I think the core issue I have seen here on DU last two days: Lead by example

Real leaders lead by example. And when they don't, well people can get a ticked off by it.

But what I gleaned out of this whole ordeal was something a bit more of interest to me - in the whole edwards thing I saw talk about energy star, geothermal, etc and so on.

Well, that is great - the problem is, here we something that can help save the earth (one small step....) and yet your average joe is not going to be able to rush out and modify their house. It can get expensive - and with rising health care costs, gas, etc, a lot more folks just don't have the money to do it.

But our government CAN do something about. Of course, we are pumping all our money into Iraq and other failed programs, so they probably cannot do it right now.

Back to the leadership thing: I don't think politicians can lead their entire life by example, mainly because they have such a large and diverse group behind them. If edwards and others want to help gays with their plight, they should hire several to work on their campaign and talk about it more. If they want to help the poor, they should be out using all their skills talking about it and letting homeless people live with em. Etc and so on. Such could go on all day.

The goal should not be to work towards becoming poor themselves but helping to lift others up to where they themselves are.

I have often said if I had tons of money I would not donate it to the poor - instead I would bank it, invest it, whatever and give a percent of the gains each year to a charity - that way one million could keep earning them money long after I was gone.

Our party HAS led by example. Not always perfect in doing so, but our party has been the one doing the most to help those in need, and the one doing the most to stop global warming, etc. We may not do enough, but our ball is rolling and that other party sold their bar for oil and more money for themselves.

The only way to beat the resistance is to educate and debate, and work as best we can against the opposition to get more and more down. Tiny steps, when we want huge ones.

It may seem odd at times that the people we are wanting to help the poor are themselves rich - some might say it is like a white guy trying to help someone of color, one may say the one will never understand the issues of the other because they are not and have not been that way. But whites stood with MLK. Straight people stood with gay people. And the rich can stand with the poor.

Legislation can and will. Working for politicians like the Kennedys or Franklin Roosevelt or Edwards who put a spotlight on poverty as a serious issue will make more difference than a million master bedrooms. I don't see what's so hard about this. Yes it would be nice for everyone's heartwarming Hollywood screenplay to come true, for there to be benevolent hermit politicians with wise elves advising them in the mushroom forest of happy magical dreams, but that will never happen.

:D

Sorry if I sound frustrated, but I'm annoyed by the issue you mention. Clearly it is having a huge impact as you say.

and a rec for you. :thumbsup:

Sorry, Straight. I couldn't help myself.

Beer-Thirty you know

If we can't even get Democrats with money to get serious about it, and yes John and Teresa too, then how can we expect the rest of the country to get serious about it. We have to start living differently, which doesn't mean living in a tent which sounds like what a right wing redneck imbecile would say. I really get disgusted with people who want to tell poor people to eat chicken broth and rice for a week, but get offended when somebody suggest the planet would be better off if they changed some of their consumeristic patterns too.

http://www.habitatsuites.com/about.htm

Some cost money though, and I think it would be a decent goal to get the government on the bandwagon and help with those.

As for the things that don't cost - we need more education.

Seeking out things like solar shingles that are sold in Britain, investing in a plant in NC with any corrected technology, so we can have them too. They can do that. I can't.

I just cannot believe all the people who have come out of the woodwork to say excessive consumerism is grand and nobody has a responsibility to change if they don't want to.

Are there no superfluities which are utter luxuries that you refuse to give up? Luxuries which use up resources you could better spend on helping those in need? Of course not. People are on the whole selfish creatures when it comes to personal lifestyle, and why people expect the very ambitious power-hungry people (politicians) to be different is a mystery to me.

And I give up things like a warm room at night and new products out of economic necessity.

Because the poor have no voice of their own. They're too busy surviving to be any kind of political bloc and they don't have the influence or the money to sustain any kind of lobbying efforts. The poor are dependent on the compassionate rich to put forth their concerns. I don't see too many politicians who do talk about poverty and now the one who does is vilified for building a large home. As if they don't ALL have large homes and as if you can't help others when you have a lot yourself.

:banghead: