John Edwards voted NO on medicare bill

[JI7]

correction to those who think he abstained. the reason kerry abstained was because he was not there to vote. i believe the same for lieberman. kerry's focus is on campaigning though he comes to the senate if his vote could change the outcome as was possible with the filibuster and poa votes. though some might say he should be there for symbolic reasons it doesn't really matter. just the fact that so many thing edwards abstained from voting shows nobody really pays attention to what goes on in the senate and house. and why getting out the message on the bill is important.

[AP]

1. It's not like Bush needs to be reminded that Kerry isn't going to agree

with him on this issue.

Bush is better off if Kerry sticks around to make a vote that doesn't make a difference and foregos campaigning to do that.

[JI7]

2. look at how fast subject went down

it just proves what you say. even on here. why not more posts on this thread which says edwards voted no. why aren't people coming on to post they will now support edwards because of it ? the only complaints come from those who would not support the two anyways. just the fact the ones complaining didn't know the facts about who voted/didn't vote can explain why kerry went to campaign. as if these people would have voted for him anyways.

this is also why republicans in the house were able to keep voting on the bill open for over 3 hours while most of the country was asleep.

[AP]

3. Also notice the number of people in that thread

who still think Edwards abstained, even though there are like 5 or 6 subject lines right in the post saying he didn't.

And the post entirely begs the question: if you're a Democrat do you think it's more important to have your candidate sitting around wasting time, making futile points, or if they're out doing what's necessary to beat Bush.

There is no quesiton where Kerry stands on this issue. To demand that he creats some hollow symbol with his vote and ignore what he says to crowds of Americans on this subject is just silly.

Democrats should divide on the issues that matter, and not on silly symbols.

[Hep]

9. The begged answer

And the post entirely begs the question: if you're a Democrat do you think it's more important to have your candidate sitting around wasting time, making futile points, or if they're out doing what's necessary to beat Bush.

Out doing what's necessary to beat bush? I think it's important to DO YOUR JOB, not give up and run when it appears pointless.

[mmonk]

4. Good

Thanks for clearing the vote up. People only react to the information on the posts. When any wrong info is cleared up, people adjust. There is no plot against your candidates.

[AP]

5. Look at the times for those posts thinking that Edwards abstained.

Almost all of them are after the error was pointed out, and some of them are even after the original poster acknowledged he made a mistake.

And even though he surely read the suggestion to change the subject line, and has time to do it, he isn't. So clearly the original poster recognizes the rhetorical advantage to having misinformation in the subject line of his post.

[mmonk]

6. Maybe the poster

but not necessarily the others (like me). Anyway, keep at it.

[Hep]

7. Why not?

Because there's nothing to say. Would you rather I come up with some baseless insult of the man or some far off argument that doesn't apply? I knew he voted no, and I appreciate that he too the time to vote no. He was hired to vote. Big Deal.

[robbedvoter]

8. Bump. I made the mistake - not "so many here" - just me

I gladly correct the record. The symbolism is powerful. What will Kerry tell the voters? Hey, I tried, but watcha gonna do?" Inspiring. :eyes:
he had the chance of making news from the center of the most important event of the day - but chose to press the flesh instead? Lame.

[AP]

14. why didn't you change the subject line?

[robbedvoter]

10. Rol call changed: Lieberman didn't vote either! I feel better!

The sky is up, ground is down again. Although, with the latest change I wonder if my earlier mistake wasn't ther typo (I read it at 5AM) Anyway, I apologize again for the Edwards misstatement - I didn't think of editting the title :spank:

[ChangeMan]

11. Not Voting Keeps TheM From Being Slammed

Not voting on HR1 may well have been a tactical move by both Kerry and Lieberman.

If they voted against the bill then they could possibly be charged with being against prescription coverage for those on Social Security and Medicare.

If they voted for the bill then they could have been charged with supporting Chimpy's plan. Just like the other 11 Dem sellouts who voted yes.

What bothers me is this: The reason given for Kerry and Liebermans absence from the recent Dem debate was that they may be called for a vote on HR1 at any time.

Yet when it was time to vote, they didn't.

It makes me wonder what either would do as President if the going got rough and the tide was turning against them.

[JI7]

12. you misunderstand

they returned and cancelled the debate (given sattelite later) because there was a chance to stop the bill through filibuster and point of order votes. this would have prevented a vote on the actual bill which already had enough votes to pass. once those things failed it wouldn't have made any difference in whether the bill would pass. they are both on record as opposing the bill which is why they came back to try to stop it.

[frank frankly]

13. thanks for the info

that clears it up for me...cool.

I was very very happy with their decision to oppose the bill!