No, John, it’s run by Blue Cross/Blue Shield

Breaking News! We can confirm today that John Edwards, besides being a world-class shyster and hypocrite, is also a moron. One of our readers sent us this, but I also heard it referenced on Rush’s show a few minutes ago coming back from lunch. Ready for the punch-line from Democrat candidate for President John Edwards? Here goes:

I’m going to be honest with you — I don’t know a lot about Cuba’s healthcare system. Is it a government-run system?

Ahh, liberals. You can’t make this stuff up…
(H/T echuta66)

21 thoughts on “No, John, it’s run by Blue Cross/Blue Shield”

  1. PLEASE tell me that was a comedy bit. Surely someone who came so close to being our vice-president isn’t that stupid? (Can he at least spell POTATO???)

  2. Claudia, of course it’s a comedy bit! Every time a liberal opens their mouth, it’s ha-ha time! I think they have him on tape. Nevertheless, the quote is what it is. The man is dumber than a box of bolts.

  3. Liberals (mistakenly) refer to Karl Rove as the president’s brains. See? WHO REALLY NEEDS TO HIRE A FEW BRAINS.
    I love these people. Just leave them alone and they’ll do themselves in.
    BTW George, did you watch the Half Hour News Hour on FNC last night? LOL!

  4. That’s Windows Vista dumb. That’s New Coke dumb. That’s calling-tech-support-every-morning to-find-your-power-button dumb.

  5. George,
    God forbid Edwards didn’t say something really insane like Iraq had WMD or Sadaam had something to do with 9/11.
    Guess you’ll answer with an F word or something equally intelligent.

  6. “We know that for at least 20 years, Saddam Hussein has obsessively sought weapons of mass destruction through every means available. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons today. He has used them in the past, and he is doing everything he can to build more. Each day he inches closer to his longtime goal of nuclear capability — a capability that could be less than a year away.”

    United States Senator John Edwards, (D, NC) September 12, 2002

  7. Saying that Sadaam had weapons is one thing, using that as a pretext to war is something else.
    Before going to war you have to be damn sure its the right thing to do, and once done that you know what the hell you are doing.
    Guess you never heard Cheney’s comments in 1994 about the perils of invading Iraq.

  8. Jack, please. Every FUCKING Democrat in the 90s was talking the same talk about Iraq. Bubba even threatened to do what Dubya did, many times. The only difference is that Dubya has a bigger pair and actually did it. Then again, a male mouse has a bigger pair of balls than Bubba (and Bubba’s pair are gargantuan compared to Edwards’).
    To compartmentalize Iraq as some non-entity in the Arab world that meant us no harm is, at best, naivete, and at worst, willful idiocy. Besides, any student of history knows that regardless of the reasons for going, Iraq is the strategic lynch pin of the Middle East because of its location. I’ve been saying that for years. If for no other reason that to poke Iran in the eye and keep tabs on them, I agree with the invasion. That could have been more easily sold to the American public. But I’m not the one with the intelligence, and neither are you.

  9. George,
    And the Iraq War has done nothing to get Bin Laden the real culprit behind 9/11.
    Its tough to have it both ways criticizing DemoRats as you call them for being weak on the war on terror and yet citing evidence from them to show that they have signed on, some anyway, with GWB.
    I fully agree with you that what Edwards said about Cuban “healthcare” was dumb.
    But as Roberto Duran would say: “No Mas” George.
    Enjoy the rest of your day.
    PS Any news on castro?

  10. Jack, you are being intellectually dishonest. The Democrats were in favor of the Iraq War when they wanted to look tough. All of the current luminaries voted for being “tough” — with exceptions like Obama and Kucinich who, wrong though they are, at least vote their conscience.
    However, the moment things got tough during the occupation, these luminaries dropped their support for the war. Please, if you are going to make arguments, state ALL of the facts not just the ones that you like.
    I’m not excusing the Bush Administration in the least, Iraq is no picnic. The post-war effort was ill-planned and implemented. But it’s the Dems’ (who voted for the war and every appropriations bill) unwillingness to win this first of many wars on this new front, who howl the loudest and most hypocritically about our involvement.
    And on the “no mas” you want? No way. Live with it. I have a big mouth and I intend to use it.

  11. He’s not stupid.
    Because he’s a Democrat with a core of loony-left supporters, he could not criticize Cuba’s healthcare system or even say tepidly that the US should not emulate that system.
    But because he’s running for President of the United States, he could not praise Cuba’s healthcare system either.
    He took the less risky third road (“I’m going to be honest with you…” RIIIGHT) and feigned innocent ignorance, though it made him look momentarily retarded. That’s not such a difficult thing to recover from, really.
    It’s not wise to assume your opponent is stupid.

  12. George,
    I apologize about the intelligence comment. I was wrong.
    My “No Mas” was that I was not willing to argue any more with you on the subject.
    Obviously you are free to do as you wish.
    I would be happy to continue to disagree with you and would continue to do so.
    But I do not think it productive to do so since we will never see eye to eye on US Domestic politics, while I hate castro and wish for a free Cuba.
    There are many genuine reasons I have my views as you do yours. They are too numerous to mention.

  13. “And the Iraq War has done nothing to get Bin Laden the real culprit behind 9/11.”
    Dear JackW:
    The above is a classic example of the ever-shifting, goalpost-moving tunnel vision of victims of Bush Derangement Syndrome. In simpler terms, you are for whatever Bush didn’t do, and you would be for whatever he didn’t do even if he did what you think he should have done.
    This tunnel vision focus on bin Laden is crap, and flat-out disingenous. It also reflects a desire to turn a real war into a criminal court case in the hopes of raising Johnny Cochran from the dead and having him get bin Laden off so he can go on book tours and be seen and heard on Oprah and any KFPK-like commie radio station that will roll out the “red” carpet for him.
    You know as well as anybody that this war isn’t all about bin Laden any more than WW2 in the Pacific was about only the ships, sailors and aircrew that took part in the Pearl Harbor attack — with the rest of the Japanese Navy and armed forces off limits. Yet if you were around in 1941, that’s exactly what you would be calling for.
    You want to make it seem as if bin Laden’s death or capture would end the war. It won’t. Islamist jihad won’t go away if he dies — it will go away only when the Islamist war machine and the morale of its “soldiers” is destroyed. First, note how AQ is still active in Iraq long after Zarqawi was taken out. And then note how it is not just AQ that’s fighting against us. They are just one of a wide array of Islamo-fascist terror groups who want to wipe us out.
    By the same token, the war could end in victory with bin Laden alive or not even caught. If he’s the last one left standing and no-one wants anything to do with him anymore, what harm can he do?
    So move the goalpost again — the “bin Laden hasn’t been found yet” isn’t working and makes no sense because whatever happens to him is ultimately only tangential to what’s necessary for victory.

  14. Jack, no apology needed. I think you misunderstood my sentence. When I wrote “I’m not the one with the intelligence, and neither are you” I did not mean “smart,” I meant “intel.” Neither you nor I have the intel that Dubya (or past presidents) have to make an informed decision. That’s what I meant.

  15. Zhangliqun,
    “You know as well as anybody that this war isn’t all about bin Laden any more than WW2 in the Pacific was about only the ships, sailors and aircrew that took part in the Pearl Harbor attack — with the rest of the Japanese Navy and armed forces off limits. Yet if you were around in 1941, that’s exactly what you would be calling for.”
    A little study of history is in order from Wikipedia:
    “The death of Isoroku Yamamoto occurred on April 18, 1943 during the Solomon Islands campaign in the Pacific Theater of World War II. Japanese admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, commander of the Combined Fleet of the Imperial Japanese Navy, was killed on Bougainville Island when his transport bomber aircraft was shot-down by U.S. Army fighter aircraft operating from Henderson Field on Guadalcanal.
    The mission of the U.S. aircraft was specifically to kill Yamamoto and was based on United States Navy intelligence on Yamamoto’s travel plans in the Solomon Islands area. The death of Yamamoto reportedly damaged the morale of Japanese naval personnel (described by Samuel Eliot Morison as being considered the equivalent of a major defeat in battle), aided the morale of members of the Allied forces, and, controversially, may have been intended as an act of revenge by U.S. leaders who blamed Yamamoto for the Pearl Harbor attack which initiated the formal state of war between Imperial Japan and the U.S. After the war, more controversy surrounded the legacy of the mission as several of the U.S. fighter pilots involved debated for years over who should have received the aerial victory credit for the downing of Yamamoto’s aircraft.”
    I am sure you are aware that Admiral Yamamoto was the commander and planner of the Pearl Harbor attacks. He was in fact singled out to be killed by the US, when accurate intelligence determined his whereabouts.

  16. Frankenstein En La Playa,
    “I was wrong….It was a mistake to vote for this war in 2002. I take responsibility for that mistake.”
    John Edwards, November 13, 2005

Comments are closed.