Edwards can't can't snatch Congress' health care: Gets rare "Pants on Fire" ruling

[MethuenProgressive]

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/190/
From Politifact's Truth-o-Meter

A television ad shows John Edwards giving a campaign speech and vowing to fight for universal health care coverage.
"When I'm president I'm going to say to members of Congress and members of my administration, including my cabinet: I'm glad that you have health care coverage and your family has health care coverage," Edwards says. "But if you don't pass universal health care by July of 2009 – in six months – I'm going to use my power as president to take your health care away from you."

Cue the wild applause.

The problem with this statement is that the president can't just "take away" health care from Congress.
“Health care for Congress and the administration is passed by statute. The president can’t repeal a law on his own,” said Don Ritchie, associate historian of the Senate Historical Office.
“Congress has the power of the purse and passes legislation. It’s the president who’s dependent on Congress to get legislation passed," he said.

"we find Edwards' lordly pronouncement in his TV ad to border on the absurd. As a former member of the U.S. senate, he should know better. For that reason, we give him the rare Pants on Fire ruling."

[soothsayer]

1. You can't stop them from giving themselves raises or huge pensions or

for saying laws don't apply to them, either

[Adelante]

2. It's a meaningless gimmick nt

[Union Thug]

3. He addressed that in an interview recently...said he would use

the fact that congress/senate have healthcare to drive a wedge between them and the american people.

[MethuenProgressive]

4. Politifact's Truth-o-Meter also calls out Obama's v Edwards & Rudy v Clinton,

interesting site, well worth a brouse, imo.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

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

[MethuenProgressive]

9. You're calling me a liar for posting Politifact's ruling on Edwards' promise?

That's interesting.

[Beaverhausen]

14. who the hell is politifact?

and why do I care what they think?

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

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

[Beaverhausen]

21. When did I call you a liar?

[durrrty libby]

17. He's just "concerned" for your health

:eyes:

[MethuenProgressive]

20. Yeah, but if I ever called an Obama or Edwards supporter a liar, I'd be kicked off DU.

That's not a "health"y discussion board.

[Andy823]

18. I haven't been here long

But it looks like Edwards gets the majority of "bashing". Guess he scares someone, and for good reason. He can win this, and they know it, he can make the changes this country needs, and they know that also. Seems like it just shows which candidate we need to vote for, the one that gets the others scared! :scared:

I too would like to see some of the bashers do some positive posts on "their" candidate of choice. Show why they support them instead of just coming in and bashing the "other" candidates.

[MethuenProgressive]

19. Andy, they checked the facts on an Edwards TV spot. That's "bashing" Edwards?

Should we not be concerned about the honesty of our candidate's sales pitch?

[Beaverhausen]

24. Here is part of the transcript from last sunday's FACE THE NATION

where Edwards explained what/how he would do this.

SCHIEFFER: Let me ask you this, senator, about one of your recent ads. One of your ads says
that if you are president and Congress doesn't pass universal health care by July 2009, you are
going to use your power as president to take Congress' health care plan away from them. How do
you go about doing that?

Fmr. Sen. EDWARDS: Well, can I just add one thing?

SCHIEFFER: Sure.

Fmr. Sen. EDWARDS: There is another piece to that. I also say that I will take away--do--use my
power, the power that I have available to take away the health care for members of my
administration. And the basic idea is I don't think politicians in Washington should be protecting
their health care when we have 47 million people in this country who don't have health care
coverage.

But to answer your question, the most powerful tool that the president has is the bully pulpit. And
that means making the case to America, submitting legislation to support exactly what I just said,
and then making the case to America in any place--any congressional district or any state where a
senator is opposing it--saying `your senator, your congressman is defending their health care at
the same time that they're not providing health care for you.'
SCHIEFFER: So...

4
Fmr. Sen. EDWARDS: And I think that's the most powerful tool. But I would add to that, there
are other tools. I mean, the president of the United States has veto power over budgets. So there
are other tools available. But the most important thing is, Bob, wit--somebody's got to shake that
place up.

SCHIEFFER: Mm-hmm.

SEN. GRAHAM: I mean, people have gotten complacent. The politicians take care of
themselves, the lobbyists are everywhere, and I think we axe to--actually need to shake the place
up. And that's what I'm talking about doing.

SCHIEFFER: But what you're talking about here, you would actually propose legislation to force
Congress to give up its own health care and force them to vote on that? Is that--is that what
you're saying, if they don't come around to providing health care for the rest of the country?

Fmr. Sen. EDWARDS: That's exactly right. The whole point of this is not to take Congress'
health care away. The point of this is to get health care for America. And I actually believe every
Democratic member of Congress in the House and the Senate would vote for that, so it wouldn't
be an issue for them. And I suspect a lot of Republicans would, too, because they don't want to
have to go home and defend, in their congressional district, having supported their own health
care and not having supported health care for their constituents.


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/15/ftn/main3510003.shtml
SCHIEFFER: All right. Well, senator, let's take a break here.

edit- not sure why is says "Senator Graham" up there...this was from a "rush transcript". Edwards was the only one there.

[MethuenProgressive]

25. "Meet The Press" called him on it too? Good for them!

SCHIEFFER: How do you go about doing that?

Fmr. Sen. EDWARDS: Well, can I just add one thing?

----------------------
Why can't he ever just give a direct answer instead of leaping right into lawyer mode?

[Beaverhausen]

26. He is adding that he would take the healthcare away from his administration, not just congress

OK???

and please answer my post responding to you accusimg me of calling you a liar.

[Beaverhausen]

28. and by the way, nice reading comprehension

the show is called "Face the Nation."

[MethuenProgressive]

32. So "Face the Nation" called him on his BS Snakeoil sales pitch too? Good for them!

It's about time the MSM stopped giving Edwards a free pass.

[gmudem]

43. LMAO when have they ever done that

Man still grinding that axe against Edwards huh? If you read the transcript Edwards explains clearly how it would be done. Sorry that his actions don't fit your narrative.

[Lucinda]

23. No it's usually Hillary.

Welcome to DU.

[MethuenProgressive]

35. Ain't that the truth!

:dem:

[durrrty libby]

6. Edwards always acts as though he is speaking in front of a jury

Lots of words. Lots of drama. Lots of BS

It's a real turn-off

[MethuenProgressive]

11. In front of 12 people he's a proven money-maker.

That's a provable truth.

[sendero]

7. Are you serious?

Damn near everything a candidate proposes during his campaign is a statement of policy - not a promise of performance.

For that matter, George Bush has gotten a lot of what he wanted done with little interference from things like "statutes".

The arguments some "journalists" make are laughable. And the number of people who buy them sad.

[MethuenProgressive]

15. "I'm going to use my power as President to take your health care away from you"

That's a serious promise of performance, sendero.
He's not saying "I'd like to" or "Wouldn't it be great if" he saying he will.
And that got him the "Pants on Fire" ruling from the Fact checkers.
(btw, that site hits 'em all, from Mitt to Hillary to Obama to Rudy)

[mrfixit]

8. Reason #1 NOT to support Edwards: HIS RECORD.

from Edwards' voting record:
http://votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=21107

02/02/2000 Bankruptcy Reform bill - Voted Y
11/19/2002 Homeland Security Act of 2002 - Voted Y
05/21/2004 Condemning Iraq Abuse of Prisoners resolution - DID NOT VOTE
10/11/2002 Use of Military Force Against Iraq - Voted Y
10/06/2004 National Intelligence Reform Act of 2004 - DID NOT VOTE
10/25/2001 USA Patriot Act of 2001 - Voted Y
09/14/2001 Military Force Authorization resolution - Voted Y
09/16/2003 FCC Media Ownership bill - DID NOT VOTE
09/19/2000 U.S.-China Relations Act of 2000 - Voted Y

If it talks like a Democrat, yet VOTES like a Republican, what is IT?

Support Dennis Kucinich!!! A REAL PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRAT.

[cali]

10. Can you fucking stop with the personal insults toward candidates?

In your short time here, you've managed to be a complete ass.

[Beaverhausen]

12. nice cherry picking of his votes

oh, and thanks for the right-wing talking points added at the end. nice touch. :eyes:

[MethuenProgressive]

13. fix that there last line, mr.

And I'll support your whole post

[mrfixit]

22. Done. Just for you, though.

I just don't trust Edwards. Due to his spotty record on the VOTES THAT COUNTED FOR ME, I thought he was a lousy choice for the 2004 nomination and a lousier choice for VP (as JFK found out) - what makes anyone believe he'd be any better this time around?

[MethuenProgressive]

27. I agree with this post too.

From the failure to back Kerry from his VP running mate spot, to the plastic surgery, to the poll-driven self re-invention, to on-and-off again accent, and now the new "extra angry" persona - all too calculated, too packaged, too fake by far.

[tesla78]

29. Thanks

Another candidate to strike off my list.

[Blackhatjack]

30. I guess you don't have a candidate you support... silly me, I thought you would reveal one.

Are you going to alert the mods because I asked you who you support?

[MethuenProgressive]

31. ? It's said Richardson 08! in my posts since Clark dropped out.

Sorry I missed your question - was it in one of the posts deleted by the mods?

[Blackhatjack]

38. Yeah it was in the post YOU had deleted while I was not here... as if you didn't know

I asked you if there was a candidate you supported? And then I suggested you start some threads where you described in positive terms who you supported for President, and that you quit making yourself so unhappy by constantly posting negative things about Edwards.

I also said you had posted inaccurate information about Edwards.

Does that refresh your memory?

[Blackhatjack]

42. If I had been here I would have posted 2 OF YOUR THREADS THAT WERE LOCKED FOR INACCURACY...LINK

I have more, but this is just two occasions when you have been less than 'accurate' in your posts at DU and had your threads Locked.
*********************************

wakemeupwhenitsover (1000+ posts) Sun Nov-18-07 06:21 PM
Response to Original message

20. Locking.


"Highly doubtful that Edwards would suggest that a repub would/could be better than a Dem. And if he is suggesting that then it has no place at democraticunderground.com

best,
wakemeupwhenitsover"


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3735314&mesg_id=3735378

"Posted by MethuenProgressive Sun Nov-18-07 09:50 AM
John Edwards says a Republican President might be better than "any Democrat".

*************
Then you could not let it rest. So you posted it again at 06:06 PM the same day
and predictably the Moderators locked your thread again.

Wakemeupwhenitsover Sun Nov-18-07 06:21 PM

"This was already locked once."

"Highly doubtful that Edwards would suggest that a repub would/could be better than a Dem. And if he is suggesting that then it has no place at democraticunderground.com

best,
wakemeupwhenitsover"

*********************

Ther truth is hard to deny when there is a record at DU others can link to, isn't it?

[MethuenProgressive]

44. Edwards: it is a "lie" that any Democrat will be a better leader than any Republican.

His voice rising, he said it is a "lie" that any Democrat will be a better leader than any Republican.

From the latest Newsweek.

[1932]

33. You all realize it helps Edwards if people think he's going to use whatever means necessary to help

people without health insurance.

[MethuenProgressive]

34. He's promising something he can't do. Hence the "Pants-on-Fire" ruling.

He might as well say he's going hold his breath and stomp his feet til they do it.
It only "helps" him with people who don't know much.

[1932]

39. You realize that this doesn't hurt him in the eyes of voters, don't you?

[liskddksil]

40. and he gets wild applause every time he says it

[liskddksil]

41. Voters know a real fighter when they see one

Edwards is the only one who dares to put elected officials in an uncomfortable spot, knowing that it is utter hypocrisy for members Congress of who are elected to serve the people can have great healthcare coverage while their constituents do not. If Congress wants to fight him in court, thats an argument Edwards would be willing to have, as it would make them look completely foolish.

[Hawkowl]

36. Signing statement

C'mon all he needs is a signing statement and the president can do whatever he wants. Cause he's the PRESIDENT! (I'm only being slightly facetious).

[MethuenProgressive]

37. That's only for laws making to his desk. I doubt this'll hit his desk...

Picturing him in the oval office at all - HA! Thanks for the funny visual!