John Edwards rhetoric is not endearing at all. Yet another quote from him

[rhombus]

"Why don't we go stand in the corner and stomp our feet like an 8-year-old?" - John Edwards chastising Democratic leaders for their non-binding resolutions on Iraq.
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_local_namesblog/2007/01/edwards_takes_o.html


The criticism is warranted. Fair enough. But why a low brow statement such as this one? JE should do better. He doesn't have to talk down to Democrats. Afterall, we're pretty much on the same side on what to do about Iraq.

[blm]

1. It would be helpful if he urged support for Kennedy's plan.

.

[IA_Seth]

14. exactly. right again blm! n/t

[NewInNewJ.]

2. I think he is just telling the truth.

Not a smack down of his party, and I for one agree with him.

[madfloridian]

3. No, the Democrats are not pretty much on the same side about Iraq

and leaving. There is huge division.

Nothing wrong with pointing it out.

[benny05]

13. Then why is Nancy Pelosi Not Blocking Funding for the Surge?

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=2805714&page=1

Edwards' campaign manager David Bonior sent out a message the other day entitled "Total Bull". Congress has the power to stop this madness.

Edwards is spot on this one.

[zulchzulu]

18. She's letting Chimpy dig his own grave...

He's already deployed the troops anyway. As much as I disagree with the so-called "surge", this disaster unfortunately has to play out for a few months. The military generals and those at the top have got to go to the White House and demand change or do what they have to do to defang Bush.

Pelosi made her point that she said in a recent interview: "Democrats will never cut off funding for our troops when they are in harm's way, but we will hold the president accountable. He has to answer for his war. He has dug a hole so deep he can't even see the light on this. It's a tragedy. It's a stark blunder."

It is utterly tragic and many will needlessly die. But Bush's "surge" needs to play out so that even more Republicans will entertain the idea of impeachment. That is the only real way to stop the war.

As for Edwards, if he was actually in a position where his record as Senator was counting, I'm sure he wouldn't be acting like he's a modern day Huey Long...that's my opinion...

[benny05]

20. Over at John Edwards.com

I composed a diary about why I think Speaker Pelosi is wrong.

http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2007/1/19/12120/9168

As Barbara Boxer said to Condi Rice last week, paraphrased, you don't have to pay a price, I don't have to pay a price. But the troops do.

[Telly Savalas]

45. That might not be the best metaphor to use

considering other people will literally be digging graves due to Bush's poor decision-making.

[Hippo_Tron]

52. Letting Bush dig his own grave is not worth human lives

If we can save one soldier's life, then I think that any political cost is worth it.

[Mass]

38. Two distinct issues here:

To my knowledge, Edwards has not proposed to cut the funds for the war, but for an escalation of the war . Though this is very laudable, it is NOT the same thing.

[benny05]

43. That's correct n/t

[rwinkler]

4. JE

From one parent to another I find the analogy quite fitting. We can certainly use valid criticism and have been sitting on our hands for far too long.

[calimary]

36. Welcome to DU! As a parent, myself, I'd like to see something with

more teeth to it than some sniveling "non-binding" resolution. bush will laugh at that and proceed on his merry way. We have to smack him upside the head and take away his money.

[beachmom]

42. I think it's a mistake to not understand that that non-binding resolution

has a purpose. It will make Republicans vote on whether they support the president's surge plan or not. It will show them divided. It's not the end of this. It's step 1. However, McConnell is threatening to filibuster which he may very well have the votes for. But I am for this non-binding resolution AND the Kennedy bill. However, the Kennedy bill will not pass -- there's not enough support in the Congress to cut the surge funding. And Edwards screaming about it will have about zero effect. Well, maybe it will affect a couple of the '08 contenders, but that is all. I know Kerry is already co-sponsoring the Kennedy bill so the '04 ticket is in agreement on this issue.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

5. I don't see anything wrong with it.

He's making a point, and doing so emphatically. If he thinks the Dem leaders are acting like 8-year-olds with their wimpy non-binding resolutions, why shouldn't he say so? I, for one, am tired of mealy-mouthed politicians who are so afraid of offending somebody that they just stand around and whine about something being "inappropriate." That, IMO, is bullshit. Edwards called it like he saw it, and good for him. Too damn bad if some triangulating, spineless Congressional puppydogs are offended.

[madfloridian]

6. Ah, shades of 03 and 04....we kill those whose rhetoric is not "endearing."

What is endearing rhetoic anyway?

[Wetzelbill]

9. nobody says cuddly, hopeful stuff all the time

To select one quote out of all the stuff he has said in his public life and say his rhetoric is not "endearing" is not the way to go about it.

But yeah, what is endearing rhetoric? That could be anything based on someone's personal preferences. You, I and the OP probably have different ideas of what is endearing.

Ahhh the '03 wars. Good times. :)

[DavidDvorkin]

7. It's colorful and effective

And I applaud him for saying it and for putting it that way.

That's exactly the kind of rhetoric we need. If he keeps speaking out on such matters, he'll increase his support from Democrats like me.

[rhombus]

10. yes its colorful

The susbtance of his criticism is fine. but he could have put it in less inflammatory tones against Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. The eight year old child analogy is unnecessary.

[Democrat 4 Ever]

11. Short of saying he has been emailing smutty messages to House pages there is not

much that would put me off of Edwards, or Hillary, or Biden, or Dennis, or any or the other supposedly Democratic candidates. They could blow bubbles out their butts and it would still be more profound and interesting than anything that comes out of a repug's mouth. I just don't see the point in eating our own at this stage of the process. There will be plenty of time to parse each and every statement our candidates make without doing KKKarl's job for him.

Knocking him for a lame comment is so pre-11/7.

[atreides1]

8. Not endearing but it's straight and to the point

I have to disagree with you, the Democrats don't appear to be using the same idea when it comes to getting out of Iraq. Some want a troop cap, some want redeployment, but it seems that the only thing that will happen is a symbolic gesture, nothing more then wasting ink and paper because someone does not want to make the hard decisions.

It appears to be another "Keep our Powder Dry" moment, and instead of listening to what the people have said that they want, the Dem's are going to give Bush Co and the Repukes more ammunition to use
against them in 2008.


It wasn't endearing, but it's a statement of fact, a non-binding resolution has no meaning and the
White House will use it as a club against the Democrats.

[IA_Seth]

12. Agreed.

I can't get excited about someone who didn't do anything even similar to what he now advocates when he actually had the chance to, instead he directed on the opposite course.

It's easy to complain when you are on the outside, yet you don't see the other outsider (Clark) doing anything like this.

Way to set the tone bub.

[BluegrassDem]

15. Edwards has a lot of nerve

After he co-sponsored this fucking war and helped us get in this mess to begin with. Then he weaseled out of Congress and has the gall to talk about our party in Congress like that. What a loser.

[venable]

19. good grief, 'weaseled out of congress'

you really need to find something else to hang your hatred of John Edwards on.

Stick with your obsession with his ill-advised 4 or 5 year old vote. Even if it doesn't account for his voice now (which you ought to consider) and the compelling personal beliefs which made him cast that vote, at least it makes sense, historically.

"What a loser" is also clearly off the mark.

[last_texas_dem]

23. How is choosing not to run for another term

"weasel<ing> out of Congress"? Especially considering he ended up being chosen as Kerry's running mate? Would it have been better for him to have taken the cynical Joe Lieberman-ish route and run for re-election to the Senate while also running for Vice President? What a bullshit charge.

[janx]

32. But Clark is not (yet) running for president,

yes?

[AndyA]

16. I think Edwards is right.

Symbolically, by fooling with a non-binding resolution (what the hell is that anyway, and why does it even exist?) the Dems are essentially doing nothing to stop Bush.

I heard a good conversation on NPR this morning that talked about this, and the point made by one of the speakers was that this was just the first step, a warning step, perhaps, to go on record as stating Congress is not behind the escalation of war in Iraq. (I do not consider it a "surge" or "realignment" at all - it is an ESCALATION.)

The concensus was that this step would lead to more powerful acts later. I do think Nancy Pelosi is a very smart lady, and she knows that the GOP is setting up the Dems for failure. They want to make the mess in Iraq ours, when the Republicans actually CREATED IT AND OWN IT.

Basically, on NPR the speaker said this was a trap for the Dems, but that Pelosi and Reid were smart, and they knew what they were doing, and expected bull like this. I hope they're right.

[madfloridian]

17. This "endearing" "correct" stuff is just too much.

I say let him speak his mind.

I remember someone else in 03 and 04 who never could say anything just properly...but it started a movement.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/957

[goodhue]

21. low brow?

I appreciate the sentiment and have no problem with metaphor. I think it aptly captures the perception of dems whining about obvious problem yet failing to take steps to defund the war.

[FrenchieCat]

22. I will give Pelosi et al the benefit of the doubt

and considering that this is January 20th, I will be patient on what their plan is to do. Democrats have been dogged by the Republicans and the press too many times when it wasn't warranted. There is no need to humiliate others in our own party by putting it this way....unless one has already called Bush an idiot and interrupted Cheney during a debate and told him off by calling him a liar!

Maybe John Edwards wants to show us how "combative" he's willing to be, but this ain't the way to do it, IMO.

[Fovea]

24. Reminds me of Harry Truman

"I just tell the truth, and they think it's hell."

[benny05]

26. Good analogy!

I'll have to remember that one..:toast:

[Catchawave]

25. JRE speaks for me !

This non-binding resolution v. Dems supporting funding escalation! Hopefully now you'll realize why he left the Senate. Thank you John Edwards for this!

rhombus, did you mean "criticism is warranted" by Edwards or the Blogger?

Heck, Barbara Boxer, Russ Feingold and Helen Thomas get DU Flowers for "telling it like it is, why not Johnny Reid?

[citizen snips]

27. Edwards is right we need to do more

like cutting the funding for the war.

[mopinko]

28. that's a kicking donkey on your avatar. if you don't like kicking

donkeys, why do you have it?

[badgerpup]

29. I gotta agree with him...

Called my senator today...he doesn't have a dog in the "Elect ME for President!" fight.
Asked if he could suggest they ALL GET TOGETHER behind ONE bill...the one that has the most teeth in it...and put ALL their names on it. That will eliminate the splintering and give them a majority. Bush is just laughing at us now.
They're all in the same boat, and they all want to go to the same place...but they're also all paddling in different directions. :banghead:

We voted in November because we were severely pissed off...but we still got lots of pissed-off left if they can't put ME ME ME! for President! their own personal aspirations aside for the moment and do their damn jobs...the ones they were elected to do.

IT'S THE WAR, STUPID.
:nuke:

[Schema Thing]

30. John Edwards jumped the shark

with his support of and sponsorship of the IWR and Patriot act, and sticking with that support till even many republicans were waterlogged rodents. He just doesn't <i>really</I> know what's good for America or the world. Sure, he knows poverty is bad, but even GW Bush knows that, he just doesn't care. I'm glad JE cares, but caring does not a President make.

[huskerlaw]

31. He's not talking down to them

He's saying that if they don't want to lead, they might as well go stand in a corner and whine.

He's absolutely correct. Lead, follow, or get the fuck out of the way.

[Bucky]

33. No candidacy ever went broke serving up red meat to the base.

People are angry. They want more than a nonbinding resolution. The power of the purse string is a pretty blunt instrument, but right now it's the only alternative to nonbinding resolutions. When you're out of office, it's always easier to throw stink bombs at the subtlety and compromise involved in actual legislating.

[mtnsnake]

34. Here he goes again being borderline disloyal

first to John Kerry last week on Leno and now to the Democratic Party in general. Who the hell does he think he is?

if complaining is all the Democratic leaders want to do, Edwards asked: "Why don't we go stand in the corner and stomp our feet like an 8-year-old?"

Where the hell were you in 2004, Mr Edwards? When we could've used some rhetoric like that from you during the campaign, you were hardly noticeable.

[citizen snips]

37. There is a difference between Criticism and Disloyalty.

[last_texas_dem]

39. Agreed

I don't understand at all the idea that Edwards is being "disloyal" for criticizing actions taken (or not taken) by his fellow party members in the body he used to be a member of. Is there some sort of precedent that says it's bad form for former members of Congress to criticize the body once they're out of it? I've heard this regarding ex-Presidents (and don't agree with it) but I think it's definitely a stretch to apply it to Congress. Some Edwards-bashers won't be happy either way: some complain that he lacks clout since he is no longer in Congress while others complain that he dares to offer his views on Congressional policy while not being a member of the body.

[GreenArrow]

41. I don't have a problem with his rhetoric,

but his shameless pandering...

He'd better hope Bush's "surge" doesn't pan out.

[jsamuel]

46. it won't

[dk2]

35. I don't see it like talking down, but then again some who want to

jump the bipartisan bandwagon may need some down talkin, and then again those riding the fence and can't get up the courage to vote against escalation may need more than down talkin, then I think he did the nice thing rather then calling them unseemly names.

I like Edwards' approach and how he handles the issues.

There is and ACTBlue page if anyone feels the same:
http://www.actblue.com/page/tnforedwards

[IndianaGreen]

40. Like DavidD posted, Edwards' language is "colorful and effective"

We have had 6 years of "endearing" Democratic inertia and appeasement, and it is time we keep the Congress' feet to the fire to keep our Democrats from falling sleep again.

Edwards is saying what needs to be said. He is doing fine. If those genteel folks in the Beltway don't like it, then tough shit!

[JI7]

44. Jim Webb is going to give the response to the SOTU next week

[Skwmom]

47. This from one of the major Democratic cheerleaders for

the Iraq War. Give me a break. I'm sure if polls supported the surge he'd be the biggest cheerleader in the crowd.

[sandnsea]

48. Edwards needs to learn from Howard Dean

There aren't enough voters in the Democratic Party who like this kind of talk. He can't move from being to the right of Hillary, to being to the left of Kucinich, and then swing back to win a Dem majority. It won't work. This is the same crap Howard Dean did that cost him the primary. I figured the Edwards were smarter than this, guess not. If he doesn't get a clue soon, he's going to be out when people realize he's running as a far left Democrat.

[lligrd]

49. Give Us Truth And Conviction To It

That was Dean's secret. Somehow, they turned that into "far left". Amazing!!

[sendero]

50. I am totally tossed about Edwards...

... not about this comment, Democratic politicians in general need to understand that Republicans took off the rhetorical gloves long ago and IT WORKS. People like to hear plain talk without the candy coating. Talking like a Diplomat should be left to the diplomats.

That said, there is something not quite right about Edwards IMHO. He was gung ho gung freaking ho about this war until awfully recently. I understand people can change their minds, but sometimes I'm not so sure their heart really changed with it.

[pat_k]

51. Impotent gesture merits derision. Our leaders are dericlect in their duty to defend the Constitution

. . .If we want to break their bonds of denial and rationalization for inaction, we cannot pull punches.

Edwards did not go far enough. He did not utter the word "Impeachment." It is the elephant in the closet that everyone, including him, are tip toeing around.

We take oaths in advance of hard action for a reason. So that when the time comes, we just do it.

Bush and Cheney have declared war on the Constitution. Members of Congress are sworn to defend it. Impeachment is the weapon we gave them to defend against such attacks.

If our so-called "leaders" in Congress continue to betray their oath, we need take up the fight to replace every single one of them with people who understand what it means to take an oath.

[Strawman]

53. Yes, that's devastating...cinches my vote against him

:eyes:

[McCamy Taylor]

54. I agree with Edwards! Nonbinding resolution is a waste of time.