Senator Edwards had "over" 99.5% voting record in the first 4 years!!!

[Sick_of_Rethuggery]

Here is the full account (courtesy my husband who heard it on the Howard Stern show this morning on the way to work):

============
John "Gone" Edwards' voting record in the senate: almost 100% (over 99.5%) in the first 4 years, 88.5% in the last 2 years! Cheney's bloopers are-a-mountin'.
============

I will try to dig up more information on this later today -- please keep this kicked until then for more 'sightings' and possible help getting a reliable source and link...

I saw Senator Edwards both on the Regis and The View shows this morning. He punted this question (Cheney's version of it, rather) so badly that I am wondering why all those consultants in the campaign are being paid so heavily -- they couldnt remind this to the candidate before he went on the shows? His responses to this line of questioning on the shows were embarassing to say the least, considering he has such a stellar record in point of fact.

Two tacks that Senator Edwards should have taken: pointed out the actual record is as described above and also pointed out that Cheney came to the Senate only to be with the Republicans, not to preside over the Senate as he sneeringly implied. This is an unprecedented narrowing of the Vice-Presidential orbit and we should be hammering this (having been handed the opportunity opportunistically!) point: they talk about "uniting" but what they do is truly despicable...

[Cha]

1. I saw those shows too and wonder why

Edwards didn't defend himself more other than to say lech was not being truthful.

I would like to know what Edwards has done for North Carolina..a friend told me a repug told her that he hadn't done anything for them..course I don't believe that..

[seabeyond]

2. not perfect numbers, i remember

92.8? first year
99.? second year
92.2? third year

total average 84.8

also edwards sat in cheneys chair twice. cheney sat in his chair twice

[WilliamPitt]

4. How does 92, 99 and 92 average 84?

[0rganism]

6. probably meant 94

92.8 + 92.2 + 99 = 284
284/3 = 94.7

[seabeyond]

7. it doesnt obviously

i didnt include the numbers from when he started to campaign. i was talking about prior to the campaign

also, when he was campaigning, on the floor more than the other three running for pres, and never missed a vote that was close

[aden_nak]

3. Edwards had a choice to make at that point in the debate.

He could defend his voting record by quoting more numbers back at Cheney. "Well, no, that's actually just in the last year, previously my voting attendance was 84.8%. . . " and then the crowd would fall asleep.

Or, he could use that as a springboard to counter-attack Cheney. That's what Edwards did most of the night. It's actually the strategy that Bill Clinton used (and spelled out on The Daily Show a little while ago). Don't attack. But when the other side attacks first, make sure you always use it as a way to launch a more devestating counter-attack.

It also made it easier to segway into Cheney's voting record, which was an "in" Edwards desperately wanted. But he also wanted Cheney to be the one to bring up Edwards' voting record (so he could blast Cheney for his). By defending himself there, he might have stalled out the topic. A few people remember the actual numbers. But I guarantee you, everyone who watched knows that Cheney voted against Martin Luther King Day and freeing Nelson Mandella.

[cheshire]

5. Yes, you must pick your battles. And not get sidetracked by the enemy.

[seabeyond]

8. that is why i saw he didnt go to his record, he wanted

to go to cheneys votes. he only had 30 sec. and people could find out about his record, not something to argue about at the time. there was so much

[elperromagico]

9. And Meals on Wheels. And Head Start.

He's got "compassionate conservative" written all over him. Of course, it's written in blood, but that's not the point.

[GlenIL]

10. that might help him though

after all he is getting the bigot vote.

[Sick_of_Rethuggery]

11. I agree about not rebutting it at the debate itself...

but what about the media rounds today? Esp. when asked! A simple truthful answer saying "I have an over-90% voting record" would have swatted away the issue.

I do agree with your point in general though, that we cannot keep playing on their turf and they do throw up a lot of stupid stuff that could exhaust any decent soul refuting; however, some of the more serious charges (esp when untrue) need to be firmly responded to.

Not doing this for the flip-flop and swiftboaSt lies is what is holding back the ticket from being 10 15 points ahead now. Contrary to what the Bushistas keep saying, Kerry invariably improves his standing among the public when he appears in person -- the reluctance to fully 'trust their own lying eyes' is in part due to the fact that people are not able to square what they can plainly see in him and what has now become a pervasive narrative about him.

I now have a niggling feeling that the media will probably do a better job of pointing out the truth about the Rethugs if the Dems who showed up on their radars had done their homeworks and pointed out simple truths, simply and directly.

I grant you this can be at once exhausting and generate a need for a refreshing shower. However, our reluctance to set the record straight early on may have made matters worse and we now have to clean up a bigger mess...

[aden_nak]

12. Oh, I agree, it NEEDS to be done.

But that just wasn't the time or the place to do it. Arguing over a number during a debate is pointless, because there is no time to review the facts and see what formula is being used to tabulate that number (hence $120 billion and $200 billion are both accurate costs of the Iraqi War, depending on how you factor things in).

Edwards DOES need to clear his voting attendance up, since the media obviously doesn't feel bothered to go look up the basic facts and report them. And he can do what Clinton has always sugested. Turn an attack into a counter-attack.

"Now I'll admit, I've spent less time in the Senate this past year than I have in years prior. But that's the point. In my five prior years, my voting attendance was up in the 90's. In fact, for two years, I was on the floor for every vote held. But Vice President Cheney didn't count those years, because they didn't support his own agenda.

"That's what this administration does, and has been doing from day one. They come to a decision based on their own ideology, they choose an attack, and THEN they go look for facts that back them up. And if those facts need to be presented in a deceptive manner. . . so be it.

"That's no way to run a war, and it's certainly no way to run the nation. It is irresponsibility in its most brazen form, to decide that you don't need all FACTS to make a DECISION about sending our troops into combat."

[iamjoy]

13. When You Find The Source

Please do share!