Video: Edwards promises Truther he’ll look into collapse of WTC 7

posted at 8:15 pm on May 9, 2007 by Allahpundit

Here you go — the pride of the nutroots, politely declining to tell a 9/11 conspiracy theorist to go to hell. How can he? His base is filthy with them.

Chilling takeaway: the applause at the end.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Doubt that will get major media coverage…..maybe Red Eye.
You out there Levy?

TBinSTL on May 9, 2007 at 8:19 PM

Ooooh! Roswell too!

Pablo on May 9, 2007 at 8:23 PM

he just secured the nutroots vote; he mgiht end up being the Dem nominee at this rate

Defector01 on May 9, 2007 at 8:24 PM

GMTA, Allah. Just saw this at YouTube and posted it at my blog as well.

That Edwards would give act like this Truther clown has a ‘real’ concern (to the point of getting him to leave his contact information with an Edwards staffer) just shows how far the Democrats are willing to go in order to appease their ‘base’ – a Nutroots base which, I feel, is no longer the ‘fringe’ of the Dem party, but the mainstream – and one that is effectively walking on a tight leash the party that, unfortunately, controls Congress.

SisterToldjah on May 9, 2007 at 8:25 PM

Openly encouraging insanity and treason, yeah, he’s the leader of the Dems.

bbz123 on May 9, 2007 at 8:26 PM

Honestly, I’m not even sure Edwards knows what a Truther is. It sure didn’t seem like he knew what he was being asked until the person on towards the front yelled “It’s the 3rd building that fell on 9/11.” Even then, his response was more of a brush off “Give us your contact info and we’ll get back to you on that.” than any sort of “Yes! There are many problems with the official version of 9/11 and I’ll go after them all.” kind of answer.

Linguistically, I realize that it’s just the boy’s dialect, but, pedantically, I wanted to strangle him every time he said “Nobody’s broughten it up.”

JadeNYU on May 9, 2007 at 8:27 PM

Perhaps he’ll channel the ghost of a psychic embryo to find out what really happened.

infidel4life on May 9, 2007 at 8:27 PM

I think this is more Edwards being ignorant to trutherism than open to investigating it.

JaHerer22 on May 9, 2007 at 8:30 PM

I think this is more Edwards being ignorant to trutherism than open to investigating it.

JaHerer22 on May 9, 2007 at 8:30 PM

It did occur to me that maybe he was just humoring the kook.

At least I hope he was.

infidel4life on May 9, 2007 at 8:32 PM

I think this is more Edwards being ignorant to trutherism than open to investigating it.

How so? He seems to nod in awareness once he finally hears what the guy’s saying.

And how politically out of touch would he have to be not to have heard of Trutherism?

Allahpundit on May 9, 2007 at 8:33 PM

I’m shocked that no political candidate “has broughten up” this controversial topic before. That a charlatan like Edwards can run for the top office in the land shows just how insidious the trial lawyer lobby is in the country. In a decent civilization, he’d be laughed out of town.

carlitos on May 9, 2007 at 8:33 PM

It did occur to me that maybe he was just humoring the kook.

Yes, that’s possible. Would he also humor a Holocaust denier? And why are so many people clapping?

Allahpundit on May 9, 2007 at 8:33 PM

I’d like to know the truth about Roswell and the 2nd gunman on the grassy knoll while you’re at it Silky Pony Breck girl!

SilverStar830 on May 9, 2007 at 8:34 PM

It seems to me that Edwards is angling for a recurring spot as a Red Eye guest.

He is prettier than Samantha Judge, after all.

Jack M. on May 9, 2007 at 8:36 PM

Honestly, I’m not even sure Edwards knows what a Truther is. It sure didn’t seem like he knew what he was being asked until the person on towards the front yelled “It’s the 3rd building that fell on 9/11.” Even then, his response was more of a brush off “Give us your contact info and we’ll get back to you on that.” than any sort of “Yes! There are many problems with the official version of 9/11 and I’ll go after them all.” kind of answer.

wait a man running for President of the United States doesnt know what happened on 9/11 ?

If he wanted to be a leader then you stand up to false rumors you dont feed them.

Edwards failed a basic leadership test there.

William Amos on May 9, 2007 at 8:39 PM

Also, Edwards says “I’m willing to look at it, I’m not sure what I’m willing to do.”

It really sounds like someone brought up something he was vaguely (at best) familiar with and he wanted to move on without looking like an idiot.

I agree with AP though that if this person were a Holocaust denier, he would immediately be shut down. At least, I’d like to believe that holocaust denial still isn’t sheik for the nutroots.

JadeNYU on May 9, 2007 at 8:40 PM

I think this is more Edwards being ignorant to trutherism than open to investigating it.

JaHerer22 on May 9, 2007 at 8:30 PM

He did indeed know about WTC 7. Watch about halfway through once he starts shaking his head affirmatively. Whether or not he’s serious about ‘looking into it’, the fact that he gave this Truther hope by acting like he was going to investigate it himself just gave credence – however slim – to the conspiracy theories these kooks have been pushing about WTC7.

I think this question should be asked again, at the next Dem debate. Then let’s see how he – and the other candidates – answer.

SisterToldjah on May 9, 2007 at 8:40 PM

It is extremely alarming that our population is infected with these kooks. It’s the same type of paranoia and conspiracy theorism found in Islamic countries. Our moral high ground is being chipped away by these idiots.

PRCalDude on May 9, 2007 at 8:43 PM

Any idea where this was or what type of audience? College students or regular campaign stop, both?

Bradky on May 9, 2007 at 8:44 PM

I really don’t think he knew what he was referring to. He’s probably that disconnected.
I don’t think he reads teh intarwebs enough to actually know.

SouthernDem on May 9, 2007 at 8:46 PM

That’s John Edwards alright, he’s really progressive holding those townhall meetings at mental hospitals…

Zorro on May 9, 2007 at 8:47 PM

Wow, Edwards is going to “look into” (whatever the hell that means) WTC 7. What’s next? He’s going to find Nicole Simpson’s real killer? How about Robert Blake and his wife’s real killer? Maybe he could look into those things as well. Any self respecting politician would tell the guy he’s nuts for even asking the question. One needs to speak truth to truthers.

Mojave Mark on May 9, 2007 at 8:48 PM

Hey John, when you’re done with 9/11 and Area 51, could you find Elvis for us? Suspicious Minds want to know.

RedWinged Blackbird on May 9, 2007 at 8:54 PM

catering to 35% of the democrat base. Smart man!

lorien1973 on May 9, 2007 at 9:02 PM

Hillary and obama will have to reconsider their views on wtc7 (at least) to keep up. I like where this is heading.

lorien1973 on May 9, 2007 at 9:02 PM

I agree with AP though that if this person were a Holocaust denier, he would immediately be shut down. At least, I’d like to believe that holocaust denial still isn’t sheik for the nutroots.

JadeNYU on May 9, 2007 at 8:40 PM

What’s the difference between the Truthers and holocaust deniers? Most of them believe the Jooooooz are somehow involved anyway, similar to the 4/29 nutjobs.

What’s next? He’s going to find Nicole Simpson’s real killer? How about Robert Blake and his wife’s real killer?

Mojave Mark on May 9, 2007 at 8:48 PM

Nah. He’s too busy helping OJ right now.

91Veteran on May 9, 2007 at 9:10 PM

I honestly also think he had little to no knowledge of the WTC7 ‘conspiracy.’ He’s probably been briefed by his staffers that there are Truthers out there, but doesn’t wade around enough on the Intertubes or The View to be as versed as us.

WTC7 has become the new, chic way of calling Bush a mass-murderer without all the obvious pitfalls of claiming demolitions of 1&2 and a cruise missile into the pentagon. It’s almost a code word at this point, and it can be expected that a candidate, as focused on Iowa as he, wouldn’t be aware of this summer’s newest fad.

I would LOVE to see this question, phrased bluntly, at the next Dem podium show.

askheaves on May 9, 2007 at 9:14 PM

Oh yeah, and that pesky Lake Monster in Scotland. It’s about time we got rid of that thing.

RedWinged Blackbird on May 9, 2007 at 9:16 PM

How so? He seems to nod in awareness once he finally hears what the guy’s saying.

And how politically out of touch would he have to be not to have heard of Trutherism?

Allahpundit on May 9, 2007 at 8:33 PM

AP seems to hit his stride when the Truthers come out at night. This is truly Red Meat for you, isn’t it?

Jaibones on May 9, 2007 at 9:19 PM

If he is not aware of the truthers, he is completely out of touch with his base.

If he didn’t know, he knows now.

This has to come up in a debate so we can watch them one-up each other with their answers.

Valiant on May 9, 2007 at 9:20 PM

WTC.

Weak.

Timid.

Cretin.

profitsbeard on May 9, 2007 at 9:25 PM

Seems to me like he either really didnt know or, he wanted to skirt it without offending the truther because he knew he was in a tough political spot for a far left candidate.

Dash on May 9, 2007 at 9:31 PM

I hate to say it, but I don’t think Edwards had a clue what that clown was talking about. Kinda shows the power of the Internet really. If I had simply read that John Edwards said he would investigate WTC7 if Prez, I would be outraged, but since I was able to see the video, I know he’s just ignorant.

Jim-Rose on May 9, 2007 at 9:34 PM

John Edwards can only once be asked this question for the first time. Ditto John Kerry. Eventually they need to have a better answer for the truthers.

MayBee on May 9, 2007 at 9:47 PM

Well he looked really confused. I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt until I’ve got other evidence. John Kerry not so much. He’s a prostitute. Apparently Kerry consulted polls before deciding whether or not to be pro-Vietnam war or anti-Vietnam war in his first Senate campaign. Read it in this biography by Boston Globe reporters (“We know him best” etc.). The title escapes me atm.

aengus on May 9, 2007 at 9:55 PM

And how politically out of touch would he have to be not to have heard of Trutherism?

Allahpundit on May 9, 2007 at 8:33 PM

Well he clearly didn’t understand what the guy in the back was talking about and when someone finally shouted “the third building that fell on 9/11″ he seemed to just shrug it off. I got the impression he didn’t really know what that meant but didn’t want to look stupid or like he wasn’t interested in what the guy had to say so he told him he’d look into it…a typical response from a politician.

For someone not fully versed in trutherism there’s a big difference between hearing “what about WTC 7?” and “do you think Bush was behind 9/11?”

JaHerer22 on May 9, 2007 at 9:55 PM

Yes, that’s possible. Would he also humor a Holocaust denier? And why are so many people clapping?

Allahpundit on May 9, 2007 at 8:33 PM

Exactly! If he had a pouch on him he’d have said “shut the hell up you idiot”, or something to that affect.

Again, I’m just here to tell everyone “toldja so”, as it pertains to the mainstreaming of Trutherism, and the road to roughly half the country being some form of Truthers in a matter of years.

I can’t wait until Bradky shows up to blow off the Truther problems in the Democratic Party. It’s not just far left celebrities. It’s Kerry and now Edwards who don’t have the balls to call these people idiots, or even be more diplomatic about it and just explain that they don’t buy in to the conspiracy theories, etc. I don’t care if it’s political pandering, the fact that they’re taking these things to heart (fakely or not), the media should be tearing them apart. Of course this doesn’t include the 35% of Democrats that say Bush knew about 9/11 beforehand, and another 26% who don’t know, leaving a shockinly low, only 39% who know that Bush DIDN’T know.

RightWinged on May 9, 2007 at 10:03 PM

I think this is more Edwards being ignorant to trutherism than open to investigating it.

JaHerer22 on May 9, 2007 at 8:30 PM

BS, he knows what Trutherism is. How can he not, the fact that he hired Marcotte tells me he’s at least somewhat savvy about the nutroots blogs, which means he’s gotta know, plus Elizabeth actually goes to some of the bigger ones, and its only been somewhat recently that Kos started purging Truther posts. He knows what it is.

Bad Candy on May 9, 2007 at 10:08 PM

Pandering, a defining moment for the Gee Nature Boy.

Trutherism – can they handle the truth?

Kini on May 9, 2007 at 10:10 PM

Bad Candy on May 9, 2007 at 10:08 PM

Didn’t Edwards admit during the whole Marcotte scandal that he wasn’t actually familiar with her writing when he hired her? Shows how net saavy he is.

I’m not saying he’s completely ignorant of trutherism, but like I said before, those not well versed don’t know “what about WTC 7?” is code for “will you investigate the Bush administration’s role in 9/11?”

JaHerer22 on May 9, 2007 at 10:19 PM

JaHerer22 on May 9, 2007 at 10:19 PM

Let’s get down to the nitty gritty, you voting for Edwards, or are you going to stand on princiuple and write in Kucinich’s name.

Fess up!

JayHaw Phrenzie on May 9, 2007 at 10:25 PM

I would love to see someone trap the dem candidates on this truther crap. Not just on the ‘do you believe bush knew?’ or ‘do you think it was a controlled demolition?’ No, I want someone to ask them: If it was a controlled demolition, who planted the explosives? Dick Cheney? I want to hear Obama, or Edwards jump in with both feet. Was it a bunch of dutch mercenaries? English choir boys? Do they have the b*lls to lay it at the feet of the US military? No more dancing around it; you can’t just say you believe in Santa Claus; jump in his lap. Let’s hear the nuts and bolts. Who set the explosives; where are they now? Forget this fire and steel bullsh*t. All I ever here is Bush and cheney. Sorry. It wouldn’t be a two man job. Who are the rest? If someone could ask that question, that would be the test of how far they’ll pander to the truthers. Because making that accusation will piss off a lot of normal people. It’s one thing to toss around the presidents name; but to say he subverted the military into something this asinine? That this stupid of a conspiracy can have such a following infuriates me.

austinnelly on May 9, 2007 at 10:27 PM

Quit calling them Truthers please. That is a term they adopted for themselves, and it has the word Truth in it, which they are far from. Call them simply Fools instead. Or LIARS.

Thanks.

James on May 9, 2007 at 11:05 PM

I think Edwards is moving for the Democratic VP spot again. Trying to win the truther half of democrates so the Democratic Presidential candidate can play it straight while Eddie, the running mate, drags along his organized Rosies! His only chance to become Prez some day is to ride somebody’s coattails and keep his fingers crossed.

Drtuddle on May 9, 2007 at 11:09 PM

When 35% of your base is retarded, you have to placate them every now and then. In the end, I doubt that Edwards is a truther… one of those short bus helmets would mess up his hair.

rw on May 9, 2007 at 11:18 PM

I’m not saying he’s completely ignorant of trutherism, but like I said before, those not well versed don’t know “what about WTC 7?” is code for “will you investigate the Bush administration’s role in 9/11?”

JaHerer22 on May 9, 2007 at 10:19 PM

Well he sure as hell should be aware. 35% of the Democratic party are Truthers, and I think it’s a safe assumption that that percentage of his supporters is even higher. Either way, you don’t think his advisers have prepped him in dealing with Truther questions when they make up over 1/3 of his base!? I’m not saying he is a Truther, I’m saying he doesn’t have the balls to put a Truther in their place because he knows it’s part of his base. It’s sickening. Even more sickening is that the media doesn’t focus on what has become of your party. Hell, I bet 99% of the public isn’t aware that when still angling for the top of the ticket in 2004 he was campaigning as the pro-war guy who flat out told Chris Matthews that he was NOT mislead by the President on WMDs (not to mention the fact that the rest of the media ignores the fact that the Democrats who now call Bush a liar spent 13 years leading up to the war making an even stronger WMD case, including Clinton before he attacked after HE made regime change our policy).

RightWinged on May 9, 2007 at 11:20 PM

To me, it looked like he honestly had never heard about the WTC 7 “controversy” which then just makes him too out of touch to be president.

frankj on May 9, 2007 at 11:33 PM

Breck shmuck!

CanaryinaCoalMine on May 9, 2007 at 11:34 PM

Well we can all relax now. Edwards is going to get to the bottom of this 9/11 thing. Wow, what a burden off our shoulders.

sarc/off

Maxx on May 9, 2007 at 11:44 PM

They were clapping because they are lemmings and Edwards gave a stock “You have my word I’ll get you an answer”. Some people eat that stuff up, regardless of what the issue is. The truthers in the audience probably initiated the applause and the lemmings chimed in.

I still say mostly ignorance, but file this away for any future incidents.

Dash on May 9, 2007 at 11:54 PM

Brylcream is a nutcase.

Labamigo on May 9, 2007 at 11:58 PM

Just an evil thought. On the way out, Bush should do one of the following. Talk about the prank of the century.

“I here by pardon those that really assassinated Pressident Kennedy.”

“I here by pardon Ted Kennedy for the murder of Marilyn Monroe.”

“I have authorized an investigation surrounding the events of Roswell NM.”

- The Cat

MirCat on May 10, 2007 at 12:13 AM

To quote another Truther

Un-real

The Ugly American on May 10, 2007 at 12:16 AM

I like that he wants to make sure to get the name and number of the freak who asked the question, like he’s going to call him later to follow up.

“Hi, is this Zack? Yeah, John Edwards here, just wanted to let you know that we looked into that WTC 7 thing, turns out it was the jooooooooos. Mm-kay, buh-bye.”

John from WuzzaDem on May 10, 2007 at 12:19 AM

Clearly John Edwards is a man(?) with no spine.

Wouldn’t it have been refreshing to hear All of the evidence clearly shows that the collapse of WTC7 was collateral damage from the attack on the twin towers.”?

Instead he tries to throw a bone to the Truthers with this “look into it” malarkey. That this man is even in the running for the Democratic nomination is a sad indictment of their outlook and their willingness to do anything for the sake of votes.

God help the USA.

hillbillyjim on May 10, 2007 at 12:21 AM

The upside of all this pandering to every fringe element of the Democrats will be the fact that whoever ends up winning the Dem nomination will have already given the Republican candidate plenty of ammunition.

Truther on, Dems.

hillbillyjim on May 10, 2007 at 12:29 AM

“Hi, is this Zack? Yeah, John Edwards here, just wanted to let you know that we looked into that WTC 7 thing, turns out it was the jooooooooos. Mm-kay, buh-bye.”

*snort*……HAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!

Oh, now that was good…..LOL

The Ugly American on May 10, 2007 at 12:30 AM

Where’s Fred!? I am waiting for the first time a truther tries to pull this crap on Fred! I think Fred! will so smoothly eviserate the fool, the nut won’t even realize that he has been cut to pieces. Waiting patiently for the video……

Mallard T. Drake on May 10, 2007 at 1:08 AM

Edwards has the best defense of all when he needs to get himself out of a jam – he just says that his advisers told him to do or say whatever it is that is sparking controversy (and might hurt his chances), even though it went against his gut feeling. *POOF* clean slate again.

Rick on May 10, 2007 at 1:16 AM

Well he sure as hell should be aware. 35% of the Democratic party are Truthers, and I think it’s a safe assumption that that percentage of his supporters is even higher. Either way, you don’t think his advisers have prepped him in dealing with Truther questions when they make up over 1/3 of his base!?
RightWinged on May 9, 2007 at 11:20 PM

Yawn… here you go again with that poll. You always leave out the pesky fact that the same poll said that 22% of all voters were truthers, leaving millions of republicans as believers in the truther fantasy. If you don’t like or agree with that fact then the 35% you keep quoting like it is a scripture from the bible is invalid as well.

Bradky on May 10, 2007 at 5:46 AM

Yes Johnny, I will check under your bed for monsters. Again.

Seixon on May 10, 2007 at 8:10 AM

Reminds me of Jimmy Carter and the Rabbit

Golfer_75093 on May 10, 2007 at 8:46 AM

Truthers think WTC 7 is the Magic Bullet. Which is true in that both incidents are difficult to understand, but still the most likely scenario per Occams Razor.

BohicaTwentyTwo on May 10, 2007 at 8:48 AM

Edwards is just following is Ambulance Chasing nature.

CrazyFool on May 10, 2007 at 8:51 AM

You always leave out the pesky fact that the same poll said that 22% of all voters were truthers, leaving millions of republicans as believers in the truther fantasy. If you don’t like or agree with that fact then the 35% you keep quoting like it is a scripture from the bible is invalid as well.

Bradky on May 10, 2007 at 5:46 AM

I hate to be the one to break this to you, but there’s this little segment of society called “independents”. Don’t know if you’ve heard of them. Word on the grapevine is that they make up over a third of the electorate these days.

Lehosh on May 10, 2007 at 8:59 AM

I think this question should be asked again, at the next Dem debate. Then let’s see how he – and the other candidates – answer.

SisterToldjah on May 9, 2007 at 8:40 PM

Better yet, ask ALL the Truther “questions” of the Dem candidates. Let’s hear there take on all of the conspiracy theories.

never happen

ej_pez on May 10, 2007 at 9:06 AM

Lehosh on May 10, 2007 at 8:59 AM

Save your breath. Bradky is a tool.

csdeven on May 10, 2007 at 9:22 AM

I think this is more Edwards being ignorant to trutherism than open to investigating it.

JaHerer22 on May 9, 2007 at 8:30 PM

That is a ridiculous as the trutherism.

Wade on May 10, 2007 at 9:31 AM

Oh yeah, and that pesky Lake Monster in Scotland. It’s about time we got rid of that thing.

As the local representative for the Council on American-Monster Relations, I take great umbrage at this. Nessie is not a terrorist.

Edwards played it perfectly, from his perspective. The easiest way to placate the nutroots is to pretend he’d never heard of WTC7. It’s easy enough to do; most people know that the Twin Towers and Pentagon got hit, and have some inkling that the fourth plane was headed for DC, either the White House or the Capitol.

The problem with it is next time he can’t get away with it. So he will have to ‘research the subject’ and have an answer when another Truther asks him. And there will be another.

The Monster on May 10, 2007 at 9:36 AM

Clearly John Edwards is a man(?) with no spine.

That’s probably highlighted in his resume. It does earn you a lot of brownie points as a Dem candidate who’s blind to the terrorist threat.

Fast on his feet, he is. He probably thought building number three was the one that was “just the right size”.

fogw on May 10, 2007 at 9:58 AM

Maybe they want to ignore them – but they are not ignorant?

I am sure Hillary keeps these people out of her face. After this she will double security.

They helped to create and have nurtured this enemy. They thrive because we ignore them, with the increasing reluctance of all media to show 9/11 documentaries (the History Channel has done all of the debunking neccessary).

Edwards figured it out, all that “I don’t understand” was to give the guy a chance to back down or let the room shout him down. He tested the room – room full of lunatics. The only response should have been outrage – “look that stuff is just a bunch of bull – next!”

Perhaps it is the politicians disease. If some one calls Obama a n***er what would he say – “how about I come down there and kick your ass, redneck”, probably not.

Politicians are inhuman.

Agrippa2k on May 10, 2007 at 10:23 AM

Didn’t Edwards admit during the whole Marcotte scandal that he wasn’t actually familiar with her writing when he hired her? Shows how net saavy he is.

JaHerer22 on May 9, 2007 at 10:19 PM

You can not believe for one second that a candidate running for the highest office in this nation does not run back ground checks on people playing a major role in his/her campaign. Marcotte was not on staff to pass out bumper stickers and collect donations. She was hired to be a mouth piece for the Silky Pony. Silky just didn’t have the foresight to see what kind of reaction her becoming a member of his staff was going to bring.

On the truther issue. These so called “truthers” put the democrats between a rock and a hard place. If the candidate debunks them they’re picked apart by dKos inc., if they say they believe in it then people who actually use their brains pick them apart. Silky was just smart enough to not commit either way.

Keep putting them dems on the spot truthers. South Park retard meter keeps going up.

SPIFF1669 on May 10, 2007 at 10:24 AM

The great part of this is if he does began talking and investigating, the other candidates will fall all over themselves to beat him to the “scoop”. The pandering would be a kick to watch. If he doesn’t, the truthers will hound him at every stop. Let’s sit back and enjoy.

As someone on HA once said “How could you take anyone serious whose mouth is full of tofu and Doritos.”

right2bright on May 10, 2007 at 10:27 AM

As the local representative for the Council on American-Monster Relations, I take great umbrage at this. Nessie is not a terrorist.

RedWinged Blackbird on May 10, 2007 at 10:42 AM

Oops!

As the local representative for the Council on American-Monster Relations, I take great umbrage at this. Nessie is not a terrorist.

I wrote a term paper on Nessie back in the 60′s. As part of my research, I joined the Loch Ness Phenomena Investigation Bureau – got a membership card and a monthly newsletter. After months of research, I concluded that Nessie was actually a colony of landlocked prehistoric giant sea slugs….or possibly a piece of driftwood.

RedWinged Blackbird on May 10, 2007 at 10:49 AM

Let’s get down to the nitty gritty, you voting for Edwards, or are you going to stand on princiuple and write in Kucinich’s name.

Fess up!

JayHaw Phrenzie on May 9, 2007 at 10:25 PM

I don’t know who I’m voting for yet but it’s definitely not Edwards or Kuncinich…it may surprise you but I’m not really much of socialist…more of a social liberal with classical liberal/libertarian views on the economy, role of government and foreign policy. I would even consider voting Republican if you guys would ever nominate a true conservative of the Goldwater-mold and the base would get over it’s irrational fear of the gays.

I can’t stand the PC socialist nanny-staters, but I hate the neocons and theocons even more. I don’t fit in anywhere :(

JaHerer22 on May 10, 2007 at 11:34 AM

Nessie is a Monster of Peace

BohicaTwentyTwo on May 10, 2007 at 11:49 AM

I can’t stand the PC socialist nanny-staters, but I hate the neocons and theocons even more. I don’t fit in anywhere :(

Have you considered converting to Islam?

RedWinged Blackbird on May 10, 2007 at 1:21 PM

the base would get over it’s irrational fear of the gays.

We do not fear Rosie.

right2bright on May 10, 2007 at 1:22 PM

JaHerer22, it’s a childish copout to claim that the Repub base has an “irrational fear” of gays. I’m so very sick of hearing this bs. There is a vast difference between being afraid of something, and not agreeing with it as a lifestyle choice.

I’m of this base you refer to, and cliched as it sounds, I have NUMEROUS close gay friends (can’t be in the dj/clubbing scene, without making loads of gay friends). I’m not only NOT afraid of them, but love them a great deal. BUT I do not have to agree with their choices..as they do not have to agree with mine. It is very possible to love/respect someone without agreeing with/supporting their choices.

So, if by this childish phrase, you mean to say that the Rep party doesn’t support Gay Marriage – then why not just say that. The Republican Party as a Political entity does not support the legalization of Gay Marriage.

Besides, rational folks will take you seriously if you make arguments with facts, rather than emotional impressions. (ie: “irrational fear of gays”).

tickleddragon on May 10, 2007 at 1:25 PM

At least he knows who his base is

jman on May 10, 2007 at 1:34 PM

Elizabeth Edwards happily admitted, during the 2004 election, that she lurks and posts at DU. DU is a filthy swamp infested by Truthers and various species of anti-American kooks and conspiracists. She therefore knows all about this WTC 7 business, and therefore it’s very likely that Silky does too.

Yet they humor it. Possibly because they believe it.

Bryan on May 10, 2007 at 2:18 PM

Yawn… here you go again with that poll. You always leave out the pesky fact that the same poll said that 22% of all voters were truthers, leaving millions of republicans as believers in the truther fantasy. If you don’t like or agree with that fact then the 35% you keep quoting like it is a scripture from the bible is invalid as well.

Bradky on May 10, 2007 at 5:46 AM

Shut up Bradky, you know I caught you REPEATEDLY lying and inserting your own statistics in that other thread. You ARE LYING, and I’ve proven it. It was YOU who tried to assert that of the 140 million registered voters 70 million are Democrats and 70 million are Republicans (50/50)), because like all liberals you’re a liar and need to do so in order to make your case. You ignored the independents, and the FACT that people who call themselves Democrats is a substantially larger group than Republicans. You then tried to pull some 3 years poll of people eligible to vote (which was totally irrelevant), and again I busted you.

I wish I had the time to go and copy and past our entire exchange, but this should do for now:

I’m not sure how interested I am in this, so it may be a bit before I check your methods again if I bother to at all, but the point was YOU chose to split the country 50/50 Dems/Republicans which is utterly ridiculous.

As for name calling… what did I call you?

Ah screw it, I just looked through the numbers a bit…

For starters, the numbers from that USA Today piece you link to are OVER 3 YEARS OLD. Secondly, how did you determine what percentage of independents agree with Truthers? Third, where did you get 74 million? The number USA Today gives is 42 million for independents.

Back to Rasmussen, the reason I said that the Rasmussen link I gave was important is for starters that it’s a recent party identification poll, and secondly because the poll that is the subject of this entire post was conducted by Rasmussen. Also, that USA Today link talks about people eligible to vote, not registered voters. The Ras poll is about voters.

Anyway, I’m not even really arguing anything about what the numbers may or may not be, just that you’re using extremely flawed logic, especially when you started out dividing the 140 million voters up 50/50. Please admit that that was ridiculous?

Now, using the numbers provided in the poll that is the subject of this post, 7-to-1 Republicans reject the notion that Bush knew. So of the 44.1 million Repubs, only 5.5 don’t agree with the statement. Without being a premium member, we can’t figure out exacly how many of those simply don’t have an opinion, and how many actually think Bush knew.

And I’ll even help your side out. You read the stats wrong and originally calculated on the assumption 39% of Dems are Truthers. The number (read the post again) is actually 35%. So of the 140 million voters, 52.08 million are Dems (37.2% according to party identification poll). Which means actually 18.228 million agree with Truthers, where as your original odd assumptions said 22 million. See, I’m equal opportunity here… I’m just talking about accuracy, that’s all. Of course the Dems number gets more disturbing when you factor in the 26% who “don’t know”, giving you 61% (or 31.76 million)… Or as stated, only 39% of Democrats who are firmly NON-Truther. That’s sad, especially considering it’s barely any higher than the Truther sympathizers (again, 35%).

So, now, we can take 140 million, and see that 30.8 (22%) are Truther sympathizers. Subtract from that the 18.228 million Democrats, and we’re left with 12.572 million other Truther sympathizers that are either GOP or independent.

Now, remember that 5.5 million GOPers simply say they don’t know that Bush didn’t know. We again don’t know how many think he did and how many just don’t know. But assuming that ALL (which is a really bad assumption anyway) 5.5 million were actually Truther sympathizers, and that none were on the fence, we’re then left with 7.072 million independents that are Truther sympathizers. In reality, the independents number is going to be significantly higher, and the GOP number lower, because again, we don’t know what percentage of the 5.5 million Republicans said “I don’t know” and what percent said “Bush knew!”

So here’s the deal, the Democrats number was more like 18 million, not as bad as the 22 million you’d assumed. But this becomes more disturbing when you recognize that combining them with those Dems who are on the fence the number is actually 31.76 million (61% of Democrats, remember 35%+26%). Where as it’s, again, 5.5 million Republicans who are either Truther sympathizers or “don’t know”s, but we don’t know the breakdown (compared to your numbers that started out saying 8 million were actual Truther sympathizers)

Once more, I don’t doubt that there are a number of registered Republicans that are Truthers. We know the Truthers’ commander in chief Alex Jones likes to call himself a conservative. We all know of plenty of Republicans who we are embarassed to be associated with. But none of that get’s you out of the major Truther problem your party has, and the fact that only 39% of Democrats can confidently say Bush didn’t know.

RightWinged on May 6, 2007 at 1:27 AM

If you need yet another recap, 1 in 8 or 12.5% of Republicans are in the “I don’t know” or Truther camp. We don’t know the breakdown. For all we know, they were all “I don’t know” folks, and all other Truthers were Independents? We simply don’t know the breakdown for Independents or Republicans.

What we do have is the breakdown for Democrats. 35% Truther, 26% don’t know, only 39% say Bush DIDN’T know.

What this means is that 61% of Democrats aren’t sure that Bush didn’t have foreknowledge of 9/11, while that number is only 12.5% for Republicans. Or to flip it, only 39% of Democrats have enough of a brain to realize Bush didn’t know, while a full 87.5% of Republicans agree.

Yeah Bradky it’s an issue for “both sides”, give me a break. Please, let’s not get in to this again. Our exchange the other night was really not worth it. You kept lying and spinning and asserting false figures, claiming that you corrected yourself, even though all you did was replace your false figures with other false figures. Let’s just end this by recognizing that I brought the goods and you didn’t, k?

RightWinged on May 10, 2007 at 2:38 PM

Video: Edwards promises Truther he’ll look into collapse of WTC 7 the California Bridge

Tim Burton on May 10, 2007 at 3:27 PM

video: Edwards promises Truther he’ll look into collapse of WTC 7 the California Bridge the face on Mars the Lubbock lights.

stevezilla on May 10, 2007 at 3:52 PM

RightWinged on May 10, 2007 at 2:38 PM

I didn’t bother to read your post — it is simply numbers you refuse to acknowledge. 35% of Dems, 22% of all voters — it doesn’t get any simpler than that. Personally I think with a sample size of 800 it is probably a bad poll to begin with on all numbers. But if you want to keep deluding yourself that 1+1=3 go ahead.
I will say that I feel sorry for someone who feels a need to talk about “Destroying, owning, or shooting down” arguments like you do. Kind of a lonely life you lead there behind the keyboard.

Bradky on May 10, 2007 at 5:54 PM

Edwards just stated that he is for the return of the Jedi, they have been persecuted far too long. He is willing to sit down and talk with the Borg, and no he has never seen Jabba the Hut and Edward Kennedy in the same room together, so they could be the same person…developing

right2bright on May 10, 2007 at 6:50 PM

The headline had me shaking my head, then I saw the video. I have to echo what others are saying here.

Edwards just told the Truther that the check’s in the mail.

The applause at the end were probably dims who just bought the illusion that they have a direct line to the future president.

Edwards is making partipatory democracy sexy again!

AtomicAmish on May 10, 2007 at 8:21 PM

I didn’t bother to read your post — it is simply numbers you refuse to acknowledge. 35% of Dems, 22% of all voters — it doesn’t get any simpler than that. Personally I think with a sample size of 800 it is probably a bad poll to begin with on all numbers. But if you want to keep deluding yourself that 1+1=3 go ahead.
I will say that I feel sorry for someone who feels a need to talk about “Destroying, owning, or shooting down” arguments like you do. Kind of a lonely life you lead there behind the keyboard.

Bradky on May 10, 2007 at 5:54 PM

Generally I stay out of the “pwn3d” arena, but I get frustrated with liars like yourself. There’s no 1+1=3. There’s Bradky=dishonest liberal. I would ask when your deception would end.. but I realize never as long as you’re a liberal. They’d kick you out of the club if you started being honest.

Here are the facts again…

Shut up Bradky, you know I caught you REPEATEDLY lying and inserting your own statistics in that other thread. You ARE LYING, and I’ve proven it. It was YOU who tried to assert that of the 140 million registered voters 70 million are Democrats and 70 million are Republicans (50/50)), because like all liberals you’re a liar and need to do so in order to make your case. You ignored the independents, and the FACT that people who call themselves Democrats is a substantially larger group than Republicans. You then tried to pull some 3 years poll of people eligible to vote (which was totally irrelevant), and again I busted you.

I wish I had the time to go and copy and past our entire exchange, but this should do for now:

I’m not sure how interested I am in this, so it may be a bit before I check your methods again if I bother to at all, but the point was YOU chose to split the country 50/50 Dems/Republicans which is utterly ridiculous.

As for name calling… what did I call you?

Ah screw it, I just looked through the numbers a bit…

For starters, the numbers from that USA Today piece you link to are OVER 3 YEARS OLD. Secondly, how did you determine what percentage of independents agree with Truthers? Third, where did you get 74 million? The number USA Today gives is 42 million for independents.

Back to Rasmussen, the reason I said that the Rasmussen link I gave was important is for starters that it’s a recent party identification poll, and secondly because the poll that is the subject of this entire post was conducted by Rasmussen. Also, that USA Today link talks about people eligible to vote, not registered voters. The Ras poll is about voters.

Anyway, I’m not even really arguing anything about what the numbers may or may not be, just that you’re using extremely flawed logic, especially when you started out dividing the 140 million voters up 50/50. Please admit that that was ridiculous?

Now, using the numbers provided in the poll that is the subject of this post, 7-to-1 Republicans reject the notion that Bush knew. So of the 44.1 million Repubs, only 5.5 don’t agree with the statement. Without being a premium member, we can’t figure out exacly how many of those simply don’t have an opinion, and how many actually think Bush knew.

And I’ll even help your side out. You read the stats wrong and originally calculated on the assumption 39% of Dems are Truthers. The number (read the post again) is actually 35%. So of the 140 million voters, 52.08 million are Dems (37.2% according to party identification poll). Which means actually 18.228 million agree with Truthers, where as your original odd assumptions said 22 million. See, I’m equal opportunity here… I’m just talking about accuracy, that’s all. Of course the Dems number gets more disturbing when you factor in the 26% who “don’t know”, giving you 61% (or 31.76 million)… Or as stated, only 39% of Democrats who are firmly NON-Truther. That’s sad, especially considering it’s barely any higher than the Truther sympathizers (again, 35%).

So, now, we can take 140 million, and see that 30.8 (22%) are Truther sympathizers. Subtract from that the 18.228 million Democrats, and we’re left with 12.572 million other Truther sympathizers that are either GOP or independent.

Now, remember that 5.5 million GOPers simply say they don’t know that Bush didn’t know. We again don’t know how many think he did and how many just don’t know. But assuming that ALL (which is a really bad assumption anyway) 5.5 million were actually Truther sympathizers, and that none were on the fence, we’re then left with 7.072 million independents that are Truther sympathizers. In reality, the independents number is going to be significantly higher, and the GOP number lower, because again, we don’t know what percentage of the 5.5 million Republicans said “I don’t know” and what percent said “Bush knew!”

So here’s the deal, the Democrats number was more like 18 million, not as bad as the 22 million you’d assumed. But this becomes more disturbing when you recognize that combining them with those Dems who are on the fence the number is actually 31.76 million (61% of Democrats, remember 35%+26%). Where as it’s, again, 5.5 million Republicans who are either Truther sympathizers or “don’t know”s, but we don’t know the breakdown (compared to your numbers that started out saying 8 million were actual Truther sympathizers)

Once more, I don’t doubt that there are a number of registered Republicans that are Truthers. We know the Truthers’ commander in chief Alex Jones likes to call himself a conservative. We all know of plenty of Republicans who we are embarassed to be associated with. But none of that get’s you out of the major Truther problem your party has, and the fact that only 39% of Democrats can confidently say Bush didn’t know.

RightWinged on May 6, 2007 at 1:27 AM

If you need yet another recap, 1 in 8 or 12.5% of Republicans are in the “I don’t know” or Truther camp. We don’t know the breakdown. For all we know, they were all “I don’t know” folks, and all other Truthers were Independents? We simply don’t know the breakdown for Independents or Republicans.

What we do have is the breakdown for Democrats. 35% Truther, 26% don’t know, only 39% say Bush DIDN’T know.

What this means is that 61% of Democrats aren’t sure that Bush didn’t have foreknowledge of 9/11, while that number is only 12.5% for Republicans. Or to flip it, only 39% of Democrats have enough of a brain to realize Bush didn’t know, while a full 87.5% of Republicans agree.

Yeah Bradky it’s an issue for “both sides”, give me a break. Please, let’s not get in to this again. Our exchange the other night was really not worth it. You kept lying and spinning and asserting false figures, claiming that you corrected yourself, even though all you did was replace your false figures with other false figures. Let’s just end this by recognizing that I brought the goods and you didn’t, k?

RightWinged on May 10, 2007 at 2:38 PM

RightWinged on May 10, 2007 at 8:22 PM

Now if Edwards would just do what’s really important and look into cow abductions…. that’s the REAL problem in America today…. yeah… yeah… don’t laugh, we’re up to 315,506 cow abductions and counting. Do you know how many McDonnell’s cheeseburgers that is ??!!!!! How many cow must suffer this horrible fate ? I demand that Edwards’ take action !! What if it were your cow ?

Maxx on May 10, 2007 at 11:51 PM