guy with a personal sports complex bigger than my house three times over.

[Blackhatjack]

4. So any future candidates for President who build large houses are eliminated? Period?

Before you condemn Edwards go ahead and check the size of houses built by former Presidents and former candidates for President, and tell us how they all turned out bad or good by how large their houses were.

If you want a President who will stand up for the AMerican People AND the environment, you would be remiss to eliminate Edwards from your list of viable candidates.

Of all the DEM candidates running, Edwards has nothing to apologize for when it comes to his wealth which he EARNED entirely from his efforts from the ground up.

So tell me --do you feel the same way about Ted Kennedy? Is he 'a little too slippery' also?