Edwards digs himself in even deeper

[creeksneakers2]

Edwards' bogus vows to take away health care from members of Congress get even deeper.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jsSZnttcy_ZKNJfDowQ_ti4lHJBQD8T0FTK80

Edwards, who's locked in a tight race in Iowa with Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama, also criticized Clinton over her response to an Edwards' television ad concerning health care.

In the ad, the former North Carolina senator promises to use his power as president to take away health care benefits from members of Congress unless they pass universal health care by July 2009.

The Clinton campaign branded the threat as "unconstitutional gimmickry" and said the president doesn't have the power to take health care away from Congress unilaterally.

Actually, Edwards can't take away health care from members of Congress. The 27th Amendment prohibits varying the compensation of members of Congress until after an intervening election. Even if it wasn't for the 27th Amendment, Edwards would need to get Congress to vote out their own health care. There's no way in hell they'd do that.

Clinton called Edwards on the farce and Edwards was asked about it by the press. Edwards tried to wiggle out by saying he'd use the power of the bully pulpit. That's nothing like the sensational threat Edwards made in his ad. Edwards isn't actually going to take anything away from Congress, but he'll complain about Congress. That'll get 'em.

Now Edwards has a hysterical new approach to wiggling his way out of the fraud he's been caught at. Edwards said about Hillary:

"To me, this is exactly the kind of response you'd expect from a Washington insider," Edwards said. "(It's) circling the wagons, looking out for politicians inside of Washington instead of shaking up the place and doing what's necessary to get universal health care passed. This is another example of the clear choices our country has in this election."

So according to Edwards, Hillary is preventing him from doing what he said he could do but never could actually do. It makes no sense, except to Edwards, who is desperate enough to say anything to wiggle out of his self imposed dilemma.

[Jim Sagle]

1. Yawn.

[Hieronymus]

36. Ain't that the truth? Hillary supporters hate seeing Edwards criticize

her. They call it attacks, for simply telling the truth, then they attack Edwards.

[MethuenProgressive]

77. Edwards is "is desperate enough to say anything to wiggle out of his self imposed dilemma."

No matter what mess he falls into, he blames Clinton and begs for donations.
That's truly yawn inducing!

[Jim Sagle]

80. The only dilemma here is the one the OP pulled out of his ass.

Now he and his supporters - including you - have a second dilemma - how to turn Edwards' policy and PR masterstroke into a blunder. No one's buying it.

Someone wake me when all this chickenshit bullshit is over. :boring:

[hfojvt]

88. it's bad though

why doesn't he just not commit to anything specific until we have fiscal responsibility and a bipartisan commision or just agree with what everyone else says? That's what he would do if he was prepared to lead, dontcha know.

[blm]

2. Maybe Edwards would use an executive order to accomplish a GOAL.

You know - instead of constant capitulating to the right on every battle as some residents of the oval office preferred to do.

[Cameron27]

8. But the goal would be unconstitutional,

well the temporary goal of taking health benefits away from members of Congress.

[blm]

12. Then they get challenged on their constitutionality in the court. If the RW

presidents do it on everything they can to effect this country for worse, why shouldn't Dem presidents do it to effect the debate for the better?

Wouldn't it have been nice to see Clinton use the bully pulpit and put out an executive order that ALL votes be counted with full transparency? Then let the GOPs challege from the low road.

[Chulanowa]

44. Well, look at it this way

Our fine, fine collection of Feinsteins and Liebermans have had no problem with unconstitutional endeavors made by a president up to this point. I figure if they're going to let the constitution be raped and get shit on, the unconstitutionality could at least save us a buck and make these dumb knuckleheads pay out of pocket.

[creeksneakers2]

56. Executive orders don't trump laws or Congress

They are only work orders for members of the executive branch.

[blm]

58. They do when Bushboy uses them.

.

[creeksneakers2]

62. No they don't.

What gave you that idea? His signing statements? They mean zip if they ever go to court.

[ldf]

64. and who the fuck is going to take asswipe to court???

NO ONE!

certainly not our fearless democratic party leaders.

therefore, it works.

DUH!

but you could bet your LIFE on the repubs IMMEDIATELY jumping into court.

we deserve what we get.
:grr:

[creeksneakers2]

65. If John Edwards tries to enforce an executive order that takes

away health care from Congress it will go to court.

[Beaverhausen]

66. You don't think there is enough support for healthcare reform in congress?

especially once we get a bigger majority, which we will have next term. Don't discount the fact that there are many in congress who know we need reform, and will vote for it.

[creeksneakers2]

68. Health care is very popular, is an issue 20% rank #1

and the corporations and big money are secretly wishing for the government to take over because the insurance and health care industries are eating everybody else alive. I expect Congress to pass health care, unless its a GOP Congress.

I don't believe Edwards can force Congress by taking away their health care though.

[CTLawGuy]

81. Yout can't use an executive order to deny health care to Congress

the president doesn't control Congress' paycheck. Edwards' statement is a load of bull and pure desperation from a guy who has utterly transformed himself from conservative dem to flaming populist in one election cycle.

[blm]

85. Not my point - use the ACTION of it to achieve a GOAL - take a stand and

MAKE the debate over that stand actually HAPPEN.

[William769]

3. He's still pissed he got knocked on his ass in the last debate.

He's a big man when she's not around but standing beside he he cowers.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

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

[William769]

15. He not only got knocked on his ass, he had to have his hair redone from it!

:rofl:

[Jim Sagle]

23. Oooo....a HAIRCUT joke. How fucking lame.

[William769]

28. But very effective.

[Beaverhausen]

38. effective at making people ignore anything else you have to say

seriously, do you think you do your candidate any good? think again.

[Hieronymus]

41. Exactly, who could take them seriously?

[dionysus]

46. not really, tooly...

i guess you had an extra big bowl of toolios for breakfast today...

[Cameron27]

16. He got knocked on his ass by Dennis Kucininch

and that was a sweet moment. "Cute"

[Jim Sagle]

20. He didn't get knocked on his ass by Koochie.

Koochie couldn't knock a flea on its ass, if a flea had an ass.

He dismissed Koochie as a flea - a cute little flea.

[Cameron27]

21. Aww, that's some sour grapes you're choking on.

The crowd didn't think Dennis was a flea, and neither do the grass root progressives, even though John treated him like one.

[venable]

78. wow, let it go. it was a minor, unclear moment. Edwards has a tremendous respect for DK

by the way, it's pretty clear that the activist grass-root progressives that Dennis has lost this time around, he has lost to Edwards.


My guess is DK is annoyed at Edwards for that fact, even though they are very similar in many policy positions. DK has been on the positions longer, so he is annoyed that JE is getting so many of his supporters, just like he was annoyed at Dean in 04 for taking the anti-war vote away from him. He was brutal on Dean, much more than he was on other candidates.

It's understandable, but the pettiness, finally, is coming from Dennis, I believe.

but go ahead and dine out on Edwards saying 'cute' if you feel it's that amazing.

[mrfixit]

74. "Two words: Product Liability"

The audience LOVED it. Edwards asked (yet another) stupid question, and got an honest answer from Dennis. He couldn't recover properly and only had the "cute" comment to come back with. The audience had a good little laugh at JRE's expense, though...

[venable]

76. what does 'yet another' mean in this context?

tell us about all of Edwards stupid questions.

I, for one, wondered what being a trial lawyer had to do with it myself.

I love Dennis, but 'product liability was a bit of a stretch, which I doubt you will admit.

I think, also, that the audience was laughing as much with Edwards question as they were with Dennis' answer.

but why do some of you think this moment mattered so much? it really didn't.

[mrfixit]

79. Here's another one...

MR. EDWARDS: Is that a planted question?

--------------
You actually think the audience was laughing at Edwards' question? Read it again, then listen to the exchange on the video, and you will have to change your mind.

--------------
MR. EDWARDS: Well -- (chuckles) -- I'm not sure what being a trial lawyer has to do with it, but -- what my response is --

REP. KUCINICH: Product liability.

MR. EDWARDS: -- America -- America's trade -- (laughs) -- cute. Cute, Dennis. (Applause.)

(no one was applauding Edwards here. Read the transcript, the commentary and watch the video: http://www.dennis4president.com/go/newsroom/ )

---------------

I don't think that it was THAT important...I just appreciate how Kucinich handled a stupid question from Edwards, and Edwards inability to think on his feet comes off as sort of funny and somewhat ironic. Edwards has a name for being a polished and prepared candidate that Dennis Kucinich does not.

As well...I just like seeing DK kick some ass....He is abso-friggin-lutely MAGNIFICENT! America NEEDS this man!

As for Edwards other gaffes, read the transcript, watch the video. There are a couple of others.

[venable]

75. how much are you going to recycle this? didn't you gloat on this last week?

while it was hardly a highlight - for either candidate, I should mention - it's not quite so condemning as you seem to think.

[venable]

73. get a life, we all have one. it's fun and healthy nt

[Amanita]

4. "Washington insider"? Wait, wasn't he a senator until recently?

[dragonlady]

19. No, he's not a Washington insider

They won't have him because the plans he has put forward are the opposite of what they want for this country. He will make the health care system work for all the people, not just increase the profits of insurance and drug companies. He'll raise the taxes of the big shots who are now funding the campaigns of the "insiders" on both sides of the aisle. There are people holding office in Washington (our own Russ Feingold comes to mind) who aren't true insiders because they go outside the boundaries set by the powerful interests.

As far as taking away the congressional health benefit, John Edwards isn't stupid, and I'm sure he paid attention in constitutional law class. What he is doing here is basically daring the members of Congress to explain to the people of their districts why good health is more important for politicians than for other citizens. This is a bold step to challenge the powerful, and it's what we need. How many DUers have railed against Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and others for being spineless rather than standing up to the Bush administration? Here is John Edwards, offering to challenge the enablers of the broken health care system, and somehow that's not something we should encourage?

[bunnies]

5. I cant believe anybody cares about any of this.

Its such petty bullshit.

[Patchuli]

39. I can't believe the petty fights Dems get in

over the stupid things they do. America is about to fall to fascists and all we hear is this petty arguing over trivia! I will hold my nose if I must and vote for Hillary but I'd sure rather see Edwards or Kucinich on the gen election ballot.

BTW, welcome to DU! :hi:

[AndyA]

6. Yes, by all means continue your attempts to divert attention from the fact that

Hillary will OWE EVERYONE if she's President.

Lobbyists. Corporations. ALL OF THEM.

And that's what got us into this mess in the first place.

Yes indeed, let's talk about $400 haircuts, or anything else trivial instead of focusing on the REAL ISSUES like how much America needs CHANGE right now. Real change, not Hillary change.

I will vote for her if she's the nominee, but her pandering is getting tiresome, and I do not believe she is the best candidate to address the serious issues we face going forward, all the while keeping her promises for all those donations. Gee, that's going to work out well, aint' it?

[Cameron27]

9. We don't know who John will owe,

since he's refused to release any information about the money that was bundled for him. He stated that he hasn't even bothered to track it.

[ihavenobias]

18. BS

Double BS since I posted this link when we debated generally over Edwards/Hillary.

Read it this time:

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.asp

They both have about the same percentage of funding for which nothing is disclosed, around 10%. The difference is the *amount* of known special interest money and also, where it comes from.

At any rate, it's clear that *one* of them has already been influenced by funding...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20071026/cm_huffpost/070052

[cali]

27. why/ seriously, why will she owe the corporations

and lobbyists fealty if she wins? I'm just curious why you believe that.

[ihavenobias]

31. Why DON'T you believe that?

Why is *your* particular candidate of choice immune from something that effects *the majority* of everyone in government? What is with this pollyanna view of a just government brimming with honest people who would never dare consider the interests of those who funded their campaigns over the interest of the people? I mean, really, do you REALLY think that Hillary won't consider the interests of the industries (like defense, health care, or as shown below, the Telecoms) that helped fund her campaign more than any other candidate, democrat OR republican?

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.asp?id=N00000019&cycle=2008

A better question is not why *we* believe that, it's why you *don't* believe that. We're going based on a history rife with government officials at all levels being influenced by money. It's the oldest story in politics! But now all of the sudden because you like Hillary she'll be the one to break the mold? She practically never even *talks* a game that would indicate this.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20071026/cm_huffpost/070052

Do you hear her talking about publicly funded elections? Paper ballots? Fair Trade (relative to the other candidates like DK and JE)? Corruption and corporate influence? No.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hs8YFaQCD0k

If these things are supposedly important to her you'd be hard pressed to find any evidence suggesting that's the case.

PS---As I've written before, I'm not naive. I realize any of "top tier" candidates are subject to some degree of special interest influence. That's unfortunately how it works in our corrupt system, otherwise you can't raise enough money. With that said, you have to balance that fact with how much money they're taking in overall (and who has provided it) and their policy proposals/stances (that often reveal just how influenced they may already be).

[cali]

32. I didn't say one way or another what I believed. I'm cynical about

all this, and I believe all of the candidates will allow undue influence on the part of corporations and lobbyists. But Clinton is the only candidate who gets called on it. I think that's naive, and you bear that out despite your protestations, by your belief that JE will give no quarter to corporations and lobbyist. And Clinton is decidedly not my candidate. It's amazing to me that if you don't continuously bash her (and I criticize her plenty) the assumption is that you support her.

I've spent a LOT of time at OpenSecrets. What I should have written, however, is why do you think she's any more prone to owe fealty to corporations and lobbyists than any of the others with the exception of Dennis. You make a good point about Clinton not having addressed paper ballot or clean funding of elections. That IS a reason not to support her in my book.

However, There's NO disclosure from Edwards on 10& of his funding- about the same as for Clinton. No disclosure from Biden on an even greater percentage.

[ihavenobias]

34. Like I said

Recognizing that the only candidates who stand a chance to be elected in the context of our broken system will be subject to *some* degree of special interest money, you have to consider:

How MUCH money have they taken? Ok, so Edwards and Clinton both have around 10% of undisclosed funding. Does that make them even? Not exactly. If Edwards has $100 of special interest money (fake example obviously) and Hillary has $1,000, I'm more worried about 10% of $1,000. I'm reminded of the phrase "with great power comes great responsibility". But in this case, it should be "with Big Money comes Big Responsibility...to payback those who funded your campaign".

Also, Edwards has much more populist stances and policy proposals, ranging from all of those things I mentioned (public funding of elections, paper ballots, a citizen congress) to a less corporate driven health care plan, as well as less hawkish positions on war. Many of these things directly contradict the very special interests that most concern me, and those I feel should and would concern most Americans.

So again, is he influenced? Yes, sadly ANYONE who wins is going to be influenced. The question is, *how much* influence, and also, how is potential influence already effecting stated policy and stances. And when I balance those things (potential influence from special interest, vs potential to actually win the nomination/election vs populist, pro democracy positions), Edwards comes out on top.

If we had a cleaner system (with publicly funded elections and less media consolidation/absurdity) I'm sure I'd be with DK, as would many others. But we don't, so I'm with JE. You can say that I'm wrong, but if the choice is between a poor man's DK in the Whitehouse vs a corporate democrat in the Whitehouse, well, it's no contest.

[cali]

40. Sorry. I trust DK

on this, and that's it. Edwards record in the Senate sucks big time. Change your positions on some issues? sure. On virtually EVERY issue of importance? I'm not that gullible.

[ihavenobias]

42. Trust

Well, once again, you have to balance that with who might actually WIN. Too many people go too far one way or the other.

They either completely sell out their principles and ONLY vote for someone they think will win it all (Hillary in this case) OR they stand ONLY on principles and watch someone else get elected time after time because the principled candidate can only raise $10 and is at 2% in the polls (unfortunately).

Once again, the pragmatic choice is a poor man's DK rather than someone who couldn't be further away from DK.

And look, people change. How much of that change is based on learning and how much is based on believing you can appeal to the base is a reasonable question to ask of ANY candidate who changes some positions. But I wouldn't say it's a 180 in this case.

The bottom line is that even if you 'half' trust Edwards on his populist proposals it's better than fully trusting someone to enact corporate proposals. If nothing else, Edwards advances the populist, public funding of elections/paper ballot/corporate corruption discussion we should be having as a nation.

[cali]

43. I prefer Obama to Edwards or Clinton

you seem to have a reading comprehension problem. I do not support Clinton. I have a gut reaction against both her and Edwards in addition to the intellectual reasons I oppose both. I prefer DK to Obama, but recognize he doesn't stand a chance. As I said, it's one thing to change on some issues, but all of them? He had a chance to do something for the poor and working class families when he had 6 years in the Senate: What did he do? He royally screwed them, that's what he did.

[ihavenobias]

45. Insulting?

Reading comprehension problem? That's my favorite generic insult I see used by some.

At any rate, I think your "gut" reaction is overwhelming you in the case, at least that's my opinion.

Obama would be my second choice (again, out of the top 3), but he also has a message further from DK. His stance on trade is a good example. I'm also not crazy about nuclear energy. I also don't like how he buys into republican framing on issues like taxes, like when he talks about providing "relief" for the middle class perpetuating the idea that there is an *affliction* to be relieved from. Not to mention the fact that we need tax INCREASES, not tax cuts, to help fund the many valuable programs we would all like to appreciate, like universal health care.

Yet again I ask, is Obama talking about publicly funded elections, paper ballots, corporate influence and other such issues? Not enough people realize that these aforementioned issues have astoundingly important consequences on the quality of our government and our democracy.

You can rip on Edwards all you want, but it always keep coming down to supporting someone who (in your case) you're not sure you trust but who has a brilliant message and policy OR supporting someone you trust more with a *far less brilliant message* on the critical issues of public funding, paper ballots, taxes, etc.

[cali]

47. It's a matter of consulting the record.

At least Obama never supported this vile war. I have oft said I will never vote for someone in the primary who supported the war. They all knew better. And Edwards supported it vigorously. Apologies for "making a mistake" are all very well, but it's not enough to get me to vote for him or anyone else who voted for it, come primary time. If he's the nominee, I'll support him, and hope is election conversion is genuine.

[ihavenobias]

48. The War?

Obama *didn't have a chance to vote on it* at the time.

And I'm being honest on that, because I think it provides Edwards (generally speaking) with easy cover to say he would or wouldn't vote for certain things not having been in the Senate recently.

So that's not exactly a fair standard in my opinion.

And yes, people do make mistakes. Hell, how about interment camps during WWII? I still think FDR's New Deal was brilliant. At any rate, only robots don't make mistakes.

[CTLawGuy]

82. no but he was clearly and openly opposed to it

while in the heat of a US senate campaign.

[creeksneakers2]

59. I resent your assessment that anybody who doesn't vote

for Edwards or some other candidate who refuses donations has no principles. I have different principles, but they are principles, and equal to yours. I'm willing to respect your choices. Please respect mine.

Edwards is not uniquely virtuous. He's not the only one who puts the public ahead of special interests.

The message I get from Edwards and his supporters are they think they are better than everybody else, they think they are honest and everybody else isn't. That's a bad attitude.

[ihavenobias]

89. I'm sorry

that you have an incorrect impression.

[mrfixit]

72. Keep singing it!!! Go KUCINICH!!!

Certainly handed Edwards his ass in the Nevada debate...

"PRODUCT LIABILITY!!!!"

[creeksneakers2]

50. I like where you focus

Its impossible to measure or know who has given money and how much influence they have. Public actions though are a cinch to find out about. The way to tell whether a politician is honest or not is to measure what he does, not what he gets.

I don't see a big difference between Hillary and Edwards on the issues you named. Hillary is for public financing. Her health care plan is very similar to Edwards'. Its widely believed here on DU that only a corrupt tool of the insurance industry would propose a universal health care plan that included private insurance. So if Hillary is labeled corrupt because of that then Edwards should be too.

What is a citizen Congress?

Edwards has the same or worse position on the war. Edwards would continue combat. He'd just move the bases around but the troops would still be in Iraq.

Edwards takes money from rich people and doesn't disclose his bundlers. The fact that Edwards has taken less money is due to his distant third place showing. If Edwards were offered millions more, he'd take it. He's not taking political positions to discourage money, anymore than the rest of the Democrats.

Edwards gets admiration by claiming that he's above it all. I don't see it though. All the candidates are on the side of the people. Edwards isn't special.

[ihavenobias]

91. Well, everyone has an opinion

No, it's in fact NOT impossible to know where *most* of the money comes from, which is why we have www.opensecrets.org and other resources (notice that most of Hillary's money is from business vs Edwards money from labor).

You tell me Hillary is for public financing but does she ever say it in, well, public? And how often? Same thing with paper ballots for elections.

I've already provided examples of Hillary being influenced by special interest money (hello telecom immunity), and quite recently (google this if you don't remember: Hilary Silence Telecom). Can you offer the same for Edwards?

And your health care example is flawed. Edwards is smart enough to realize we'd NEVER PASS the brilliant health care plan we all want tomorrow, it just wouldn't go through (unfortunately). Instead he offers a choice, realizing that more and more people will choose the less expensive government plan, and over time, the private industry will shrink and shrink.

In doing this, he'll also eliminate much of the conservative spin machine because they won't be able to argue that Americans "don't have a choice", which is, as you know, *exactly* what they would do.

Finally, like I've said in other posts, Edwards is the best *of the so called top tier* in his populist positions. Can you watch this minute and a half video and honestly tell me that Hillary sounds *remotely* close to this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hs8YFaQCD0k

[liberal N proud]

7. Deeper?

[Life Long Dem]

10. How is it bogus? When congress votes to keep their health insurance over

the country's health plan how do you think that would fly?

[creeksneakers2]

52. There isn't going to be a vote

Congress has health care and 45 million Americans don't. Its been that way for years. It flies.

Congress may vote for universal health care and I hope they do. They won't be threatened by Edwards though. They'll just think he's a jerk and give him a hard ride.

[Yuugal]

11. Every time he says something populist.....

He sure does get deeper in my heart.

[Beaverhausen]

13. He explained how he CAN do this on Face the Nation yesterday morning

He was great. And he is not desperate, contrary to what you want to think.

[creeksneakers2]

60. I watched the clip

Edwards was down to talking about cutting off budgets and going on national tours through Congressional districts. Unless Edwards plans to spend his entire time in the White House fighting over this, Edwards is lying. And even if Edwards did all the things he said he could do, he'd still lose. And even if Edwards got Congress to cooperate his changes would still be thrown out in court.

[asdjrocky]

17. Oh yes I compeltley agree with you....

Congress deserves health care, we, the American people, do not.

Shame on JE for standing up for us.

:sarcasm:

You people make me sick.

[creeksneakers2]

51. Edwards isn't standing up for anything

He's conning people. Edwards tells everybody he's a saint and a fighter but that doesn't make him a saint or a fighter.

[creeksneakers2]

53. Didn't you give me some advice on hate a couple of days ago?

Now you are putting words in my mouth that make you sick. What sense does that make?

[JDPriestly]

22. Edwards believes in the power of the people.

He stated that the American people want his health insurance plan, and that the American people can force Congress to either give up their own insurance or provide an affordable health insurance plan for the American people. The bully pulpit does work. How do you think Bush pushed Americans into backing him on the Iraq War?

The Clintons refused to go out and use their bully pulpit for a health care plan during their first two administrations. They did not know how to do this. In fact, although he was a good president in many other respects, Bill was not good at (a) getting Democrats elected to Congress to back him up so that Democratic legislation could get through or (b) getting the American people to pressure their Congressmembers to back Clinton's health care and other programs. Clinton was personally popular but unable to use his personal popularity to get a Democratic Congress. And that even though he started with a Democratic Congress. That is why many of us do not want another Clinton. They compromise and are too nice to Republicans. It is almost as if they liked working with or are intimidated by Republicans.

We need a real Democrat in the White House. We need John Edwards. John Edwards will empower the American people.

[Cameron27]

30. The Clinton's didn't have a bully pulpit

to speak from. The WH was under attack by RW nuts from the day he was inaugurated. With Ken Starr dogging them every single day, and looking for any slime to charge them with, I'm surprised that they were able to accomplish anything at all.

[JDPriestly]

49. A president always has a bully pulpit. It comes with the turf.

RW nuts are with us always. That is no excuse for failing to go to the people. That is no excuse for failing to get a single Democratic Congress elected after taking office.

[Cameron27]

55. What Ken Starr did to the Clinton WH was

unprecedented, and if you can't understand that, then there's no way to persuade you of anything.

[durrrty libby]

24. He has gotten really good at talking out of his ass

Bravo :applause:

[Adelante]

26. LOL

You took me by surprise there :D

[MalloyLiberal]

25. He's already explained vetoing the budget and the bully pulpit

Grow the fuck up

[William769]

29. And how many times has he apologized for his various votes?

He says one thing but votes another.

[PresidentObama]

54. What does that have to do with the poster above pointing out what Edwards has said?

What does his voting record as a whole have to do with the poster you're responding to explaining Edwards talking about what he could do as President to cut off Congress healthcare until America gets universal care? Absolutely nothing, does it?

Nice response...



:sarcasm:

[jsamuel]

69. ding ding ding

[Silence Dogood]

71. Basically, Edwards is Lying-

TG Obama doesn't have that problem. He always tells it like it is.

GO BAMA!

[stray cat]

33. I would love to take away their pensions and health care

let them live like the rest of us. I can't vote myself a pay raise.

[Vickers]

35. "I can't vote myself a pay raise." It's even worse than that. They

have to vote to NOT give themselves a pay raise, every single year.

Otherwise, they AUTOMATICALLY get one. Guess how many times they have voted to NOT give themselves a raise?

Nice work if you can get it, huh?

[asdjrocky]

37. Imagine....

A President who would fight congress for us!

[creeksneakers2]

61. John Edwards, Moral Superhero

All presidents fight with Congress. Don't pretend John Edwards is so special. Don't pretend I criticized Edwards for fighting Congress. I laid out a good case that Edwards is very dishonest and its catching up with him. Why must you avoid that case and make up straw men?

[calteacherguy]

57. Edwards made a mistake. nt

[frogmarch]

63. Good article comparing healthcare plans of Edwards and Kucinich

but this excerpt focuses on what's behind Edwards remarks about politicans' healthcare being stripped.

(snip)

Arguing that ordinary Americans deserve access to healthcare that's just as good as what members of Congress get is a devastatingly effective message and has long been a crowd-pleaser among progressives. Edwards told radio talker Ed Schultz, "There's no excuse for politicians in Washington to have heathcare, but America doesn't have healthcare, and I think we have to shake this place up a little bit. What we would do is we would submit legislation saying if universal healthcare is not passed by this summer, that the Congress and members of the administration would lose their healthcare coverage."

It's a beautiful piece of populism -- a message that appeals to an American Main Street that polls show to be as disdainful of Congress as it is hurting from spiraling healthcare costs in the face of stagnant wages. It's a campaign that can showcase how much lawmakers appreciate the kind of coverage they receive and just how hard they'd fight to keep it, and, importantly, will make it that much harder for opponents to mouth the inevitable blather about the perfidy of "government-run," "socialized healthcare" with a straight face.

more: http://www.kindweb.com/news/linkarticle.asp?ID=4997

Agree with his tactics, or not, there you have it.

[creeksneakers2]

67. That is a good article

I agree with Edwards that dueling public and private health care systems would be a great way to make a transition. It would takes lots of time to work the bugs out of a new system anyway. The public system would have the advantage of efficiencies of economies of scale. The public system would also be subsidized. If the government can actually run health care better than the insurance companies then the public will drift over to the government insurance side. Competition would make both sides better.

I don't see the difference with Hillary's plan though. She has expanded government insurance too. Edwards is more up front about the likelihood that the transition would probably wipe out private insurance companies, while I've never heard Hillary mention that.

A speaking tour from Edwards wouldn't necessarily compel Congress to vote out their own health care. The Edwards hypothetical assumes no response and the public jumping to Edwards' side. Members of Congress might say that they like health care but not Edwards' plan for example. They might all talk like they are for Edwards' plan while quietly killing it before it ever comes up for a vote.

I don't believe that Edwards seriously believes he can pull this off.

[K Gardner]

86. Best article I've seen yet on the subject..

As an RN and advocate for true universal, single-payer, I've been wary of these "mandated" plans put forth, HOWEVER, this article does a fine job of explaining the concept and how it might work as a transition. Thanks for posting !

[Reno.Muse]

70. He got a standing ovation in Reno, Nevada for this concept yesterday

It's time to fire those lazy pork fed politicians in DC who think they are on some political luxury trip living high on the hog and on corporate pork. They don't work for we, the people.

[jenmito]

83. Hillary's stupid to criticize Edwards. She needs him to try to keep Obama from being even MORE...

popular...even though it won't work, if Edwards loses IA, his support will go more to Obama than to Hillary. She'd rather lose to Edwards than to Obama. I guess she's getting scared so she has to "get in the mud" with Edwards, but meanwhile I think it helps Obama in the end.

[LanternWaste]

84. Seems to me he's simply advertising the disparity...

Seems to me he's simply advertising the disparity between the government run health care provided to the members of the Legislature and the health care Americans are forced to buy to ensure necessary health care when needed. Seems to me this is a pretty good way to do it, too.

As a person who has neither decided on, nor ruled out a candidate yet, your post bumped me a few positions closer to an Edwards vote...

Thanks! :hi:

[creeksneakers2]

87. You were probably predisposed to vote for Edwards

Edwards conned people by making boasts he couldn't back up. Then Edwards changed his story to a far fetched tale. Then Edwards tried to wiggle out by lying and finger pointing at somebody else. Edwards' actions are very transparent and shameful. I don't know why you'd be more inclined to vote for him, unless you know its BS but you like Edwards' BS.

[Dr Fate]

90. The public would side with President Edwards over this- big time.

Great talking point- and I hope he keeps on stressing it.