Reply #27: Ignore the facts and continue the Obama campaign's Big Lie tactics on Edwards

[jackson_dem]

If you repeat it often enough people will believe it. The same flyspecking can be done about Obama (why did he vote for Dick Cheney's energy bill? Tort "reform"? Funding the war after running against the war? For the Patriot Act after running against it? Why did the ethics bill he helped pass have loopholes wide enough to ram an aircraft carrier through, such as banning lobbyists from arranging travel but allowing lobbyist's aides to arrange travel?). Edwards does not need to lie about another's record. The candidate of "hope" and "hopeful politics" does.

The China thing is because it would put China in the WTO and he, and most Democrats and the Democratic president, believed this would cause China to play by the rules. Bush has not enforced China's obligations and that is a problem.

The hedge fund is a Swiftboat tactic that the champions of "unity" and "hopeful politics" use. Edwards did not know about the hedge fund's predatory tactics.

Iraq has been talked about Edwards often.

Here is a case study in the discrepancy between truth and Obama and his supporters attacks on Edwards.

PurityOfEssence (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sun Dec-30-07 12:24 AM
Response to Original message
14. Here are some things to think about

This is an exchange from earlier this month:

DODD: : Back in 2001 the congress passed I think one of the worst pieces of legislation of all time: the so called the Bankruptcy Reform Act. Senators Clinton, Biden, and Edwards voted for that bill, which drove a lot of people working class families into poverty, & made it very difficult for them to manage their lives & to get back on their feet again. John, you made a big issue of poverty, something you have dedicated your life to. So could you explain to me why you'd vote for a piece of legislation like that which did so much damage to so many families in our country?

EDWARDS: Yeah, I was wrong. I was wrong and you were right Chris. I should not have voted for that bankruptcy bill. It was a bad, bad piece of legislation. I think any of us who voted for it were wrong to have voted for it. I think there were some good provisions in it but I think on the whole when you look it at it actually did damage to low income families and working families in this country.

Source: 2007 Iowa Brown & Black Presidential Forum Dec 1, 2007

Why did he vote for it? For one thing, it also included AN INCREASE IN THE MINIMUM WAGE, something that has been a pet issue for him from the beginning.

I don't find any explanations from a quick web search, so even this is putting words in his mouth. Since I've already started to do so, I guess I'll continue.

The bill was novel in its means testing, which made it more difficult for people to completely wipe the slate clean if they had some ability to repay some of the debts. It didn't mean that people would be completely denied bankruptcy and made debt-slaves for the rest of their lives, just that they'd have to repay up to 25% of the debt if they could. The bill has been sweepingly mischaracterized as one that would deny ANY protection for individuals in a tight spot, and that's not the case.

It also tried to cap the homestead rules at $125K, so rich people in Texas and Florida couldn't play the time-honored game of the rich of piling up a huge mountain of debt by (among other things) buying a mansion and then welshing on their obligations and keeping the house. (Why do you think Kay Bailey Hutchison voted against it?)

Another big provision was the changing of rules on privacy brought in by Leahy. This actually gave a form of protection to those filing bankruptcy that they'd never had before. You may not be aware of it, but this is a big early cause of Edwards, with one of the two bills he sponsored being the "Spyware Control and Privacy Protection Act of 2000".

Legislation is often a rearguard action against looming legislation that could be worse, and there was a great deal of tactical maneuvering done in the sculpting of S.420. In the end, it wasn't a good bill, but the idea that some accountability should be had by those seeking protection from their creditors is hardly complete submission to corporations.

There are also the less pleasant aspects to it: it was a bill with overwhelming support, so perhaps it wasn't a battle worth fighting, especially coming from a state with a huge banking industry. I don't like to think that this was a major reason, but it would be disingenuous to not point out such a thing as an influence.

Please do remember, though, that he repeatedly used the term "predatory lending" in his stump speeches in '03 and '04, so he certainly stuck out his neck in the face of the powerhouse industry back home.

I would welcome any comments he's made on the bill, but I couldn't find any.

Once again, he has come down very specifically on the side of the little guys with his current proposals, and that should be taken into account.

PurityOfEssence (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sun Dec-30-07 01:35 AM
Response to Reply #15
24. I agree; the repeated "fact" that he wasn't a populist to start with is simply wrong

If one looks at his record, one sees populism as a very clear through-line.

People wave the bloody shirt of Stephanopoulos' grilling of him as some kind of proof of his calumny, when those same people seem to forget that little Georgie's a Clinton operative of the first rank. His leap to prominence came from being a key member of Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign, and he's a friend as well as a rooter. He has no more journalistic objectivity than James Carville does, and it's a form of deception to not have it tattooed on his forehead as he masquerades as a reporter.

Edwards is a classic Southern populist: pro-affirmative action, constantly trying to raise the minimum wage, for civil rights, for healthcare for the poor, pro-union and on and on. His Senate record is actually quite good, and I've posted to that effect. Anyone who has issues with this should look up the 203 bills he co-sponsored as a Senator.

It's all very convenient to say that he was a hawkish Democrat who changed his ways, but you'll note that the media NEVER tries to foist off the lie that he was a corporatist or anything of the sort. Except for this series of bills--which are hardly clear-cut, as I point out above--his record has been solidly for the little guy from the beginning. He voted for the China Bill, but that was Bill Clinton's pet and he was voting with his party. He voted AGAINST free trade with Singapore and Chile, and he's consistently voted for worker's rights, union rights, ergonomic rules, environmental protections and the usual "little guy" concerns. It's simply a chickenshit lie that he's only now become some kind of populist; his record shows that he has been all along.

Lest we forget, voting against tax cuts isn't that much of a personal risk for a John Kerry from Massachusetts, but it sure as hell is for a first-termer from North Carolina.

People constantly try to make complex situations simple, but they fall into one of the most despicable and self-congratulatory traps of human hypocrisy: flatly dismissing others as mere caricatures while demanding that they and their champions be given break after break and accorded the elaborate complexity of the gods. It's human nature, and it's the sucky part of human nature.

As for your primary point about admitting one's mistakes, I fully agree: the macho, blockheaded, uber-male approach of most politicians (regardless of gender) is tiresome, and to them, admitting a mistake is tantamount to admitting sheer worthlessness or admitting that they might occasionally pull over and ask for directions. Many people decry the inability of people to admit a mistake, but when someone actually does it, he/she gets pounced upon and torn limb from limb. It's vulgar and immature.

Why I shied away from addressing this first is that letting the conversation veer that way tacitly reinforces the big ugly stupid black-and-white lie that he's truly changed. He hasn't. He was good then and he's good now. Yes, he got suckered with the IWR, but Tenet looked him right in the eyes and lied to him. Others did too. Can you trust a man who changes his mind? Hey, at least you know he HAS one. He's done something truly courageous, and deserves a point or two for it. He also deserves points for addressing the issue of poverty; it's a sure vote-loser, but it's THE RIGHT THING TO DO and it's been his cause from the beginning.

Things aren't black or white, and those who insist they are are either fools or skunks. The very way bills are characterized is a good illustration of this, and it's important to try to see things in their totality and in their historical context.

Oh, and welcome to the board. I'm in LA; where are you?