Edwards IS the Anti-Bush

[sjdnb]

Just watching the SOTU (at least until I couldn't stand to anymore) made it even more crystal clear.

[avaistheone1]

1. Give me 5.

No kidding.

[sjdnb]

3. You got it!

5 backatcha

[avaistheone1]

7. Kick it!

backatcha!:kick:

[Bread and Circus]

2. this is the anti bush?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Edwards

In his time in the Senate, Edwards co-sponsored 203 bills.<15> Among them was Lieberman's 2002 Iraq War Resolution (S.J.Res.46) which he co-sponsored along with 15 other senators, but which did not go to a vote;<16> he voted for replacement resolution (H.J Res. 114) in the full Senate to authorize the use of military force against Iraq, which passed by a vote of 77 to 23,<17> saying on October 10, 2002 that "Almost no one disagrees with these basic facts: that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a menace; that he has weapons of mass destruction and that he is doing everything in his power to get nuclear weapons; that he has supported terrorists; that he is a grave threat to the region, to vital allies like Israel, and to the United States; and that he is thwarting the will of the international community and undermining the United Nations' credibility."<18> He defended his vote on an October 10, 2004 appearance on Meet the Press, saying "I would have voted for the resolution knowing what I know today, because it was the right thing to do to give the president the authority to confront Saddam Hussein...I think Saddam Hussein was a very serious threat. I stand by that, and that's why stand behind our vote on the resolution".<19> However, he subsequently changed his mind about the war and apologized for that military authorization vote. Edwards also voted in favor of the Patriot Act.

IWR, patriot act, the first bankruptcy bill: aye?

That's the anti-bush?

[Fresh_Start]

4. war was merely an excuse for Bushco to rob the treasury and

transfer the wealth of the nation into his backers hands

Edwards is interested in the reverse transfer
You didn't really believe that Bush thought Iraq was a threat?
The Downing Street memos showed that Bush was determined to go into Iraq and the WMD was merely an excuse

[sjdnb]

6. BTW - Many seem to forget it was not until 2005 that the DS memos

were revealed to the public as well as the fact that lies took us into Iraq.

[Fresh_Start]

8. I know they were much later than the war

but the NYTimes had almost daily briefs about the weapons inspectors
and the UN presentation where (I don't recall who) challenged how do you know there are weapons if you don't know where they are....
and the Saddam show and tell for the world press where he invited the press to go look at the purported weapons sites themselves.

but on the other hand,
I don't know that I would have believed that the President was boldface lying to the Congress either
and for me personally I know that my decision process is different when I'm responsible for other people than it is for myself
I'm much more cautious when I'm caring for others than when I'm caring only for myself or my family

[sjdnb]

18. I and my boys were protesting the war before it began

but, I've always been cynical when it comes to the lame arguments govt's give for going into war - and, have raised them the same way.

But, I can understand how those without the freedom of position that we had, as anonymous civilians, could have been compelled by time, confusion about what it really meant, and circumstance, to vote for the authorization.

I suspect they were fed confidential information that we never saw. And, while now, we might know it to be false, given where it was coming from, for them, I'm sure they believed there was a credible threat that might be averted using this 'scare tactic'. Unfortunately, Bush took it upon himself to exceed the authority they gave him and unilaterally go to war without Congressional approval. That was the real crime. Manipulative, calculated, and arrogant.

[Fresh_Start]

19. since you have children, tell me something

are you more protective with other peoples children than with your own?

I know that I am more cautious when I'm responsible for other people (either in parental setting and even more so in business setting)

[sjdnb]

23. I'm probably equally

over protective ... bordering on paranoid. Can't help it.

[Fresh_Start]

26. I'm not over protective of my own

I'm over protective of others

So while I can honestly say I was against war in Iraq (and even against war with Afghanistan),
I can't say that I would never have approved the resolution if I were in their shoes.
I couldn't have imagined that the President of the USA would have some calculatedly lied to Congress

[sjdnb]

29. Reasonable people can agree to disagree

I can understand how good people could have made poor choices in this instance. It was a very odd convergence of circumstances that allowed Bush & Co. to pillage and plunder this and other lands.

I'm sure we can agree that this time, under Bush Co rule, has been the worst in many centuries for our country and the world.

[Fresh_Start]

30. I don't think we've actually disagreed

but I agree that reasonable people can disagree

[sjdnb]

32. Read can't as can ...

need new glasses.

[Fresh_Start]

21. did I miss your point?

I know that we the people didn't know what was in the Downing Street Memos
But Bush would have known the content of the discussion

[sjdnb]

24. That doesn't mean the Senate or Congress did

I suspect they were being fed the same lies we were, but given their security clearances, it was coming from a more authoritative source. Still lies, just more believable.

[midnight]

15. Wow... you certainly get it...

[sjdnb]

5. Oh, get over it ... times have changed

and, so has Edwards - he has had an epiphany. It has been obvious to anyone who has followed his life story. He walked into the darkness and saw the light. While, some have just taken their first steps - and, think they've seen the light. Life is a journey, the important lessons usually take more than a few years to learn. And, learning how to deal with the powers that be, successfully, well, that takes much more time.

[Bread and Circus]

12. I think it's more of an example of how Edwards tailors his rhetoric

to fit the times.

Just ask Feingold.

How many times can Edwards be wrong before people see that he isn't what he says he is?

[jackson_dem]

14. Wellstone, Kennedy, Leahy, and everyone else except 1 voted for the Patriot Act

Leahy and most Democrats voted for the bankruptcy bill that passed 83-15.

Obamites flyspeck bills. Notice how they are all prior to Obama's getting elected to the senate? The reason for this is they want to have a free pass to bash Edwards and Hillary. They don't want a direct comparision of Hillary and Obama because for anything they attacked her for they would have to attack Obama for. I know of only two major bills they voted differently on and it was Obama who voted wrong on both (Cheney's energy bill, and Bush's tort bill).

Obama ran hard against war funding, then when he won and no longer needed primary votes he voted to fund the war each time. When he began running for president he started to vote against funding. Obama ran against the Patriot Act, voted for it. Obama co-sponsored a bill to designate the IRLG a terrorist organization in 2007, then after not voting and not commenting on Kyle-Lieberman claims he is against it. Obama was for coal, the against it. Obama vote for the minimum wage being raised, then against it. Obama voted to increase the minimum wage, then voted against it (it happened twice). Obama said he favored CAFTA on the merits but voted against it. Obama says he is fair trader but supports Peru and South Korea trade. Need I go on?

[Bread and Circus]

22. and that one was Feingold. And Feingold was the one who helped

push me to my current feelings about Edward.

I just made another post back to you explaining my feelings in detail.

And even though I will continue to fight tooth and nail for who I believe in (Obama), I would happily vote for Edwards in November if he wins the nomination.

[jackson_dem]

28. I'll take Kennedy over Feingold any day of the week

[sjdnb]

27. Feingold has 'compromised' too ... and I love Russ, but

S1384 Vote to adopt an amendment that declares English to be the common language of the United States.
Yes

S2351 Vote to pass an amendment that expresses the sense of the Senate that the detainees at Guantanamo Bay should not be released into American society or transferred into detention facilities on American soil.
Yes

SA 2405 to SA 2383 to HR 2638: To make $300,000,000 available for grants to States to carry out the REAL ID Act of 2005.
Yes

Lots of well meaning folks voted in ways they never thought they would - either because they were being lied to OR because they thought they might manipulate the final legislation to be more in line with what they originally wanted by doing so.

Lest yea forget, we were the minority until 2006 and still do not have enough of a majority to override a veto.

[Bread and Circus]

33. I can't say how I feel about these bills as I've not studied them

close enough to say much about them specifically. But I will grant, Feingold is not perfect either. No one is.

I really have tried to take a big picture look at the candidates.

I know why Clinton and Edwards both voted for the IWR. I know they didn't really want war. I know it was a matter of going with the flow of the times and at the time Bush was super popular and no one wanted to seem weak on defense. It's also my firmly held belief that both knew that they would run for President someday and called to task on that vote and that's the reason they at the time voted yes and had such Hawkish rhetoric. What I don't think they realized was how badly Iraq was going to turn out. They made huge political errors in judgement.

At the time Dean was against the war. That's good judgement.
So was Gore. That's good judgement.
So was Obama. That's good judgement.

But the latter 3 had the advantage of not being in the senate at the time, obviously Clinton and Edwards didn't.

So while I recognize Clinton and Edwards had to vote yes on the war because their political aspirations were bet on the notion that the war was likely to go well, they didn't recognize what was plainly obvious to many, including Georger HW Bush way back at the end of the first Gulf War. That fact is that an Iraq war and occupation was likely to go very, very badly for the reasons we all know now.

George HW Bush predicted this.
Gore predicted this.
Obama predicted this (just check his speech of October 26, 2002 and compare his statements to Edwards and Clinton of the time).
I'm not sure if Dean predicted the bad outcome and I'm too tired to read exactly what he said.

So, not only is this a good example of people folding under pressure, it's also a good example of how people size up a huge foreign policy and national defense issue and what they come up with.

Edwards and Clinton trumpeted the conventional wisdom of the day without any expression of critical thinking. Obama really made the right calls in predicting the poor outcome.

But again, I want to fully recognize that Edwards and Clinton would not have taken us to war in Iraq de novo if they had been President at the time.

It's a complicated issue, but it's not one we can forget.

Clinton said it was the most important vote she ever made.

100's of thousands of deaths and 2 trillion dollars later, we can say "boy, was she right".

[jackson_dem]

13. Obamites continue to distort Edwards' record

Since the swiftboating of Edwards' record continues from the Obama camp his record deserves another thread. We Edwardians should never forget it was Obama and his lemmings who swiftboated Edwards. It wasn't Hillary.

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.

Edwards has a very good trade record. Let's compare him to St. Kerry, a prominent progressive who was in office the entire time Edwards was. Edwards is the closest thing to a protectionist that can get elected.

-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.

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

St. Kerry

07/07/2003 U.S.-Chile Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act NV
07/07/2003 U.S.-Singapore Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act NV
08/01/2002 Trade Act of 2002 Y
09/19/2000 U.S.-China Relations Act of 2000 Y
09/13/2000 China Nonproliferation Act Y
05/11/2000 Africa Free Trade bill Y
11/03/1999 Africa Free Trade bill Y
07/17/1997 Most Favored Nation Repeal Amendment N

Edwards

07/07/2003 U.S.-Chile Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act N
07/07/2003 U.S.-Singapore Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act N
08/01/2002 Trade Act of 2002 N
09/19/2000 U.S.-China Relations Act of 2000 Y
09/13/2000 China Nonproliferation Act Y
05/11/2000 Africa Free Trade bill N
11/03/1999 Africa Free Trade bill N

Edwards voted right on every trade bill except one and that one was Bill Clinton's baby. It also was not as clear cut as it appears in retrospect. Edwards explained why he voted for it and it was a perfectly reasonable belief to have, a belief most of his Democratic colleagues shared. Edwards also opposed the Peru, South Korea, and CAFTA trade bills after he left office. Given his record he presumably opposed Oman as well, although I have not seen a statement from him on it. Edwards has opposed every trade bill to come down the pike in his career except one that noted rethug lites like Ted Kennedy and Patrick Leahy voted for, as did most Democrats.

Edwards can seriously be attacked for once supporting the war but the Big Lie, which picked up steam in February of 2007 (what happened that month?), that he was not a populist until recently and especially that he sucked on trade is nonsensical.

Edwards' trade record is identical to Ted Kennedy's:

07/07/2003 U.S.-Chile Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act N
07/07/2003 U.S.-Singapore Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act N
08/01/2002 Trade Act of 2002 N
09/19/2000 U.S.-China Relations Act of 2000 Y
09/13/2000 China Nonproliferation Act Y
05/11/2000 Africa Free Trade bill N
11/03/1999 Africa Free Trade bill NV

Does Kennedy suck on trade too? I hear he is a big Rethuglican in sheep's clothing! What has he done for the poor? Probably nothing. He is rich too I hear!

jackson_dem (1000+ posts) Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sun Jan-27-08 10:13 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. And here is the truth about the flyspecked pre-Obama bills used to swiftboat him

Jackson_dem (1000+ posts) Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Fri Jan-25-08 07:11 PM
Original message
Look at which Republican lite senators voted with Edwards and Clinton on these bills!

Edited on Fri Jan-25-08 07:13 PM by jackson_dem
There are a few bills supporters of one candidate use to swift boat his rivals. They never provide the context for those votes. To learn more about them I looked at the vote totals and roll call for them. I was shocked to learn that progressive heroes like Ted Kennedy, Paul Wellstone, and others are or were closet Republicans. The biggest Republican of them all was surprisingly Patrick Leahy, though.

Patriot Act

Passed 98-1.
For it: Leahy, Kennedy, Wellstone, Edwards, Clinton
St. Obama: not present since he was in Illinois

No Child Left Behind

Passed 91-8 (47-2 among Democrats).
For it: Leahy, Kennedy, Wellstone, Edwards, Clinton
St. Obama: not present since he was in Illinois


Normal trade relations with China

Passed 83-15
For it: Kennedy, Leahy, Edwards, Clinton
St. Obama: not present since he was in Illinois

Bankruptcy bill of 2001

Passed 83-15
For it: Leahy, Edwards, Clinton
St. Obama: not present

Ted Kennedy now says No Child should be reformed, became "against" the Patriot Act because he wanted it to be reformed, thinks China didn't work out as intended. How can we trust someone who voted wrong three times on three carefully flyspecked bills? His rhetoric doesn't match his record. He is a flip flopper. Don't trust him. Vote for the one candidate who didn't get it wrong on these issues: Barack Obama. He has never made a mistake. Just ask his supporters or him.

To illustrate how easy swiftboating a Senator's record is, I could have easily posted them same list and stocked it with names like "Lieberman, Nelson" to make Edwards and Clinton look worse. Don't accept the bull you are told about folks' records. Look it up if you care about a particular bill. Find out the context. You can learn a lot simply from looking at who voted for it and the vote tally. Maybe a bill that passed 91-8 that progressive like Kennedy, Leahy, and Wellstone supported didn't look that bad at the time? Nah, it can't be! They were rethug lites who sold out! Ted Kennedy: pawn of the DLC!
Signature lines are currently turned off due to high traffic.
Alert | Add to my Journal Printer Friendly | Permalink | Edit | Reply | Top

jackson_dem (1000+ posts) Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sun Jan-27-08 10:13 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. Patriot Act and No Child Left Behind roll calls

Edited on Sun Jan-27-08 10:14 PM by jackson_dem
ackson_dem (1000+ posts) Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Fri Jan-25-08 02:58 PM
Original message
Look at all these rethug lites who voted for the Patriot Act and No Child Left Behind!

Now they say they are against it! Can you trust any of these folks? Not me my friends. I demand a politician who has been right on every issue. If something passes 98-1 or 91-8 it is obvious to any sane person it is deeply flawed bill. Why did these folks all sellout? :mad:

No Child Left Behind

Yes: Daniel Akaka, Max Baucus, Evan Bayh, Joseph Biden, Jeff Bingaman, Barbara Boxer, John Breaux, Robert Byrd, Maria Cantwell, Jean Carnahan, Thomas Carper, Max Cleland, Hillary Clinton, Kent Conrad, Jon Corzine, Tom Daschle, Mark Dayton, Christopher Dodd, Byron Dorgan, Dick Durbin, John Edwards, Dianne Feinstein, Bob Graham, Tom Harkin, Tim Johnson, Edward Kennedy, John Kerry, Herb Kohl, Mary Landrieu, Patrick Leahy, Carl Levin, Joseph Lieberman, Blanche Lincoln, Barbara Mikulski, Zell Miller, Patty Murray, Ben Nelson, Bill Nelson, Jack Reed, Harry Reid, Jay Rockefeller, Paul Sarbanes, Chuck Schumer, Debbie Stabenow, Bob Torricelli, Paul
Wellstone, Ron Wyden

No: Russell Feingold, Fritz Hollings

Present: Russell Feingold, Fritz Hollings

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/107/senate /... /

Patriot Act

YEAs ---98
Akaka (D-HI)
Allard (R-CO)
Allen (R-VA)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bennett (R-UT)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Bond (R-MO)
Boxer (D-CA)
Breaux (D-LA)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burns (R-MT)
Byrd (D-WV)
Campbell (R-CO)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Chafee (R-RI)
Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
Daschle (D-SD)
Dayton (D-MN)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dodd (D-CT)
Domenici (R-NM)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Edwards (D-NC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Fitzgerald (R-IL)
Frist (R-TN)
Graham (D-FL)
Gramm (R-TX)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Helms (R-NC)
Hollings (D-SC)
Hutchinson (R-AR)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)

NAYs ---1
Feingold (D-WI)

Not Voting - 1
Landrieu (D-LA)

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/r ...

[Bread and Circus]

16. Edwards co-sponsored Lieberman's first IWR bill and gave an

aye on the one that passed.

In October 2002 he made an exact quote that nearly everyone was certain that Iraq had WMD (yet us idiots here on DU knew otherwise)which I have made a direct link to.

He made the case for the war when it was politically convenient.

It was Edwards words and Edwards' vote exactly. So how am I distorting his record?

Feingold asserts what I assert and that he's trying to run on Feingold's record.

Barack made an eloquent case against the war in the exact same month, October 2002 mind you but he's a "corporate" candidate in your eyes.

So, let me ask, why won't Edwards disclose his earmark record? Why won't Edwards take a strong stance against Earmarking in his policy proposals. I can't find anywhere on the net or in his legislative record that addresses it.

And if you don't understand a lot of EARMARKING $$$ is private corporation welfare, then you really should read up on it. It's the payoff that corporations get for giving $$$ to the politicians. Barack attacks this head on and was the first Democratic Candidate to make his records transparent.

If you want to talk issues, actions, and substance, let's talk.

I appreciate Edwards rhetoric, he's preaching to the choir. But on really pivotal things of his time in the Senate, he made very wrong choices. Saying sorry now when its his political interests just doesn't cut it.

[jackson_dem]

17. One vote of a thousands means he's a hypocrite?

So Obama is a hypocrite by that measure? Or just you?

I posted the audacity of Feingold's carrying Obama's water. Read the fucking roll calls yourself and then get back to me.

Edwards made the right choices almost every time. The handful of times he was wrong it was on things that passed with 85%-99% support. You will see names like Wellstone, Kennedy, Leahy, Kerry, and Boxer voting alongside him on many of them. Leahy on four of the five. Kerry on all five. Kennedy on three. Wellstone on the Patriot Act and No Child Left Behind.

It is quite clear from the threads in which Edwards' record has been posted that Obamites have no clue about his record. This begs the question: why do they continue to swiftboat it? Where did this "idea" originate from? Where did the consistency in their netroots assault on Edwards come from? I can only think of one place. Fuck him. If Edwards drops out Hillary is my second choice.

[Bread and Circus]

20. Yeah it was such a minor vote. Why should anyone care?

You know why I have such a problem with Edwards?

It's that he's running like Wellstone and Feingold on a Hillary Clinton record. That's why.

I can't name one time he was politically courageous when it actually mattered. It just seems like he goes with the flow.

However, he's running like he's the moral authority on liberal ideals when he's really not. If he was a little more realistic about who and what he is, then I'd not have a problem with him.

I truly and honestly started this whole process as an Edward's supporter (albeit weakly) and I never imagined a guy with a name like Obama could get out of the gates so I had Obama on ignore. I thought this was going to be a race between Clinton and Edwards and for me Edwards was better than Clinton because she embraces neocon and corporate agendas more than him. However, it was my wife who convinced me to give Obama a try. I listened to a few of his amazing speeches, read his record, read his life story, read his policy positions and I got it.

I forget if you support Edwards or Clinton but I know you post a lot to discredit Obama. I think there's much more unfair and misleading statements made about Obama on this board than about Edwards and Clinton combined. I also think the Clinton camp has been very unfair to Obama, and this is well supported by a lot of interested Democrats (not the DU idiots either). I'm talking about smart people who really are on the inside. I will also say that Edwards, despite having a degree of doing one thing and saying another, has ran a fair good-hearted campaign in that he hasn't seemed to stoop excessively low.

I would be happy to vote for Edwards come November.

I'd love to vote for Barack.

If Hillary could actually get her health care stuff passed, I could swallow that bitter pill too if I had to vote for her.

I want to have a real discussion and I'm just sharing my feelings with you on an honest of a level as I can. I'm not trying to spin you or anyone else that reads this post.

Maybe my feelings are misplaced but I've really, really tried to read up on these folks and even though Obama has many things I think are mistakes and examples of bad judgement (No one is perfect), his rhetoric and actions are consistent through the years and do not seem to change with the prevailing winds.

Anyways, fwiw, peace.

[jackson_dem]

25. Wellstone voted for the Patriot Act and No Child Left Behind

There are no perfect senators. Only Obamites pretend St. Obama is and they manage to do that by ignoring anything that happened during his three years in Washington.

Kerry committed the five major sins Obamites have flyspecked from 2001-2004. They love him. It isn't about their records but getting mileage out of attacking it.

I post things against Obama to counter the myths Obama's campaign and Obamites have promoted. He has gotten a pass on his record. His record is good but not perfect as Obamites make it out to be.

They have all flip flopped a lot. The reason Obama seems to be better on that front is because he has been in the spotlight for only three years while Edwards has since 1998 and Hillary, as a politician, since 2000. Their changes are more visible because there have been more significant bills that have come along during their careers. The irony is if Obama loses and doesn't become VP he will run again someday. By then he will have a long record. The very game he has played with Edwards and Hillary will be used against him then.

Thanks for sharing your story. I support Edwards by the way.

[Bread and Circus]

31. ok, so let's just go on rhetoric and campaign promises.

You make a lot of good points on records. I think we both know where each other stands and you are right that Obama has had less chance to screw himself over (but please don't forget he did some amazing things in Illinois and made mistakes too). But let's totally put that aside.

Seeing as how we are really talking, let's talk about these things if you are up for it:

1.) The charge of Edwards supporters is that Obama is a "corporate" candidate and this kind of implies that once he's voted in he would just support the status quo. This is contrast to the belief that Edwards would buck the status quo and really change it. Obama has a record and campaign policy statements that definitely go to the heart of ethics, transparency, and the heart of political power being controlled by corporate interests.

Do you really feel that Obama is a "corporate" candidate and would just support the status quo and if so why?

2.) To me when I read all three of the policy pages of the threed different candidates, they all seem "about the same". Sure, there are some real differences but for all intents and purposes, the same bulleted issues are addressed and the approaches are similar. The only thing I am really expert in is health care policy because I am a physician and I have special schooling and experience in that area. When I read all 3 policy papers, they all will have similar approaches and similar practical effects when the rubber meets the road.

Do you feel there's any credibility to this feeling and if not can you give me examples of where the policy statements are like night and day?

3.) Let's face it, no matter who gets elected they are not going to be able to meet most of their campaign promises and proposals. That's just reality. However, it seems to me that the person most likely to effect change will be the one who is able to build a "working majority" with the Senate and the House. I think Obama is the best person for this and I think Clinton is the least likely to be able to build a working majority. Edwards imo is somewhere in between. Obama has adopted the rhetoric that matches this belief. Edwards approach in his tone seems different and echoes the real struggle between the classes ( which is real ) but I'm not sure it's the best way to convince people to play along and persuade them to his side. Edward's approach is definitely more of the Democratic red meat we like to knaw on and maybe people are just fed up enough across the board to side with him. I can't say I know for sure how it would play out but I like the idea of bring everyone together rather than dividing it up. Presidents are elected representative of the entire country, and need to act like that. Bush never learned that and he will go down in the flames and ashes of history as one of the worst Presidents in history.

I know this is a nuanced issue about which tact to take in terms of governing but I like Obama's better. It's reminiscent of Lincoln's words that a house divided against itself cannot stand. So what do you think?

[New Dawn]

9. Kucinich is the anti-Bush

However, Edwards is the best of the last three candidates left in the race.

[eridani]

10. My sediments exactly n/t

[Bread and Circus]

34. I'd buy that Kucinich is the anti-Bush

[midnight]

11. I don't feel that anyone else's message for a better life

for the working class makes sense to those who are working so hard, and are so tired, they can't think anymore. Those are the people that Edwards will lift up. They are lost in despair.