John Edwards makes a hypocritical blunder, again

[R.R.]

John Edwards' folly: A book signing gone wrong

23 hours, 4 minutes ago

Former Sen. John Edwards is to spend an hour at the Manchester Barnes & Noble tonight promoting his new book. We find his choice of venue very interesting.

In Manchester, the local Wal-Mart store sits right behind the Barnes & Noble. It has more floor space, a parking lot several times the size of Barnes & Noble's, and is easier to access by car or public transportation.

But Edwards would not be caught dead inside a Wal-Mart [unless, of course, he needed a Playstation, lol - R.R.]. Saying that the company pays its employees too little, Edwards has embarked on an anti-Wal-Mart crusade. He instructs his staff members and all Americans not to shop at Wal-Mart.

"Wal-Mart makes plenty of money. They need to pay their people well," Edwards said at a Pittsburgh anti-Wal-Mart rally in August.

So naturally Edwards is holding his book signing at Barnes & Noble instead of Wal-Mart. Which is too bad for his anti-low-wages campaign, because in Manchester Wal-Mart pays hourly employees more than Barnes & Noble does.

The Barnes & Noble where Edwards will hawk his book pays $7 an hour to start. The Wal-Mart that sits just yards away pays $7.50 an hour.

Oh, the humanity!

From 7 to 8 p.m., Edwards will bring business to a retailer that pays wages he thinks are so immorally low that they should be illegal. Meanwhile, right behind him, thousands of Granite Staters will be supporting a business that pays an Edwards-approved starting wage, but which Edwards wants everyone to boycott.

Asked back in January what he thought would be an appropriate minimum wage, Edwards told The New York Times, "My view is it should be $7.50 an hour, and I can make a great argument for it being a lot higher than that."

Seven-fifty an hour? Why, that's what Wal-Mart pays! And without a federal mandate, too.

Unfortunately, people who want to support a company that pays at least $7.50 an hour cannot go to Wal-Mart to buy Edwards' book and then take it over to Barnes & Noble for him to sign it. Wal-Mart doesn't carry it. Wonder why.

Of course, Barnes & Noble is no less virtuous than Wal-Mart because it pays 50 cents an hour less. And Wal-Mart is no less virtuous than other companies that pay more. Both businesses provide useful, productive employment at competitive market rates. That in itself is virtuous.

John Edwards should take the virtuous path and stop his anti-Wal-Mart demagoguery. Anyone can see that it is nothing more than a populist ploy to make him look like a champion of low-income people. But those very people he is trying to help end up saving hundreds of dollars a year by shopping at Wal-Mart. Its efficiencies provide them with low-cost items they might not be able to afford otherwise.

We'd bet that if America's poor could choose between Wal-Mart and John Edwards, they would choose Wal-Mart. They understand that Wal-Mart has done more to improve their lives than John Edwards ever will. Which is why, as Edwards signs copies of his coffee table book inside Barnes & Noble tonight, hundreds of people will continue to shop at the Wal-Mart just a stone's throw away, never knowing that a millionaire former senator is sitting nearby secretly disapproving of their behavior.

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=John+Edwards%27+folly%3a+A+book+signing+gone+wrong&articleId=dbcdb193-662c-4bcc-88b6-a8f2720bd65e

[Xavier_Onassis]

We'd bet that if America's poor could choose between Wal-Mart and John Edwards, they would choose Wal-Mart. They understand that Wal-Mart has done more to improve their lives than John Edwards ever will. Which is why, as Edwards signs copies of his coffee table book inside Barnes & Noble tonight, hundreds of people will continue to shop at the Wal-Mart just a stone's throw away, never knowing that a millionaire former senator is sitting nearby secretly disapproving of their behavior.

====================================================================
Yeah sure. Let's let Wal*Mart run for president.

The Union Leader is pretty hypocritical about its name as well.

They are certainly against unions, and have never led anything other than the Jackassidity Parade every four years during primary season.

Wal*Mart has been targeted, and not Barnes and Noble, because it is so HUGE and so RICH.

I predict that Wal*Mart will never be nominated as a presidential candidate, even after it has reached the proper age.

[Amianthus]

I predict that Wal*Mart will never be nominated as a presidential candidate, even after it has reached the proper age.

Walmart Corporation was founded in 1969. It has already reached the proper age.

[Xavier_Onassis]

So can a corporation be elected president?

I tend to think not. I lean toward the view that the president should be a human being.

I seem to recall that we don't let corporations vote, and I am not sure that they can contribute money in their own names, either.

Corporate elections to elect officers are pretty ,much like elections un the USSR: you are asked to approve or disapprove of management's candidates. Democracy and capitalism are rather different concepts. Perhaps this is what the People's Republic can embrace capitalism and reject democracy.

[Plane]

So can a corporation be elected president?

I tend to think not. I lean toward the view that the president should be a human being.

I seem to recall that we don't let corporations vote, and I am not sure that they can contribute money in their own names, either.

Corporate elections to elect officers are pretty ,much like elections un the USSR: you are asked to approve or disapprove of management's candidates. Democracy and capitalism are rather different concepts. Perhaps this is what the People's Republic can embrace capitalism and reject democracy.

One thing I don't like is how much we allow Money and science to influence our choices.

Scientific Polling tells a canadate what we want to hear and money makes sure that we hear a lot of it.

I don't think it beyond possibility that Canadates with sponsors like Wall Mart or George Sorous might become too beholden to the sorce of the money .

[Mucho]

So can a corporation be elected president?

I tend to think not. I lean toward the view that the president should be a human being.

I seem to recall that we don't let corporations vote, and I am not sure that they can contribute money in their own names, either.

Corporate elections to elect officers are pretty ,much like elections un the USSR: you are asked to approve or disapprove of management's candidates. Democracy and capitalism are rather different concepts. Perhaps this is what the People's Republic can embrace capitalism and reject democracy.

XO, of course ratwingers would prefer a corp as Pres. Neither the corp or them qualify as humans.