Feingold Rips Edwards Again

[inna]

i respect Feingold, but he completely lost me on this one.
very disappointing!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/25/feingold-rips-edwards-aga_n_83225.html

As one of Congress' foremost progressive figures, Sen. Russ Feingold is a coveted endorsement for any of the Democratic presidential nominees. But if those seeking the White House are waiting for his call, they shouldn't hold their breath -- especially if they're John Edwards.

In an interview with the Huffington Post on Thursday, Feingold restated his hesitance to endorse either Sen. Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton. Both, he said, would make great presidents. The same praise was not, however, heaped upon Feingold's former Senate colleague Edwards, whose political sincerity the Wisconsin Democrat questioned.

"I don't understand how somebody could vote, five or six critical votes, one way in the Senate and then make your campaign the opposite positions," Feingold said, expanding on comments he made a week ago to the Appleton (Wisconsin) Post-Crescent. "That doesn't give me confidence that if the person became president that they would continue the kind of policies that they are using in the Democratic primary. I'm more likely to believe what they did in the Senate."

Asked to explain what precisely he found problematic, Feingold offered that Edwards had "taken in" voters by switching positions on several key issues.

"You have to consider what the audience is, and obviously these are very popular positions to take when you are in a primary where you are trying to get the progressive vote. But wait a minute -- there were opportunities to vote against the bankruptcy bill, there was an opportunity to vote against the China deal. Those are the moments where you sort of find out where somebody is. So I think, people are being taken in a little bit that now he is taking these positions."


more here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/25/feingold-rips-edwards-aga_n_83225.html

[fenriswolf]

1. feingold has no room to speak

[Mythsaje]

2. An amazing amount of courage for someone

who wasn't willing to take up the mantle that Edwards did instead.

[iamjoy]

30. Yep, Feingold Is Being Cowardly

Why isn't he running if he's so concerned about the issues and true progressivism?

[UrbScotty]

44. What was cowardly was Edwards's co-sponsorship of the IWR

He did not have the guts to stand up for America's security.

[Yael]

58. His ego is bruised. The national spotlight isn't on him

[TwilightGardener]

3. That's kinda why I don't support Edwards. Russ nails it.

[democrat2thecore]

7. I agree with you

The rhetoric is all wonderful. But I have never heard a candidate say so many times how he regretted this or that vote. His campaign is a case of, "Vote as you hear me now with my words - pay no attention to that former senator behind the curtain." You're right - Russ nailed it.


-edit for spelling error

[thoughtcrime1984]

88. Russ is my Senator

I think he's doing a great job for Wisconsin, and he is DEFINITELY a true progressive, just look at his record. As far as the comment that he should run for President- why? He knows he has a great job in a very influential position in the Senate. There can only be one President, and one must go through the meat grinder to even have a slight chance, I don't blame him for not running one damn bit. He does not have a bruised ego, contrary to Edwards' cheerleaders beliefs. Russ is simply stating that he feels JE is being hypocritical with the Populist stance after several important Senate votes that went 180 degrees the other way. That is his right to point that out to his constituents. Russ Feingold does what is best for Wisconsin and for the United States.

[ToeBot]

89. And after he endorses Corporate Whore 1 or Corporate Whore 2, he can flush his...

'true progressive' credentials down the shitter. They will no longer pertain.

[thoughtcrime1984]

91. It sounded like he would endorse neither

Say what you want, Edwards was a moderate in the Senate. He is moderate until he proves otherwise. Talk is cheap.

[depakid]

130. "Talk is cheap."

That's very true.

On the other hand, better to hear some responsible talk than a lot of pandering to unethical corporations and the far right.

I'll say this: at least with Obama, we can still hope it's only talk.

[Occam Bandage]

18. That's exactly why I don't support Edwards, despite him talking the best game by far.

[cascadiance]

22. BUT! America is FRICKIN' TIRED of the "Trust Me!" line other candidates give!

When they ALL give us reasons not to trust them! Pelosi is a CASE IN POINT! Therefore, if someone like Edwards is going to be the only one that speaks on issues the way I want to hear it, and noone else is willing to do so, then NOONE ELSE has reason to complain unless they also take the same standpoints and run for the same office!

Russ, you can keep pushing this if you want, but all you are doing is engendering a total distrust of EVERYONE in government, including yourself, not just Edwards! I've been a big supporter of yours, and I'm on your Progressive Patriots list, etc. but if you keep pushing this, I might ask that I be removed from that organization's list if it doesn't seek to push candidates that support my values!

[GreenArrow]

26. And Edwards doesn't use the "trust me" line?

He's used it over and over and over again this campaign. And ya know what? I don't trust him!

[cascadiance]

31. There's a difference...

You want to stop corporate power. You are given the choice of two different people that say the following:

1) "Hi, I'm a liberal guy(/gal). The Senate records show me with a "liberal" voting record. Trust me and I'll be "progressive" when I get into office."

2) "Hi, the fundamental problem with this country now is that you are disempowered when corporate lobbyists control our government through their money that politicians are now beholden too. I WILL fight to fix this problem when I get into office."

Now, who do you vote for, if you don't trust either of them? One is putting himself ON THE HOOK to do what you want, and the other isn't saying ANYTHING definitive about what you want. WHAT does that first candidate give you that is a reason to vote for them over the second guy? Even if I don't trust the second guy, if I vote for him for the reasons he gives to put him in office, and everyone else does too, doesn't everyone voting for the second guy say MORE to the country that the country wants to fix the problems with corporate lobbyists than if the first person gets elected?

If the first person gets elected, then the media, etc. will say that the country doesn't feel that corporate power is a problem, since they voted against candidate 2.

This is why, whether you trust him or not, Edwards is our choice now, like it or not!

[GreenArrow]

53. It's six of one and half a dozen of the other.

Disliking Clinton, and to a lesser degree Obama, doesn't mean I have to like Edwards. It's really about approach and style. C and O may be very vague, and not tell me anything directly, while E is out saying anything he thinks will win him points, and that largely to a very specific audience. One thing all three of them have in common is that they want to be elected. They simply have different approaches. All his rhetoric aside, Edwards has done nothing to convince me he will do anything, other than by degree, much differently than either of his two rivals. I don't think he'd likely worse than the other two, and I don't think he'd be much better. His record while in office certainly was not inspiring, and his change of heart now is just a wee bit too opportunistic.

I mean, hell, the man can't even fight for single payer health care, even as he goes around talking about how "Americans are tired of incremental half-measures", and how "you can't negotiate with those people", and using Reagan era talking points about personal responsibility. He can't even do that!

"If the first person gets elected, then the media, etc. will say that the country doesn't feel that corporate power is a problem, since they voted against candidate 2."

The media says whatever its masters tells it to say, but if candidate 1 were elected it might simply mean, not that the country doesn't believe that corporate power is a problem, but that the country simply didn't believe, trust or feel that candidate 2 was as competent in dealing with the issues. Or maybe they just plain didn't like him.

[cascadiance]

64. I also might have "liked" Nancy Pelosi for the 2006 election, but look where that would have got me!

Likeability is one SMALL element of why you vote for someone! At least in my book.

I really don't have any deep "personal" dislike for either Clinton or Obama. I just dislike corporate power over us IMMENSELY! And those that are trying to ask me to take charge over one of the few positions that could tear it down are going to have to speak to me about it. If they dismiss it as not as important as other things, THEN I dislike them! I could change my opinion of Obama and MAYBE Clinton, but they give me so much more indications that they are in bed with these corporations rather than are there to stop them.

Edwards is not taking lobbyist money now is he? Clinton and Obama have the most lobbyist money of EITHER party in this election. Why would corporations contribute to someone that will work to bring down their power. It is about *following the money*! You simply CANNOT make the case that Clinton or Obama would be better than Edwards at taking down corporate power. If you can, you are a magician.

In your last paragraph, what you are saying is that your interpretation is that the country values the personality of who they vote for more than what they will actually do. Pardon me for not agreeing with that philosophy. And I don't see ANY substantive reason where I feel that Edwards is significantly "less competent", or "less trustworthy", or "less likeable", or "less believable" than either Clinton or Obama. What you are saying is a false rationalization.

The bottom line is that there are many forces at work that are working for the interests of continuing corporate power here. Whether they are in the Republican Party or Democratic Party, it doesn't matter to me. Those are the forces that need to be fought and beaten down in this election if we want to continue to have a middle class and not have a Republican/Corporatist Depression Part 2.

[GreenArrow]

106. sure likability is only one part of it

I don't really dislike Obama or Hillary either (okay, Hillary maybe a little) and I think they are representative of corporate power over us. I take it as a given that they are in bed with corporations. I don't like that either. But I do dislike Edwards, intensely, and when he was facing the fire, he voted the wrong way, and defended those votes just as passionately as he now defends his new positions, much better positions than his earlier ones.

But I don't trust him. That's the bottom line. His conversion is too pat. He offers no explanations. If he were offering these new insights outside the realm of electoral politics, that is, in the middle of a Presidential campaign, or while still engaged - say a second Senate term) - I might give them a bit more credence. Simply saying you were wrong is meaningless so long as one does not explain what one was wrong about, and nor is simply saying one was wrong equivalent to an apology. This is why Edwards is less trustworthy. He's paid no dues, yet still acts like he's entitled to a reward. His diametric change of positions opens him to all sorts of charges of opportunism, pandering, dishonesty, phoniness.

As it is, while I don't see C or O really doing anything about corporate power, they aren't really making a serious issue of it. Edwards, on the other hand, is, and I see him doing so not because he intends to really initiate any sort of sweeping, fundamental changes, but because he believes that sort of rhetorical appeal can help him get elected. It's not that I think C or O would do a better job of taking down corporate power, it's that I don't think any of them is going to do so. Edwards' health plan is a good indicator of how he's going to deal with corporations. If he thinks he's going to have some sort of mixed plan, he will be "negotiating" with those people.

As for the country preferring personality/looks/charisma over principle/position, yeah, I think it does, in part. And it wants someone to tell it what it wants. The country picks who it likes, not necessarily what's good for it. I was a Kucinich supporter; the country either does not know the guy, does not believe in his issues, or trust that he is capable of getting things done. Or some combination of the above. For whatever reason, he doesn't inspire. Yet, I think he, more than any other candidate, sees some of the hard truths this country has to and refuses to face, and none of the other candidates running is going to face them either, though they might dilute them in an attempt to make them palatable to the masses, and placate those who have expressed disaffection with the order of things. Obama's not going to face those things. Hillary is not, and neither is Edwards. Honestly, I don't think a single one of them has any business being President. I expect little of value from any of them. They look tolerable only in comparison to those on the other side.

Would you vote easily for someone you didn't like? Didn't trust?

[cascadiance]

110. If you don't trust any of them then WHO do you vote for?

If you don't vote, then in effect you're allowing the worst of those you see here get "favored treatment", since they get one less vote against them for someone else. If you do vote, then I'm trying to see who you can rationalize is a better candidate.

What's Hillary's explanation why she is one of the biggest recipient from health care industry lobbyist money now that is a reversal of her "working for health care reform" that she did earlier and still talks about? How is that any better than what you have a problem with Edwards on?

How is Obama's continuing to try and support the coal lobby's efforts to build out liquified coal power, when most feel that is a big mistake to invest in if we're trying to get ourselves off of fossil fuels and more towards a solution for global warming?

You "feel" you can't trust Edwards. OK. I FEEL I can't trust Obama or Hillary, nor do I get anything from them that really hits the issues I want to see solved. They lose on BOTH counts!

[GreenArrow]

145. I hold my nose and vote for the one I distrust the least

Isn't that the American way when it comes to voting? In a country of 300 million people, I get the choice of a handful of people, all largely from the same class and sharing the same value systems, and representative of what I want or believe is good for the country in virtually no way. Holding my nose is all that's left. I told you the one I trusted most in the last post - Kucinich - and now he's out, and I don't trust any of the others. I think they are all going to screw us. They're playing both ends against the middle, and good cop/bad cop. I trust Edwards less because he promises more, and there is no foundation for me to believe his promises when viewed in context of his previous actions. All that glitters is not gold, and under the gilt of his rhetoric there's the dull sheen of tin and PVC.

I can hold my nose, but when I take my fingers away, the stink is still going to be there.

If you believe Edwards is the right guy, then by all means, vote for him. I'm going to have to take a pass on him.

[cascadiance]

146. The Corporatocracy has you well trained.

When I can't trust people, I vote for the message. Then at least I know that I can ysll at them when they don't do what I voted them in for. Otherwise, I have nothing. And if you feel that you can trust Hillary and Obama more, you've got another thing coming later.

[GreenArrow]

154. "The Corporatocracy has you well trained"

Naturally, I have to disagree with you on that. :)

[JDPriestly]

114. You are wrong.

Edwards has stated that the culture he saw in D.C. and some of the pressure that was placed on congressmembers to vote a particular way disgusted him. That is why he changed his mind on a lot of things. I suspect that he was also very disappointed by Kerry's sycophantic behavior during the 2004 election. That is why Edwards speaks so harshly about what is going on in D.C. That is why he so resoundingly rejects the acceptance of corporate donations.

You have not heard this, because you have not listened to as many of Edwards' speeches and conversations with voters as I have. You can be sure that the MSM does not broadcast Edwards' full statements on this issue.

[GreenArrow]

144. I'm wrong because I don't trust Edwards? So says you.

Edwards can say whatever he wants, and in many cases, I don't believe him. I've heard and read a TON of Edwards speeches since his first run, and I have then and now, found him to be a completely plastic and narcissistic candidate, and one thoroughly unfitted for the job of President. Sorry, that's the way I see him. I've read the statement, or a similar one, from Edwards on the DC culture. I find it a convenient excuse on his part. If you can't be trusted on small things, how can you be trusted on large ones? His performance on IWR is the crowning glory of his time in the Senate. And really, that is such an important issue to me that I will not be voting for anyone who voted in favor of aggressive war of imperial conquest.

It's all about trust, and I might add that distrust of politicians is endemic with me, and not limited to Edwards, in whom general distrust is augmented by personal distaste. If he does get elected, I hope he'll do as he says, the same way I would with any other candidate (or in some cases, hope he doesn't do what he says!) but I won't hold my breath.

[jbnow]

150. I read up on him too, all 3 of them

once I gave up on Gore.
Whose hands the country is in matters so much now.

I looked at their votes but none have that much time in. I expect decent votes but didn't expect much leadership yet, that takes some time. I read floor transcripts on important votes.

But I went back in time. Who are they and who were they. What choices did they make, what seemed to drive them, what do people say that work with, for against, over, under them. What did they get done and so on.

Amazing what you find. Some things you wish you didn't. I do know how to take things with a grain of salt and find other perspectives.

I did not get over the trust issue with John though I know people can really change and he may be sincere. He was great at emoting in court, that was his power. is court record worries me for the general too...especialy the Cesarean related law suits. I can just imagine the ways they could dig at all the trigger words and make him look like a giant insincere ambulance chasers. (I am not calling him that)

Hillary...well no please. All the more now.

Shocked me how. Lots on him as you dig because he did so much in the community for years after college and then Harvard Law Review president and then takes on this Project Vote fresh from that for 9 months. There artcles about him then (some reissued) are fun because they don't know they are talking about The Obama then. Things his students said in Constitutional Law. Then how he worked in the State Senate,,,some really controversial bills he got through and how and the way those had been violently opposed would react.

I list things he did but it isn't the list...it's the way and the outcome and the effect he has. Harvard Law Review wouldn't always count but the campus was in turmoil then (ironically largely racial tension) so he's presiding over people with all these diametrically opposed views. Or project Vote wouldn't except it's record setting change and successful and teaching wouldn't count except as students describe it you see the real "educate"...drawing forth.

When I hear people say details to plans should be more filled in I think no! no! He hasn't listened to people yet. He gets...the best out of things because he he hears and asks questions. OK I will stop because you don't know me from Adam, everyone hypes their candidate.

The best way to describe it is the I first heard him speak was after Iowa. I'd been researching him a long time and I knew his talk wasn't just pretty rhetoric. It wasn't just puffy beliefs, he's been working and walking that talk for 25 years.

A rare and genuine person and I'm over 50 and not easily impressed.

[GreenArrow]

153. Obama is the only one of the three I'm considering

I think it's a lot harder for either he or Clinton to be direct in this race due to their minority status as an African American and a woman. They are approaching things very cagily. Edwards, being a Southern white man, and not being currently in office, has a whole lot of leeway in the way he is able to approach things.

[2rth2pwr]

119. Edwards is all talk, look at his actions if you want to know the man. nt

[redqueen]

33. You wouldn't support Gore, either, then? (nt)

[TwilightGardener]

59. I voted for Gore in 2000, but he didn't thrill me that much. I didn't really

want him back this year, either. He's decent and admirable, and is fulfilling a great purpose now, but as a candidate, I was never that taken by him. I know that's heresy on DU, but that's the way it is for me. I feel the same about Edwards--a decent man, and would be a great advocate for a cause, but he's not my candidate of choice.

[redqueen]

60. Thank you!

That's a fair, straightfoward assessment... no double-standard.

Thanks again. :)

[TwilightGardener]

62. No problem--

:-)

[springhill]

135. You know what?

I believe, that just like Al Gore, he has been radically changed by what has gone on in this country. If only other leaders would follow their leads, maybe this country would have a chance.

[7 of 11]

143. Same here

Im an Obama fan, I really like the guy. Edwards-- I like the song hie sings but I just dont know about HIM! He's too shaddy. He's the DNC's version of Mitt Romney...too... Mr. Perfect with a $700 hair cut. I just can't nail it what it is that I dot like about him!

[ulysses]

4. something smells about this.

I'm not going to claim that Edwards is the most progressive Dem out there, but I'm not buying the devotion to Hillary.

[redqueen]

6. Thank you! I don't get how so many can miss this most obvious and HUGE disconnect.

I'm so disappointed in Russ over this.

But then Russ voted to confirm Ashcroft... I guess he thinks that was a good move and would never say a bad word about him.

[JDPriestly]

115. He also voted to confirm Roberts.

[jgraz]

10. Absolutely. Russ has to realize that this makes him look really petty

I wonder what is driving this kind of attack. Very disappointing. :(

[ozone_man]

29. I wondered the same about Kucinich.

I think it's something like if he doesn't get to be the progressive, the no one does. Not Dean in 2004, or Edwards in 2008.

Feingold has his own agenda I think. Something he's not being up front about.

[Andy823]

42. It's been pretty obvious

That the powers in the dem party don't want Edwards to win either. They have the same problem as the republicans, "the money"! Edwards would do somethig "real" about the lobbyist issue, and that will affect the pocket books of those in power, which happens to be the dems! I am sorry to say that those in power in both parties, want the money that comes in from the lobbyists, and they want a candidate that will keep things as they are, with the money rolling in to those in power in congress.

As has been said many times before, we have to make changes from the top on down the ladder if we really want to see things change in D.C.!

[OzarkDem]

43. Feingold no doubt wants a cabinet appointment

or maybe VP? :shrug:

Either way, its pretty transparent and makes Feingold lose a lot of credibility. Yeah, he's done so much in the senate since 1996, right? :sarcasm:

[PeaceNikki]

100. 1993. He's been in the Senate since 1993.

He's done a LOT and if you don't understand that, blame it on your own ignorance.

[OzarkDem]

109. He's also changed a lot

especially since Dems became the majority in the Senate.

His attacks on Edwards are completely out of line and uncharacteristic of him. Its obvious he has an ulterior motive.

[cascadiance]

68. This smells sort of like the endorsements that Barbara Boxer was asking us to support...

... before the last election. I think when she got to the point of supporting folks like Lieberman that's where people drew the line and said she was going too far.

You could sense that the Democratic Leadership was in effect USING her progressive credentials to help them get support for those that didn't have progressive credentials, probably in exchange for certain critical committee votes/assignments, etc.

There's some horse trading, etc. that I can tolerate so that the higher progressive purposes can be achieved. But just like people drew the line on her endorsement to support Lieberman, I think we need to call out Feingold on this one too!

[Alexander]

5. Russ is right. We would be lucky to have him as VP or president.

[redqueen]

9. Wellstone voted for the PATRIOT Act.

[INdemo]

17. I believe that if Wellstone would have lived he'd be running for President right now

and the corporate media would not be giving him air time either....Probably even less than Edwards....I have no doubt about this...

[redqueen]

20. And I'm sure he'd have admitted his mistake on the PATRIOT Act...

so I'm sure Russ would be talking about how he was fooling everyone who supports him.

[ulysses]

13. I'd have worked my ass off for him if he'd run.

But he didn't.

[unc70]

25. Would have worked for my fellow Tar Heel.

Knew him at Carolina. Cried when he died.


Feingold has had a few strange votes himself in recent years. Several times DU has pondered his votes.

[Diane R]

8. I have enormous respect for Russ Feingold. He debunks the sunny Edwards persona.

[avaistheone1]

11. That's right. Edwards is a wild eyed populist who isn't going to take no for answer taking care of

the people's business. He is not some Pollyanna spewing happy talk.

Edwards got a program, and he has been walking the talk the last four years.

[Occam Bandage]

19. Such as at Fortress?

[avaistheone1]

105. Edwards did nothing wrong at Fortress

[2rth2pwr]

120. I know, he took that job so he could learn about poverty.

why people don't get that, I'll never know.

[Cant trust em]

12. Thanks, Russ.

He makes some good points.

[judaspriestess]

14. it takes courage to change

or at least go back to your core beliefs. I personally think John Edwards moved back to his core beliefs.

On Edit: People change and evolve over time, why is that so freaking unusual or shocking? Our damn taste buds change every seven years why can't our minds change? Ridiculous

[slipslidingaway]

28. Edwards displayed a lack of judgment, especially when he

pushed for the Iraq invasion one week after learning there was no up to date intelligence.

9/5/2002 Intelligence meeting

9/12/2002 speech on the Senate floor

Then op-ed in the Washington Post the following week.

Other senators on the Intelligence Committee pushed for updated intelligence, Edwards spoke out as if he knew all the facts. That's careless IMO.


That is not evolving on a long held belief, it was poor judgment. He never apologized for that.

[redqueen]

34. Gore has done the same or worse, no?

Would you also reject him as a candidate?

[slipslidingaway]

65. Pushing to invade another nation that could not attack us?

There really is not much worse IMO.

:shrug:

[redqueen]

69. Did Gore speak out against the IWR when it was being debated?

:shrug:

[slipslidingaway]

90. Yes......Al Gore - September 23, 2002

http://www.commonwealthclub.org/archive/02/02-09gore-speech.html

"...I'm speaking today in an effort to recommend a specific course of action for our country, which I sincerely believe would be better for our country than the policy that is now being pursued by President Bush. Specifically, I am deeply concerned that the course of action that we are presently embarking upon with respect to Iraq has the potential to seriously damage our ability to win the war against terrorism and to weaken our ability to lead the world in this new century..."


I have said many times that I agree with the current message of Edwards, although I doubt his judgment in times of crisis and some votes that have helped big business more than people.

What he says does not match what he did in several instances and he speaks as if someone else made the mistake, when in fact he was a part of those mistakes. So there is an element of saying what people want to hear.

:shrug:

[redqueen]

96. Thanks slip... I actually found that out in my own thread...

Gore did the same thing with Abortion during his first run for President...

I'm sorry... I just don't understand the logic behind this attack by Russ... and I took his "taken in" thing personally.

[slipslidingaway]

104. YW and my thoughts...

Feingold watched the more progressive voters move to Edwards and genuinely thinks that people are being taken in by the message. He worked with Edwards for six years, we do not know what conversations took place on votes and who tried to sway people one way or the other. So his words would be to let people know that he might not do as promised and is using the platform of others, Kucinich many times, to pull those voters.

Dennis has said many times, especially on health care, that "This is a fight within the Democratic Party."

We all see this happening when a few people vote with Republicans and the Dems lose again and again, so maybe it is an attempt to draw some lines??? Which wing of the party will we stand with? If this idea has any merit, I believe it is in it's infancy and might just be a test so to speak??? Where would we stand in four years? I've seen the remarks about Feingold being jealous, that was not my thought. I think it might be that he sees the Democrats being pulled too far to the right and on the side of the big corporations.

Is he trying to position himself for a spot in the new administration of one of the top two candidates? That thought crossed my mind as well, although my instincts of Feingold are that he would not trash a truly populist candidate to advance one of the top two candidates and if there was a top candidate for the people he would be supporting that person.

I can understand taking the 'taken in' thing personally, Edwards is very persuasive and the issues he raises are things we all want. When I put together the 9/5/02 Intelligence Committee meeting, no new intel report, and then his speeches and op-ed shortly afterwards something did not add up for me. And that could be a topic on it's own :)

Just my random thoughts...I appreciate what Feingold has fought to preserve in the way of our rights and his cool headed thinking and courage to oppose the Patriot Act. We need more independent thinking in the Senate and less 'going along.'

:)

:hi:


If you have not read this interview it might be worth the read, I've posted this snip a few times.

http://www.alternet.org/story/74268

"Hedges: Have we evolved into a corporate state?

Kucinich: I Look at it as the political equivalent of genetic engineering. That we've taken the gene of corporate America and shot it into both political parties. So they both now are growing with that essence within. So what does that mean? It means oil runs our politics. Corrupt Wall Street interests run our politics. Insurance companies run our politics. Arms manufacturers run our politics. And the public interest is being strangled. Fulfilling the practical aspirations of people should be our mission. How do we measure up to providing people with jobs? It was a Democratic president that made it possible for NAFTA to be passed, causing millions of good-paying manufacturing jobs that help support the middle class. . . .

NAFTA, GAT, the WTO, China Trade, and every other trade agreement that's passed in Congress has been passed with the help of either the leadership of or with the help of the Democratic Party, knowing that each and every one of those agreements was devoid of protections for workers, knowing that if you don't have workers' rights put into a trade agreement then workers here in the United States are going to see their own bargaining position undermined because corporations can move jobs out of the country to places where workers don't have any rights. They don't have the right to organize, the right to collective bargaining, the right to strike. So what I see is that the Democratic Party abandoned working people, and paradoxically they're the ones who hoist the flag of workers every two and four years only to engender excitement, and then to turn around and abandon their constituency. This is now on the level of a practiced ritual..."

[judaspriestess]

41. point taken but you are narrowing it down to one single issue

I am referring to a person changing or evolving as a whole in many directions. I am willing to look at the big picture, others are not. Did he show poor judgement? YES, was he the only one? NO. Does this mean I am going to condemn him for it? I have chosen not to.

People do evolve and change. Some for the better and some for the worse.

[slipslidingaway]

74. That was one example of poor judgment , a very big one. To say

that he evolved on this issue or even changed his mind is different from not doing one's homework and still arguing the point.

Five other senators were trying to get a new NIE, instead Edwards made a persuasive argument for invading another nation that was not an imminent threat, all the while knowing the intelligence had not been updated.

:shrug:

[druidity33]

81. yes and

you know, this is hard for me to admit but one of the reasons i "trust" Edwards is that i can't help but think if i found out my wife had cancer i would be the best human being i could possibly be. And uphold myself to the most damning standards, no doubt. I can't imagine the pain and sacrifice they must be enduring on this campaign trail. That they choose to do this together despite the odds means to me they are COMMITTED to this cause. I don't feel the same sense of PERSONALNESS from the other 2.


As for his Senate record and bad votes... i can't forget them, but i believe as President he will have the power to shape the policy and the Democratic Agenda, whereas as a first term Senator beholden to Party and Politics his options and input/understanding was limited.

With Kucinich out, i am now officially on the Edwards bandwagon...

I still have hope for a solid Working class in this country. I still look forward to having my first Union card. I still believe one day we all WILL have medical coverage. I try to do the best with the information i have, using an open heart and an open mind. If that's not enough, i don't know what is...



:shrug:

[bluethruandthru]

15. I guess if Russ had his way

no politician could ever change their mind about an issue. I think I'd rather have a president who thought about issues, recognized when he made a mistake and admitted it and worked to make it right. Better than a stubborn president who never admits he did anything wrong and will "stay the course" no matter who it hurts.

[Sweet Pea]

16. Thats' what I'M talkin' about!

Edwards is the charlatan's charlatan when it comes to integrity and honesty in politics and life in general.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[glowing]

46. I agree. Not sure what's up Russ's butt... Maybe someone promised

him something.. Edwards is very quiet on any VP potentials.. maybe he's skipped over Russ.

[Sweet Pea]

137. VP Potentials?

Isn't that putting the cart *wayyyyy* before the horse? He needs to climb out of a deep third place before he even THINKS about something like that. he won't, so if I were JE I wouldn't waste any brain cells on who my VP might be. I'd start working on the next Fortress paycheck. That's a big house I have and I need to heat/cool it.

[MaggieSwanson]

136. Um, let's not call each other names.

OK? Perhaps this person knows JRE personally. And even if not, they are entitled have to their own opinion without being called a liar.

Peace,

Maggie

[slipslidingaway]

23. Feingold is saying that, in his belief, Edwards is "for the people"

while running for office, but not when he gets elected. In the 1998 campaign Edwards was "for the people" but when it came to voting on several issues he did not vote that way.

Bill Moyers even made a comment about Edwards rhetoric when he interviewed Dennis a few weeks ago.

Feingold is not the only person who sees this disconnect.

[cascadiance]

27. Then WHAT is his solution? Vote someone that is honestly NOT on our side?

I'd rather take a chance on Edwards than LOSE before I even start by voting for someone that doesn't support what I want! If he doesn't think this is healthy, then he should have himself or convinced someone else he "trusts" in the party to run to represent our values. Otherwise we have NO solution but revolution!

If Dennis had won the nomination would he have said the same thing about Dennis given Dennis' switch on his stance on abortion rights?

We have tried voting for the "trust us, we'll do something progressive when we're elected" candidates in the past that were nebulous about their stances, and it has been a failed strategy for the last decade or so! I vote that we vote for the MESSAGE this time. If the candidate doesn't live up to the message, we still can rally the country and say that someone has to step up to the bar and support the message that a MAJORITY of Americans want not just the so-called "fringe left" that the corporate media wants to pigeon hole us as, and find someone who will live up to those promises or have our revolution through other means (new party, etc.).

What Edwards is doing is larger than he himself as a candidate. He's elevating our message and progressive causes to the point it hasn't been in recent memory for some time. If we don't capitalize on that now, when will we?

[slipslidingaway]

57. I do not know what he would think the solution is, I can say that

we let the corporate media pick our candidates for us and then settle once again. Feingold would not have received the backing needed to compete and I think he knew that :(

Look at how many people were fooled by the message of Bush, no nation building, a uniter, he would preserve the SS Trust Funds etc.

Edwards' comment at the Herzliya Conference in 2007 gave me great pause, I read the follow up interviews he did where he toned down his language, but that does not take back what he said in reply to using military action.

http://www.herzliyaconference.org/Eng/_Articles/Article.asp?ArticleID=1728&CategoryID=223

Also there was an interview on CBS in September? and not once did he mention what the people of Iraq are going through, but he did say we needed to turn up the heat in Iraq to get things accomplished. During this time we were pressuring the Iraqi politicians to pass the Iraq Oil Law, that may not be what he was referring to, but knowing that the people were completing the fifth summer with barely any electricity it sounded uncaring to me.

I've already decided to vote for Dennis in February, my protest vote so to speak, not sure what to do in November.

No good answers.

:(

[ozone_man]

35. As a senator in a red state

you have to represent all people in the state. It's not the same as being a senator in a liberal state like Wisconsin, or Vermont where we have a socialist senator that Republicans vote for too.

Edwards is free from that senatorial role, so he can be himself. I'm sure he's undergone a transformation too, but Two Americas in 2004 was a populist message. What would Russ say about that? Or what did he say about it in 2004? Two Americas is even more relevant in 2008. There's only one populist representing the people in this race and it's Edwards. The other two are corporatists.

[redqueen]

71. That's a good point, and also the same rationale Obama's backers have given me

for his vote in favor of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which was a giveaway to the nuclear developers and oil companies.

[slipslidingaway]

80. True to some extent, Edwards said that by passing the China

Trade bill it would create more jobs, instead NC has been one of the hardest hit states with respect to job loss.

Links in this post if you want to read them.

"The 10 hardest-hit states, as a share of total state employment, are: New Hampshire (-13,000, -2.1%), North Carolina (-77,200, -2.0%),"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4156947&mesg_id=4176100


Two Americas is even more relevant in 2008 and two issues that have had some of the largest impacts are the price of oil and our deficit with China and resulting job loss.

Would the price of oil be as high if we had not invaded Iraq?

How many jobs lost to China due to their cheap labor?

[ozone_man]

94. And a lot of those jobs came from up North first

before they went to the South East. It's labor outsourcing, whether internal or external.

And Clinton passed NAFTA, and likes CAFTA as does Obama. There are enough wrong previous votes to go around, but I have to look at what the candidates are presently saying. I only hear one voice in the direction of needed change. Edwards.

[slipslidingaway]

107. Well I never supported any of the top three, my comparisons

were always with Kucinich, so I cannot defend Hillary or Obama. I agree with the message of Edwards and have said so many times, just not sure of the judgment and follow through. :(

Others feel differently and I understand.

[ozone_man]

129. Oh, I understand.

And I first supported Gravel and Kucinich. For the electable candidates, Edwards is the most progressive, who has a long shot chance, but will at least win many delegates, which will help shape the party platform.

I had to go through some of the similar thinking when supporting Dean over Kucinich in 2004. Dean was not exactly a liberal, but became the populist and sought to make a significant change. I think it was easier to come out against the war without being a Washington insider like the rest. Obama is a bit the same as far as his antiwar position. But, once he was in Washington, he voted to fund the war. I have in my state Leahy, Jeffords, and now Sanders, none of whom voted or would vote for the war, but they also weren't running for president. The presidential candidates (like Kerry or Clinton)look ahead at what votes will be likely to dog them in a run for the presidency. Being absent for Kyle-Lieberman (like Obama) doesn't count either.

Edwards is the only progressive voice of the three, regardless of some of his votes in the past. For me, it's support that voice or be assimulated by the corporatists. They're already saying resistance is futile. But I won't go willingly. ;)

[PeaceNikki]

87. You think Wisconsin is a "liberal state"?

Kerry won in 2004 by less than 12,000 votes.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/WI/P/00/index.html

That same election day - Feingold won by over 330,000.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/WI/S/01/index.html

[ozone_man]

92. Compared to North Carolina it is.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/NC/

Bush got 56% to Kerry's 44%. It's all relative. ;)

Vermont is even more liberal, but we have a Republican governor (Douglas). Yesterday he was down in Washington defending a bill introduced by Leahy and Sanders on state's right to limit car emissions. Some kind of Republican. Oh, and then we had Jeffords.

But Edwards has to represent the whole state, not just Democrats.

[iamjoy]

37. But That's Not Totally True

No, Edwards does not have a perfect progressive voting record, and on some key issues he did not make the vote we would have liked. But, to say he wasn't looking out for the people is not accurate.

Some of his first bills he sponsored in the Senate were for Fragile X Research and he was the first person to introduce comprehensive anti-spyware legislation with the Spyware Control and Privacy Protection Act. Read more about the very unsplashy bills her sponsored to help people.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/3/26/92758/1809

[slipslidingaway]

95. There is a difference between sponsoring a bill and speaking

for or against a bill that is currently on the floor and could become law.

:shrug:

[AdHocSolver]

77. Edwards won a tough election against a right-wing Republican in a red state.

He was trying to show his constituents, the people who voted for him, that he was not going to betray their support of him. That shows me that Edwards will keep his word to those who vote for him.

A lot of Democrats supported Bush/Cheney's policies. Clinton not only voted for the Iraq war vote, but she voted for Kyl/Lieberman, also.

Clinton has said in the debates that she will work for health care reform "by the end of her second term". That assumes she would win a second term (assuming she wins a first term). By then she would be a lame duck president with no clout, meaning no health care reform from Clinton at all.

Edwards has said that he would make health care reform a priority. His promotion of the populist message is politically risky and I give him credit for being the first one of the "big three" to run on such a platform.

I do not trust Clinton, and I have concerns about Obama's ability to follow through on his campaign promises. I like Edwards platform and his success in fighting the corporations suggests that he is the person I want to be my president.

[slipslidingaway]

97. So many times the defense of one's actions is "He or she did

it as well." I could have voted for most of the second tier candidates before I could vote for the top three.

[BlackVelvet04]

24. The more Feingold bashes Edwards the more petty he looks. n/t

[jackson_dem]

32. Edwards' record

Tip of my hat to PurityOfEssence for his great job researching Edwards' record.

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 Jan-06-08 04:05 PM
Response to Reply #9
17. Repost of Edwards' Senate Record notes

Much has been said about Edwards’ supposedly conservative term in the Senate. Like much “common wisdom”, this is largely unfounded.

When remembering that he came as a neophyte from a rather red state, it’s quite surprising to see just how populist he was on many key social issues. (Well, it’s not surprising to many of us, but to those of you who’ve been poisoned with the endless snideness about the “new” Edwards and the “old” Edwards, it should be an eye-opener.)

He only sponsored two bills, but he co-sponsored a whopping 203 in his six-year term. This is a partial list of them (yes, I omitted the Patriot Act and IWR; much has already been said about them) and bears a quick skimming. They’re in chronological order, so details can be found fairly easily. The two bills he sponsored were for research into the “fragile x” chromosome associated with mental retardation, and the “Spyware Control and Privacy Act”, an important early bulwark against attempts to compromise our computer privacy. This last one is a true civil-rights issue, taking on corporations and attempting to secure the rights of individuals, and it’s visionary stuff.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d106:SN03180:@@ ...

Russ Feingold said he was a “terrific asset” in getting campaign finance reform through. He was the person who deposed Lewinsky and Jordan in the impeachment trial; quite an important task to entrust to a newcomer in literally his first year in office. His opposition to Ashcroft in the confirmation hearings was vigorous and mesmerizing, even if it didn’t work. This is also the guy who tirelessly fought to keep the sunset provisions from being stripped out of the Patriot Act. His votes on labor and trade are solidly leftist, although he did vote for the China Trade Bill. Then again, since this was something Bill Clinton was solidly for, he was voting with his party. (Funny how Hillary supporters take him to task for this vote…) He also (along with Dodd and Biden) voted against the free trade bills with Singapore and Chile, unlike Senator Clinton, who voted for them.

Here’s a guy who constantly brought up the issue of “predatory lending” even though he hailed from a state with a huge banking and financial services industry. If you listen to or read his stump speeches from late ’02 and early ’03, you’ll wonder what the hell his detractors are talking about when they say that his populism is a new tack; his platform was economic and worker-oriented from the beginning, telling of how the Bush Administration was systematically shifting the burden of taxation from wealth to wages.

So here’s that partial list of the bills he co-sponsored. This is not a list of his votes, just those bills he actively got behind and worked to get passed. This is hardly the stuff of a closet conservative or an opportunist, as he’s been tarred, nor is it the record of someone who was just phoning it in. I would request, in interest of fairness, that the deriders among you at least skim through this VERY long list; it’s all pure fact.

When taking all this in context, it’s interesting to reflect on Kerry’s sneering that he probably couldn’t win re-election had he decided to run. Kerry may have been right on this point, but if so, it’s because of Edwards’ populism and social decency.

Details can be found here; each phrase separated by a comma is a particular bill, and in most cases attempt to use the bill’s title to lessen confusion and give the sense of the legislation.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/?&Db=d107&querybd ... (FLD004+@4((@1(Sen+Edwards++John))+01573)):

Sense of the Senate for funding lifestyle research for preventative medicine, Sense of the Senate honoring National Science Foundation, Sense of the Senate to preserve six day mail delivery, designating “biotechnology week”, Children’s Internet Safety Month, Joint Resolution against excessive campaign donations, to protect the civil rights of all Americans, Bi-partisan Campaign Reform, Restrict access to personal health and financial information, Establish a Center for National Social Work Research, provide more effective remedies for victims of sex discrimination in work, provide incentive for fair access to the internet for everyone, require fair availability of birth control, increase the minimum wage (’01), protect consumers in managed care programs, emergency relief for energy costs to small businesses, prohibit use of genetic information to discriminate on health coverage and employment, provide families with disabled children to buy into Medicaid, eliminate the loophole for interstate transporting of birds for fighting, provide funding to clean up contaminated land, informing veterans of available programs, Designating part of ANWR as wilderness, establish a digital network technology program, reduce the risk that innocent people be executed, restore funding for Social Security Block Grants, provide for equal coverage for mental health in insurance policies, amend Clean Air Act to reduce emissions from power plants, establish uniform election technology (sponsored by Dodd), extend modifications to funding for Medicare and Medicaid, Federal Funding to local governments to prosecute hate crimes, reinstate certain Social Security earnings exemptions for the blind, overhaul RR retirement plan to increase benefits, Establish a Nurse recruitment and retention program, amend FDA to provide greater access to affordable pharmaceuticals, Establish African American Museum within the Smithsonian, Federal funding for research of environmental factors in Breast Cancer, Increase hospital benefits under Medicare, Establish Tariff Quotas on milk protein imports, Federal funding for mental health community education, protect patients in managed care plans (again), establish Office on Women’s Health in HHS, increase the minimum wage, allow media coverage of trials, prohibit racial profiling, improve health care in rural areas, protect consumers in managed care plans, prohibiting trade of bear viscera, provide greater fairness in arbitration of motor vehicle franchises, provide adequate insurance coverage for immunosuppressive drugs, provide financial assistance for trade-affected communities, acquisition and improvement of child-care facilities, prohibit employment discrimination based on sexual orientation, establish programs to deal with nurse shortage, establish a National Cyber Defense Team to protect the internet’s infrastructure, provide services to prevent family violence, require criminal prosecution for securities fraud, reissuance of a rule on ergonomics, ensure safe pregnancy for all U.S. women, improve investigation and prosecution of rape cases with DNA evidence, improve national drought preparedness, increase the minimum wage (yet again), assistance in containing HIV/AIDS in foreign countries, emergency assistance for small-businesses affected by drought, child care and developmental block grants, provide economic security for America’s workers, enhance security for transporting nuclear waste, FEMA hazard mitigation grants, increase mental health benefits in health insurance, criminal prosecution for people who destroy evidence in securities fraud cases.

Is this the record of a corporate appeaser? Is this the record of someone just loafing about and collecting a paycheck?

Funny what you find when you read a little, isn’t it?

(end of post)

The Bush Cartel is Shivering In Its Boots About John Edwards: This is An Actual North Carolina GOP Alert Sent to a BuzzFlash Reader

A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS

Below is a copy of an actual GOP alert sent out by the North Carolina Republican Party.

It illustrates how frightened the GOP is of Edwards spoiling the Neo-Confederacy "Southern Strategy" that the Grand Hypocrisy Party (GHP) depends upon to win presidential elections.

Sincerely,

Buzz

* * *

Dear XXXX,

Senator John Edwards' (D-NC) latest effort to package himself as a "mainstream North Carolinian" is entirely contradicted by a four-year voting record that consistently puts ultra-liberal special interests ahead of the people he represents.

CNN's Candy Crowley: "I want to ask you, lastly, about the political spectrum and where you are on it. You are often described as having a liberal voting record. The liberal groups tend to give you high ratings. The conservative groups give you low ratings. Are you a liberal Democrat?

John Edwards: "I'm a mainstream North Carolinian. I think my views and my values represent the values of most people in this country." (CNN's Inside Politics, January 2, 2003)

Bill Cobey, Chairman of the North Carolina Republican Party had the following response: "Senator Edwards, your voting record does not lie. 'Mainstream North Carolinians' don't vote like Georgetown Liberals."

Edwards made similar assertions in 1998 when he promised the people of North Carolina that he would be a moderate voice in the U.S. Senate. Edwards' record, however, reveals the liberal truth:

Edwards' Voting Record Matches Those Of Senators Ted Kennedy And Hillary Clinton

From 1999-2002, Edwards Voted With Senator Ted Kennedy 90% Of The Time. (CQ Vote Comparison, CQ Online Website, www.oncongresscq.com, 106th and 107th Congresses)

From 2001-2002, Edwards Voted With Senator Hillary Clinton 89% Of The Time. (CQ Vote Comparison, CQ Online Website, www.oncongresscq.com, 107th Congress)

Edwards' Liberal Record On Business/Job Growth

Edwards Received A 0% Rating From The Small Business Survival Committee For His Voting Record In 2001. (Small Business Survival Committee Website, www.sbsc.org, accessed Dec.1, 2002)

Edwards Received A 17% Rating From The National Federation Of Independent Business For His Voting Record In 2001. (National Federation Of Independent Business, www.nfib.com, accessed Dec. 1, 2002)

Edwards' Liberal Record On Education

Edwards Voted Against The Creation Of A Demonstration Public School Choice Voucher Program For Disadvantaged Children. (Amendment to S. 1, Roll Call #179: Rejected 41-58: R 38-11; D 3-46; I 0-1, June 12, 2001)

In 2000, Edwards Voted Against The Creation Of Tax-Free Education Savings Accounts For Children To Be Used In The Payment Of Public Or Private School Tuition. (S. 1134, Roll Call #33: Passed 61-37: R 52-2; D 9-35, March 2, 2000)

Edwards' Liberal Record On Abortion

In June Of 2000, Edwards Voted Against Tabling An Amendment That Would Have Repealed The Ban On Privately Funded Abortions At Overseas Military Facilities. (Amendment to S. 2549, Roll Call #134: Passed 50-49: R 48-6; D 2-43, June 20, 2000)

In October Of 1999, Edwards Voted Against Passage Of A Bill To Ban Partial-Birth Abortions. (S. 1692, Roll Call #340: Passed 63-34: R 48-3; D 14-31; I 1-0, October 21, 1999)

Edwards' Liberal Record On Health Care And Social Issues

Edwards Called For A Federal Prescription-Drug Benefit And Lamented Over The Lack Of Universal Health Insurance For Children. "Moving to health care, Edwards - his words being recorded by a National Public Radio reporter sitting near his feet - again called for a federal prescription-drug benefit and decried the lack of universal insurance coverage for children. 'In America,' he intoned, 'that's wrong, and we need to do something about it.'" (Eric Dyer, "Testing The Waters?" News & Record, June 23, 2002)

In 2001, Edwards Voted To Table An Amendment That Would Have Prohibited The Use Of Public Funds For Needle Exchange Programs In The District Of Columbia. (Amendment to H.R. 2994, Roll Call #328: Motion To Table Passed 53-47: R 5-44; D 47-3; I 1-0, November 7, 2001)

Edwards' Liberal Record On Taxes/Fiscal Responsibility

Edwards Voted Against President Bush's Bipartisan Tax Relief Package. (H.R. 1836, Roll Call #170: Passed 58-33: R 46-2; D 12-31, May 26, 2001)

Edwards Voted Against Permanent Repeal Of The Estate Tax. (H.R. 8, Roll Call #151: Failed 54-44: R 45-2; D 9-42, June 12, 2002)

In 2001, Edwards Voted Against A Capital Gains Tax Rate Reduction. (Amendment To H.R. 1836, Roll Call #115: Failed 47-51: R 40-8; D 7-43, May 21, 2001)

In 2000, Edwards Voted Against A Bill That Would Have Reduced Taxes On Married Couples. (H.R. 4810, Roll Call #215: Adopted 61-38: R 53-1; D 8-37, July 18, 2000)

In 2000, Edwards Voted Against A Temporary Suspension Of The Gasoline Tax. (S. 2285, Roll Call #80: Failed 43-56: R 43-12; D 0-44, April 11, 2000)

Edwards' Liberal Record On The Environment

Edwards Argued That President Bush's New Source Review Plan "Defies Common Sense." 'It defies common sense to me,' said Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C." (Karen Masterson, "Port Arthur Activist Testifies Against Easing Clean Air Laws," The Houston Chronicle, July 17, 2002)

AT ODDS WITH FELLOW DEMOCRATS

On Trade Promotion Authority

Edwards Disagrees With Kerry, Daschle And Lieberman On Trade Promotion Authority. Edwards voted against trade promotion authority, but Kerry, Daschle and Lieberman voted for it. (H.R. 3009, Roll Call #207: Passed 64-34: R 43-5; D 20-29; I 1-0, August 1, 2002)

On Common Sense Tort Reform

Edwards Disagrees With Lieberman On Tort Reform. Unlike his Senate colleague Lieberman, Edwards adamantly opposes liability limits and civil justice reform. (Jill Zuckman, "Medical Bill," Chicago Tribune, June 24, 2001; Senator Lieberman, Press Conference, July 15, 1999)

When Asked By Bob Novak, Edwards Could Not Recall A Single Conservative Position That He Has Taken On An Issue As Senator. "'I could give you an answer to that question if you give me a little time to think about it.' - Democratic presidential aspirant Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, asked by columnist Robert D. Novak in...the American Spectator to recall any conservative position he's taken in the U.S. Senate ." (John McCaslin, "Dependably Liberal," The Washington Times, October 15, 2002)

http://www.buzzflash.com/analysis/03/01/14_Edwards.html

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?

(end of post)

Edwards's Record as A Freshman Senator
Lawmaker Labored on Issues Such as Health Care, Intelligence and Trade

-snip-

Edwards has little in the way of concrete legislative achievements, but he gained attention on issues ranging from health care to intelligence to environmental protection.

While aspiring to build a national profile, Edwards also labored on issues important to his home state, such as proposing amendments to help textile workers who were losing their jobs to lower-wage workers in other nations. In recent weeks, he increasingly has raised trade issues in trying to differentiate himself from Kerry.

-snip-

He voted to support abortion rights, authorize the war in Iraq, require criminal background checks on buyers at gun shows, block the confirmation of some of President Bush's most conservative judicial nominees, and prohibit oil drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

-snip-

But it was the patients' bill of rights, which Edwards had championed in his 1998 Senate campaign, that proved to be his biggest accomplishment -- and disappointment.

-snip-

Edwards voted against trade pacts with Chile, Singapore and Africa, which Kerry supported. But he voted in 2000 to grant most-favored-nation trading status to China, as did Kerry and most other senators. "I think it's clear that Senator Kerry and I have very different records on trade," Edwards recently told reporters. On the same day, Kerry declared: "We have the same policy on trade -- exactly the same policy."

In discussing trade, Edwards focuses on the 1993 North American Free Trade Agreement, which was enacted with Kerry's support five years before Edwards entered the Senate. While his campaign statements assert that "Edwards has consistently opposed NAFTA," the North Carolina senator recently told New York Times editors that NAFTA "is an important part of our global economy," although he wants tougher protections for the environment and worker conditions.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15414-20 ...

Clinton Defense Leader in Impeachment Trial

Kennedy-Edwards-McCain Patients' Bill of Rights

Kennedy-Edwards Minimum Wage Raise Laws

Vote Against Bush's First Taxgiveaway

Vote Against Bush's Second Taxgiveaway

Vote Against $87 Billion "I support Bush's War Bill"

Wrote Bill that allowed individuals to buy prescription drugs from Canada

Wrote and Sponsored Bill that would make sexual orientation a legally protected category in job discrimination

Wrote Sunset Provision into Patriot Act

Floor leader for Feingold-McCain Campaign Finance Reform.

Voted against the Chilean trade agreement, against the Caribbean trade agreement, against the Singapore trade agreement, against final passage of fast track for this president.

Actually defeated a Republican incumbent in a Red State who had the Helms Machine with him.

[saracat]

36. The much married and divorced Feingold is jealous that Edwards assumed the mantle he didn't have

the courage to pick up! Screw him. This is just tacky whining from a longtime politico. What does if say about Russ and his support of Ashcroft and now a stated support of sorts for Hllary? What a hypocrite he is!

[More Than A Feeling]

40. You can hit him for his jealousy without picking on his marital life.

I agree that he's jealous, but that's no reason to throw the kitchen sink at him. Feingold is the great human being that he has always been, but this just goes to show that he is still only human. Cut him a break.

[saracat]

49. I only mention it as it has been given as the reason he didn't run. The media would have eaten him

aliove.He would be seen as "our" version of Rudy.Sad but true!

[More Than A Feeling]

56. Well, yeah, but considering the Republican freakshow

it wouldn't have been a big deal unless his opponent was Romney. Plus, its not like he divorced any of his wives on national tv, or moved a mistress into a mayor's mansion, or embezzled city funds under the guise of "protecting" her.

[saracat]

79. It still would have been bad.It is very nice to be able to say all our leading candidates have had

only one spouse for many years.The exception would be noted.

[frogmarch]

47. hypocrite is right.

Hey, Russ what about those corporate subsidies related to ethanol, huh, Mr. Twenty-second Most Progressive Senator? You voted against requiring states to use an environmentally neutral forms of ethanol. And yet here you are dissing Edwards for some of his votes while he was doing his best to represent Dems in a flaming red state?

YOU are the phony, Russ. You're a goddamn hypocrite.

[Control-Z]

38. For anyone who is not a supporter,

the time is about right for some good Edwards bashing, I would guess.

[OzarkDem]

39. I'm really starting to dislike Feingold

DC Dems can't handle seeing an outsider run. Its as if they think the presidency is some precious heirloom that only Beltway Dems can inherit.

[UrbScotty]

45. Russ Feingold: Telling it like it is.

As usual.

[jackson_dem]

48. If he were telling it like it is he would chronicle Hillary and Obama's flip flops too...

[slipslidingaway]

61. Edwards portrays himself as the more progressive candidate...

Feingold is basically saying do not believe him.

Obama and Clinton are not trying to get the more progressive vote, Edwards is...and that is the difference IMO.

[Mythsaje]

67. Damn Edwards for all his truth telling

and dragging the other candidates leftward!

Bah.

[slipslidingaway]

93. Truth telling??? That is one of the problems, that he is not being

honest when he blames others and forgets to mention himself.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4156947&mesg_id=4176100

2000...

"China as 'keystone' to American prosperity

As he explained his vote on Sept. 19, 2000, Edwards, then a senator from North Carolina, told the Senate, “Trade between U.S. companies and the Chinese will likely explode in the coming years, generating jobs and revenues in this country. It could easily be the keystone in the continuing prosperity of this nation.”


2008...

"Later Thursday, in a meeting with 200 voters in Boone, Iowa, he said, “We’ve got these trade deals that cost Americans millions of jobs, and what do we get in return? Millions of dangerous Chinese toys.”

That line got a good reaction from the crowd.

Edwards didn’t tell them what he himself had said seven years ago when he voted for the China trade deal..."


And then for him to say during the NPR debate 'My children will not be getting any toys made in China'

While many of the toys sold in the US are made in China. :(

If you have money and can afford the more expensive toys made elsewhere that is fine, but the average person is stuck, for the most part, with what is on the department store shelves.

[Mythsaje]

98. Truth telling: i.e. "Corporate Greed is destroying us."

That's the TRUTH.

Who else is saying it? Not one of the front runners.

Have you read his pdf?

http://www.johnedwards.com/issues/plan-to-build-one-america.pdf

[slipslidingaway]

108. It also comes down to what someone is NOT saying as well...

Draft Iraq Oil Law, accountability for leading our nation to invade Iraq and not speaking up forcefully while Bush and Cheney beat the war drums against Iran. Kucinich started speaking up about the Iran propaganda in early 2006 or maybe even late 2005 and voted against legislation that moved us in that direction.


"Corporate Greed is destroying us."

It is also been destroying the people of Iraq and yet he says nothing.

The time to speak up is when things are happening, not years later.

:(

I've read parts of the plan, not beginning to end.

[ClericJohnPreston]

50. One time an error....

twice is an agenda.

I guess Russ has never seen what Hillary and Obama voted for.

[Stop Cornyn]

51. Is this the same Feingold who voted for anti-choice Bush supreme court nominee John Roberts?

The senator, who has a record of showing great deference to presidents when it comes to confirming nominees (including that of former Attorney General John Ashcroft), had his excuses. He told the committee, "Judge Roberts's impeccable legal credentials, his reputation and record as a fair-minded person, and his commitment to modesty and respect for precedent have persuaded me that he will not bring an ideological agenda to the position of Chief Justice of the United States and that he should be confirmed."

That guy shows pretty peculiar judgment sometimes.

[Mythsaje]

66. That would be the one.

Funny bed-mates he has, eh?

[PeaceNikki]

72. Bedmates? Puuuleeze.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4201394&mesg_id=4202557

[RFKHumphreyObama]

52. Although I like Feingold

His own voting record is hardly stellar when it comes to votes on progressive issues. His willingness to support the appointment of right wing, reactionary and in some cases racist conservative ideologues to government positions is somewhat disturbing


Go to the Senate votes list and you'll find this

http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/legislative/a_three_sections_with_teasers/votes.htm
Question: On the Nomination (Confirmation: John Ashcroft, of Missouri, to be Attorney General )
Feingold (D-WI), Yea
Edwards (D-NC), Nay

Question: On the Nomination (Confirmation: Gale Ann Norton to be Secretary of the Interior )
Feingold (D-WI), Yea
Edwards (D-NC), Nay

He also voted for Roberts for Chief Justice, if I remember correctly.

Feingold knows much better than he does with these comments. My guess is that he and Edwards fell out over something during the latter's time in the Senate and he holds a personal grudge. I'm very disappointed in him

[PeaceNikki]

55. Russ is very clear on his votes for nominations.

And those are the only votes of his that progressives ever take issue with. He's a reasonable man who doesn't take personal vendettas.

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?pid=52420

"...since his arrival in the Senate in 1993, he has distinguished himself by his consistent if often controversial approach to presidential nominations.

The senator from Wisconsin has a record of supporting disputed Republican picks for top posts -- including former Attorney General John Ashcroft and Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts -- because of his belief that presidents should be afforded broad leeway when it comes to making appointments. A progressive who is perhaps best known for casting the sole Senate vote against the Patriot Act in 2001, Feingold has long argued that Democrats must support the qualified conservative nominees of Republican presidents if they expect Republicans to support the qualified liberal nominees of Democratic presidents.

Feingold's standard has often infuriated liberal interest groups, along with many of his fellow Democrats, who have argued that he has given too much slack to right-wing Republicans who will never repay the favor. Why, the common question goes, does a progressive Democrat give conservative Republicans a blank check?

But Feingold has always rejected the "blank-check" analogy. The senator has voted against a number of federal appeals court nominees in recent years, and he has consistently made it clear that would oppose a Supreme Court nominee in an instance where a president selected someone who was too extreme, too biased or too ethically challenged."

[Mythsaje]

75. Ah, yes. The appeasement argument.

"If we do it, they'll do it."

Except they don't.

[PeaceNikki]

82. Name one other questionable decision of Russ's - other than nominations.

And he doesn't give them a "blank check" on nominations, either.

"The fact that Alito is the first high court nominee to fail to meet the Feingold standard is significant. And, as the senator explained to the committee Tuesday, it was not a close call."

[Mythsaje]

85. There probably AREN'T any more important decisions

than Supreme Court nominees. They're appointed for life and are the absolute final word in what is and what is not allowed with regards to legislation and constitutional limitations on government power.

Legislation can be amended after the fact, given enough support. It takes an act of God to reverse a Supreme Court appointment.

[Yael]

54. Russ needs to STFU.

I thought he was better than this. He needs to express the positive on the candidate he is supporting, not rip for the sake of ripping.

It is coming across as egotistical. Like he hasn't had enough camera time, so he is going to shoot off his mouth to make sure he is on the teevee.

Whatever.

[Crunchy Frog]

63. Feingold is a very astute observer IMHO. n/t

[PeaceNikki]

70. I trust and value his opinion a great deal.

I know... people will take issue with his votes on nominations. And I will point you here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4201394&mesg_id=4202557

Russ is MY Senator. I've voted for him, read his biography and educated myself on him and his positions. He's not untouchable, but he's pretty damn close. I can't imagine a politician closer on issues with me in his lifetime than Russ.

And, he's absolutely right in pointing out that Edwards voting record is the opposite of his campaign on some very key issues. He has and would call out anyone for the same.

[ClericJohnPreston]

73. He is beginning to look like Lawrence O'Donnell

and all this is not reflecting well on Huffpo, which I USED to read. They have a CLEAR and UNEQUIVOCAL agenda that is Pro-Obama and anti-HRC and anti-JRE.

The O'Donnell piece was enough, but this cinches their agenda and Feingolds.

[shireen]

76. trust no one

We have been let down too many times by these people.

The question becomes, who do we distrust the least? Among our three front-runners, that's a hard call.

If I had to vote today, I'd vote for Edwards because he's the only one who has really spoken out against poverty, and appears willing to aggressively take on large multinational corporations. But do I trust him to keep his campaign promises? No more than the other two.


There is one member of Congress that I trust .... I may not agree with him 100% but he is definitely the best of 'em all in the US Congress: BERNIE SANDERS. If Bernie ran for president, I'd be very enthusiastically supporting him.

[cascadiance]

78. I wonder if we might get a Bloomberg/Sanders independent ticket!

If we only get corporatists nominated for either Republicans or Democrats.

Might be an interesting combo if Sanders could work with Bloomberg at all. And it wouldn't be like he's "bolting" a party when he's not a Democrat now anyway.

[citizen snips]

128. Sanders is a democratic socialist

I doubt a socialist will share a ticket with a businessman.

[cascadiance]

131. I know that, but that's probably no worse than a Kucinich/Paul combination that was considered

that had a more progressive Democrat matched up with a Libertarian.

I'm no big Bloomberg fan, but perhaps he has the resources to start an independent campaign that others might not, and if he wants to have a realistic chance of not just splitting the Republican vote, he should probably consider a VP selection like Sanders (if they could come to terms to work together) to get more than those votes, and with someone like Hillary running, he might just be able to siphon off that, if he doesn't come across as a "traditional corporatist", but a businessman that's willing to yield power to run the government back to the people rather than to the corporatist lobbyists. As a businessman doing this (if he can bring himself to do this), he might be able to get a broader cross section of support from those who still want capitalism, but REGULATED capitalism as Thom Hartman puts it rather than free market capitalism that corporatists want that has given us the disaster we have now in place in Washington.

[Blue-Jay]

83. What makes Russ think that he knows more about Edwards than DU does?

:shrug:

[Crunchy Frog]

133. Served in the Senate with him for 6 years?

:shrug:

[RestoreGore]

84. Yes, well, if he is so much better then he should have run himself

Sounds like sour grapes to me.

[Catchawave]

86. I am stunned....et tu Russ?

Okay, have stopped my donations to your Patriot Pac, unsubscribed to your e-list, now I just remain stunned you pickapart a Progressive Candidate. Is Jon Stewart right? The Senate is where smart people go to die?

I would appreciate you so much more if you just came out and supported Obama or Hillary. But this stinks.

[Radical Activist]

99. Edwards is a bigger flip-flopper than Hillary

This is exactly why I don't support him. He sounds good but his record doesn't match. Obama is the only candidate in the race with a solid progressive record.

[ClericJohnPreston]

102. Are you kidding me?

Obama has a progressive record? What is your definition of Progressive....REAGAN?

[Radical Activist]

103. That's voting RECORD

not a highly spun line in an interview.

Yes, Obama has the more progressive record for 10 years on the environment, labor, opposing the war, campaign finance reform, and more. I know this because I've known about the real Obama since he was a State Senator. I didn't fall for some hack job blog posts dishonestly painting him as a conservative. The voting records of Obama and Edwards aren't even close.

[cascadiance]

111. I guess that's why the coal lobby wants him to help them push liquified coal!

[Radical Activist]

116. Why does Edwards support $1 Billion in yearly subsidies to the coal industry

for clean coal research if he's so anti-corporate? That's far more than what Obama asked for CTL research. And that's all Obama's bill ever did: provide some money for research. Sorry but Edwards has the more polluter-friendly position on this one, despite all the spin on certain blogs.

[citizen snips]

121. you left out most of Edwards plan.

especially about the part where Edwards will ban coal plants that cannot caputure carbon dioxide.

http://www.johnedwards.com/issues/energy/20070326-cleaner-coal/

[Radical Activist]

122. There is no such thing as an operational coal plant

that captures carbon yet. Its still an unproven technology. Spending $1 billion per year for research the coal companies should be funding themselves diverts funding for renewable energy technologies that already work like wind and solar. It also signals to industry leaders that they don't need to invest in renewable energy and can wait for "clean" coal to be developed instead. But hey, it got him the mine workers endorsement.

Most of the rest of Edwards energy platform is good. I prefer Obama's approach to reducing auto emissions.

[citizen snips]

124. true but some scholers believe that CCS should be part of the equation.

http://web.mit.edu/coal/

[Catchawave]

101. Hey Russ....

http://youtube.com/watch?v=rDHoTOgeNWE

[THUNDER HANDS]

112. this will do nothing to change the minds of people who think that words speak louder than actions

[JDPriestly]

113. Feingold, unfortunately, changes his mind about his wives too frequently.

Edwards changed his mind about legislation he voted for. Never mind that a number of Democrats joined him on every vote for which he has been criticized.

Feingold changed his mind about his wife a little too frequently. A man who wants to be president needs to get a long with his wife or wives. http://usliberals.about.com/b/2005/04/13/sen-feingold-announces-untimely-divorce-may-affect-presidential-race.htm

Too bad about Feingold. He is a good man. But Edwards is the only viable candidate running on a truly Democratic candidate.

[Radical Activist]

117. Wow. That was a Bush tactic.

You attack Feingold in an ugly personal way just because he criticized Edwards? That's how the talk radio crowd responds to attacks too.

Well, your nasty attack doesn't change the reality that Edwards current message is far from what he was as a Senator. I like what Edwards has to say but I prefer Obama because he has a long progressive record that matches his platform.

[JDPriestly]

148. I could care less about his divorces, but that is why he is not running.

If Feingold were running, I might well be supporting him (probably would be). It is just an unfortunate fact that, as Michelle Obama said, people look at your family life before they vote.

[sjdnb]

127. If you're an Edwards supporter, you do his campaign a dishonor

by posting this. But, perhaps, you're just an Obama or Clinton supporter looking to drag Edward's into their mud. In either event, this tabloid like attempt to besmirch a good, honorable, and principled member of the Senate was uncalled for.

[OnceUponTimeOnTheNet]

138. Unsavory, but true. I'd love to have Russ as President

But his personal issues are a problem for campaigning. Personally, I think he is abit jealous of Edwards.

[iamjoy]

139. True, But Let's Not Be Nasty

I mean, to what extent should a candidate's personal life be a factor in their campaign?

A part of me says it shouldn't and bringing it up is a nasty tactic that is beneath us, it belongs to the Republicans and such, the ones determined to drag Clinton's personal life through the mud in an attempt to discredit an otherwise good leader.

OTOH, what are we talking about here? We are talking about judgement, we are talking about choices.

Now, John Edwards has admitted to making a few mistakes in the Senate. He showed bad judgement. We're all human. Well, Feingold has a great voting record, but does he always excercise good judgement? If he's divorced twice, obviously not. He made two big, big mistakes in his life. His personal life shouldn't matter, but if we are talking about character and judgement, one must weigh his marital record. There's no need to be snarky about it, simply state that we must consider all factors. Feingold - while he has an admirable voting record - does not exercise the same judgement in what is really the most important decision anyone ever makes for his/her self.

[Rowdyboy]

118. A classless act by a man I had great respect for....He lessens himself when he disses progressives

But to each his own.

[ursi]

123. disappointing!

[sjdnb]

125. I like Russ ... but think maybe he's regretting his decision

not to run and feels a little like Edwards has taken over his 'platform'. I'm not a Psychologist, but Edwards is standing up for/speaking up for everything I believe Russ would have had he run.

[Seabiscuit]

126. Feingold just made my shit list. FU2, Russyboy!

[Truth2Tell]

132. Our best and only hope

is that Edwards is sincere when he says he has changed and that he regrets all that shit from his Senate days.

The other two have been just as shitty, but they don't even claim to have changed.

[fujiyama]

134. Feingold has a few good points

about Edwards and his rhetoric not completely matching his senate vote record.

But Edwards is bringing up issues that Hillary and Obama are not - particularly that of poverty. And he strikes me as quite sincere about that. Actually Edwards was running a fairly populist campaign in '04, as well, focusing largely on the economy, though not nearly as sharp as it is now.

Either way, I don't get Feingold targeting Edwards in particular. His record is no worse than the other two. Actually, all three have a very similar record on the economy and trade. All three have voted for free trade agreements. Obama is the only one of them to vote against a bankruptcy "reform" bill that has come up (the more recent version). Edwards and Clinton voted for a version in '01 (this was the same bill Bill Clinton had vetoed for while president). But to be fair, Hillary was with Bill while he was having surgery during the more recent bill's vote, but I'm not familiar if she has stated how she would have voted.

Ultimately, I don't understand how Hillary's (or Obama's short senate record which largely mirrors her's) corporate friendly record is any better than Edwards.

[Infinite Hope]

140. So how can he consider Hillary whose voting record is even worse? Hypocrit. n/t

[robcon]

141. She hasn't made copping out on her votes the centerpiece of her campaign

I think Krauthammer of the WaPo picked up Feingold's meme...

"...Edwards has made much of his renunciation of his Iraq war vote. But he has not stopped there. His entire campaign has been an orgy of regret and renunciation:

¿ As senator, he voted in 2001 for a bankruptcy bill that he now denounces.

¿ As senator, he voted for storing nuclear waste in Nevada's Yucca Mountain. Twice. He is now fiercely opposed.

¿ As senator, he voted for the Bush-Kennedy No Child Left Behind education reform. He now campaigns against it, promising to have it "radically overhauled."

¿ As senator, he voted for the Patriot Act, calling it "a good bill . . . and I am pleased to support it." He now attacks it.

¿ As senator, he voted to give China normalized trade relations. Need I say? He now campaigns against liberalized trade with China as a sellout of the middle class to the great multinational agents of greed, etc..."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/24/AR2008012402799_2.html

[Infinite Hope]

142. So it's okay to be wrong more as long as you continue to stand by it? That's what you say Feingold

is saying. And it sounds a lot like Bush. I'm disappointed in Feingold, a man I've long admired.

[robcon]

152. I'm disappointed in Edwards, a man I thought would make a good VP in '04

His word is worthless, and his votes are up for grabs, IMO. No trust.

[AtomicKitten]

147. That's gotta hurt.

[slick8790]

149. If Russ finds this so offensive, why isn't he running? He could be the "perfect senator"

much like kucinich was the "perfect rep". You know, the one who's never made a bad vote?

[PassingFair]

151. He is only telling the truth....

why do you think so many people AREN'T voting
for John Edwards.

We all KNOW these things.

That's why he's running third.

(And he's my first choice!)

:blush: