Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The truth about Edwards' very honorable and progressive Senate record

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
PurityOfEssence Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-26-07 09:59 PM
Original message
The truth about Edwards' very honorable and progressive Senate record
Much has been said about Edwards’ supposedly conservative term in the Senate, and like much “common wisdom”, this is largely unfounded.

When remembering that he came as a neophyte from a rather red state, it’s quite surprising to see just how populist he was on many key social issues. (Well, it’s not surprising to many of us, but to those of you who’ve been poisoned with the endless snideness about the “new” Edwards and the “old” Edwards, it should be an eye-opener.)

He only sponsored two bills, but he co-sponsored a whopping 203 in his six-year term. This is a partial list of them (yes, I omitted the Patriot Act and IWR; much has already been said about them) and bears a quick skimming. They’re in chronological order, so details can be found fairly easily. The two bills he sponsored were for research into the “fragile x” chromosome associated with mental retardation, and the “Spyware Control and Privacy Act”, an important early bulwark against attempts to compromise our computer privacy. This last one is a true civil-rights issue, taking on corporations and attempting to secure the rights of individuals, and it’s visionary stuff.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d106:SN03180:@@@L&summ2=m&

Russ Feingold said he was a “terrific asset” in getting campaign finance reform through. He was the person who deposed Lewinsky and Jordan in the impeachment trial; quite an important task to entrust to a newcomer in literally his first year in office. His opposition to Ashcroft in the confirmation hearings was vigorous and mesmerizing, even if it didn’t work. This is also the guy who tirelessly fought to keep the sunset provisions from being stripped out of the Patriot Act. His votes on labor and trade are solidly leftist, although he did vote for the China Trade Bill. Then again, since this was something Bill Clinton was solidly for, he was voting with his party. (Funny how Hillary supporters take him to task for this vote…) He also (along with Dodd and Biden) voted against the free trade bills with Singapore and Chile, unlike Senator Clinton, who voted for them.

Here’s a guy who constantly brought up the issue of “predatory lending” even though he hailed from a state with a huge banking and financial services industry. If you listen to or read his stump speeches from late ’02 and early ’03, you’ll wonder what the hell his detractors are talking about when they say that his populism is a new tack; his platform was economic and worker-oriented from the beginning, telling of how the Bush Administration was systematically shifting the burden of taxation from wealth to wages.

So here’s that partial list of the bills he co-sponsored. This is not a list of his votes, just those bills he actively got behind and worked to get passed. This is hardly the stuff of a closet conservative or an opportunist, as he’s been tarred, nor is it the record of someone who was just phoning it in. I would request, in interest of fairness, that the deriders among you at least breeze through this VERY long list; it’s all pure fact.

When taking all this in context, it’s interesting to reflect on Kerry’s sneering that he probably couldn’t win re-election had he decided to run. Kerry may have been right on this point, but if so, it’s because of Edwards’ populism and social decency.

Details can be found in the following link; each phrase separated by a comma is a particular bill, and in most cases they attempt to use the bill’s title to lessen confusion and give the sense of the legislation.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/?&Db=d107&querybd=@FIELD(FLD004+@4((@1(Sen+Edwards++John))+01573)):

Sense of the Senate for funding lifestyle research for preventative medicine, Sense of the Senate honoring National Science Foundation, Sense of the Senate to preserve six day mail delivery, designating “biotechnology week”, Children’s Internet Safety Month, Joint Resolution against excessive campaign donations, to protect the civil rights of all Americans, Bi-partisan Campaign Reform, Restrict access to personal health and financial information, Establish a Center for National Social Work Research, provide more effective remedies for victims of sex discrimination in work, provide incentive for fair access to the internet for everyone, require fair availability of birth control, increase the minimum wage (’01), protect consumers in managed care programs, emergency relief for energy costs to small businesses, prohibit use of genetic information to discriminate on health coverage and employment, provide families with disabled children to buy into Medicaid, eliminate the loophole for interstate transporting of birds for fighting, provide funding to clean up contaminated land, informing veterans of available programs, Designating part of ANWR as wilderness, establish a digital network technology program, reduce the risk that innocent people be executed, restore funding for Social Security Block Grants, provide for equal coverage for mental health in insurance policies, amend Clean Air Act to reduce emissions from power plants, establish uniform election technology (sponsored by Dodd), extend modifications to funding for Medicare and Medicaid, Federal Funding to local governments to prosecute hate crimes, reinstate certain Social Security earnings exemptions for the blind, overhaul RR retirement plan to increase benefits, Establish a Nurse recruitment and retention program, amend FDA to provide greater access to affordable pharmaceuticals, Establish African American Museum within the Smithsonian, Federal funding for research of environmental factors in Breast Cancer, Increase hospital benefits under Medicare, Establish Tariff Quotas on milk protein imports, Federal funding for mental health community education, protect patients in managed care plans (again), establish Office on Women’s Health in HHS, increase the minimum wage, allow media coverage of trials, prohibit racial profiling, improve health care in rural areas, protect consumers in managed care plans, prohibiting trade of bear viscera, provide greater fairness in arbitration of motor vehicle franchises, provide adequate insurance coverage for immunosuppressive drugs, provide financial assistance for trade-affected communities, acquisition and improvement of child-care facilities, prohibit employment discrimination based on sexual orientation, establish programs to deal with nurse shortage, establish a National Cyber Defense Team to protect the internet’s infrastructure, provide services to prevent family violence, require criminal prosecution for securities fraud, reissuance of a rule on ergonomics, ensure safe pregnancy for all U.S. women, improve investigation and prosecution of rape cases with DNA evidence, improve national drought preparedness, increase the minimum wage (yet again), assistance in containing HIV/AIDS in foreign countries, emergency assistance for small-businesses affected by drought, child care and developmental block grants, provide economic security for America’s workers, enhance security for transporting nuclear waste, FEMA hazard mitigation grants, increase mental health benefits in health insurance, criminal prosecution for people who destroy evidence in securities fraud cases.

Is this the record of a corporate appeaser? Is this the record of someone just loafing about and collecting a paycheck?

Funny what you find when you read a little, isn’t it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
mtnsnake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-26-07 10:04 PM
Response to Original message
1. The truth is that Edwards record while in the Senate was to the right of most Democrats
Not until 2003 when he decided to run for the 2004 nod did he start in with his "progressive" calling. Overall, his record was far from progressive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
asdjrocky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-26-07 10:13 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. C'mon Snake-
Just a tiny bit of fairness here. He was a blue Senator from a red state, and you know that man. He's been painted a lot worse here than he really was. He did not vote yes for Yucca Mountain, and I can show it, but it gets said here all the time.

He did not vote against the minimum wage increase, in fact, he voted twice against tabling it.

Also, I love how much it's put out there about the cosponsor of the IWR, buddy, there were 15 co-sponsors of that bill.

Fair enough?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rjones2818 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-26-07 10:18 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Yeah...but he's running as an anti-war candidate
I wouldn't trust him on the issue of war and peace. My family's lives might depend on it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenTea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-27-07 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #4
44. Here come the robot liars! Edwards is going to win Iowa & out come the the idiot bots right on cue!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1corona4u Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-26-07 10:34 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. He most certainly did vote yes for Yucca mountain...
Edited on Wed Dec-26-07 10:34 PM by 1corona4u
twice;

"For example, although Edwards voted twice in 2002 in favor of sending the waste to Yucca Mountain, Nevada's senior representative and Senate Minority Whip Harry Reid, said that Edwards has changed his mind."

"John Edwards supports John Kerry on all issues important to the people of Nevada, including Sen. Kerry's pledge to stop nuclear waste coming to Nevada,' Reid said in a released statement.

If Edwards has changed his mind, he hasn't yet told his home state of North Carolina, which wants 2,248 metric tons of irradiated fuel from its nuclear power plants buried at Yucca Mountain. North Carolina newspapers have carried no reports of an Edwards switch on the Yucca issue. The New York Times noted the difference in opinion between Kerry and Edwards on the Nevada site without reporting any change of mind.

One of the centerpieces of Edwards' legislative record is a measure he introduced in November 2002 to provide for procedures for transporting the waste to Nevada (to reduce fears about moving the poisonous stuff on the nation's highways and railroads). Moreover, if Edwards tailored his position to Kerry's for the purposes of the election, he could still revert to his own position on the dump if he became president through succession.

Johnson said that the Yucca Mountain controversy will likely increase voter turnout this fall. Her group is organizing 25 town hall meetings across the state between now and November to discuss Yucca Mountain and other issues.





http://www.alternet.org/story/19320/


Here's the vote;

Yea 60

Allard (R-CO)
Allen (R-VA)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burns (R-MT)
Cleland (D-GA)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeWine (R-OH)
Domenici (R-NM)
Durbin (D-IL)
Edwards (D-NC)
Enzi (R-WY)
Fitzgerald (R-IL)
Frist (R-TN)
Graham (D-FL)
Gramm (R-TX)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hollings (D-SC)
Hutchinson (R-AR)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Miller (D-GA)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Nickles (R-OK)
Roberts (R-KS)
Santorum (R-PA)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR)
Smith (R-NH)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Thomas (R-WY)
Thompson (R-TN)
Thurmond (R-SC)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)

No 39

Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Boxer (D-CA)
Breaux (D-LA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Campbell (R-CO)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Chafee (R-RI)
Clinton (D-NY)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Daschle (D-SD)
Dayton (D-MN)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Ensign (R-NV)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Torricelli (D-NJ)
Wellstone (D-MN)
Wyden (D-OR)

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0709-08.htm


I guess it's just another thing he was WRONG about....

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
asdjrocky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-26-07 10:58 PM
Response to Reply #6
12. I read it different-
http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=V2664&can_id=21107

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_member.php?cs_id=V2664

Of course, that's just from project vote-smart.

Official Title of Legislation:

S 1287: An original bill to provide for the storage of spent nuclear fuel pending completion of the nuclear waste repository, and for other purposes.

Project Vote Smart's Synopsis:

Vote to pass a bill that establishes a timeline to implement a plan for transporting and storing spent nuclear fuel.

Highlights:

- Proposes the establishment of a nuclear waste storage repository at Nevada's Yucca Mountain by 2007, if granted a construction permit by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)

- Authorizes the Department of Energy (DOE) Secretary to determine if the proposed site is appropriate for nuclear waste storage and make a recommendation to the President by December 31, 2001

- Grants the President power to decide whether to recommend the proposed site to Congress by March 31, 2002

- Authorizes the NRC to decide whether to build the repository by January 31, 2006

- Prohibits the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from publishing and adopting public health and safety standards before June 1, 2001, to protect the public from exposure to radioactive materials or releases, except in accordance with the bill's provisions

- Allows the EPA, in accordance with the National Academy of Sciences and the NRC, to set radiation and environmental protection standards for the proposed site after June 1, 2001

- Requires the DOE Secretary to plan an Interstate System highway for the safe transportation of nuclear waste if a state fails to designate its own route


Senate Passage Vote: 02/10/2000: Passed: 64-34. Record Vote Number: 8.

House Passage Vote: 03/22/2000: Passed: 253-167 (Roll no. 63).

Presidential Action: 04/25/2000: Vetoed by President.

Senate Veto Override Vote: 05/02/2000: Failed: 64-35. Record Vote Number: 88.
NOTE: 2/3 majority vote is required to override a presidential veto.

Last Updated: 04/14/2005


I'll leave it to the smart people here at DU to click on the link, and check the votes.

Here is a quick check for you though-
Environmental Issues


Date Bill Title Vote
10/30/2003 Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 NV
04/06/2000 Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Drilling amendment N
02/10/2000 Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act N




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1corona4u Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-26-07 11:07 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. Well, you can't just rewrite history....
Edited on Wed Dec-26-07 11:09 PM by 1corona4u
he voted for it. We're talking about the vote in 2002.

S.J.Res. 34. A joint resolution approving the site at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, for the development of a repository for the disposal of high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel, pursuant to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982.



Again, the vote, straight from the Senate site;

Alphabetical by Senator Name Akaka (D-HI), Nay
Allard (R-CO), Yea
Allen (R-VA), Yea
Baucus (D-MT), Nay
Bayh (D-IN), Nay
Bennett (R-UT), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Nay
Bingaman (D-NM), Yea
Bond (R-MO), Yea
Boxer (D-CA), Nay
Breaux (D-LA), Nay
Brownback (R-KS), Yea
Bunning (R-KY), Yea
Burns (R-MT), Yea
Byrd (D-WV), Nay
Campbell (R-CO), Nay
Cantwell (D-WA), Nay
Carnahan (D-MO), Nay
Carper (D-DE), Nay
Chafee (R-RI), Nay
Cleland (D-GA), Yea
Clinton (D-NY), Nay
Cochran (R-MS), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Conrad (D-ND), Nay
Corzine (D-NJ), Nay
Craig (R-ID), Yea
Crapo (R-ID), Yea
Daschle (D-SD), Nay
Dayton (D-MN), Nay
DeWine (R-OH), Yea
Dodd (D-CT), Nay
Domenici (R-NM), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Nay
Durbin (D-IL), Yea
Edwards (D-NC), Yea
Ensign (R-NV), Nay
Enzi (R-WY), Yea
Feingold (D-WI), Nay
Feinstein (D-CA), Nay
Fitzgerald (R-IL), Yea
Frist (R-TN), Yea
Graham (D-FL), Yea
Gramm (R-TX), Yea
Grassley (R-IA), Yea
Gregg (R-NH), Yea
Hagel (R-NE), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Nay
Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Helms (R-NC), Not Voting
Hollings (D-SC), Yea
Hutchinson (R-AR), Yea
Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Jeffords (I-VT), Nay
Johnson (D-SD), Nay
Kennedy (D-MA), Nay
Kerry (D-MA), Nay
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Kyl (R-AZ), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Leahy (D-VT), Yea
Levin (D-MI), Yea
Lieberman (D-CT), Nay
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
Lott (R-MS), Yea
Lugar (R-IN), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Yea
McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Miller (D-GA), Yea
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Yea
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Nickles (R-OK), Yea
Reed (D-RI), Nay
Reid (D-NV), Nay
Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Nay
Santorum (R-PA), Yea
Sarbanes (D-MD), Nay
Schumer (D-NY), Nay
Sessions (R-AL), Yea
Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Smith (R-NH), Yea
Smith (R-OR), Yea
Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Specter (R-PA), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Thomas (R-WY), Yea
Thompson (R-TN), Yea
Thurmond (R-SC), Yea
Torricelli (D-NJ), Nay
Voinovich (R-OH), Yea
Warner (R-VA), Yea
Wellstone (D-MN), Nay
Wyden (D-OR), Nay


http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00167

Sorry dude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
asdjrocky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-26-07 11:28 PM
Response to Reply #15
21. You seem to be right-
I never run when someone points out a fact, and I never pass up a chance to say I was wrong. I believe my mistake was an honest one, based on the informant ion that I had.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-27-07 06:10 AM
Response to Reply #21
27. I admire your work, sir.
That was a lovely, gracious response. ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LSK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-27-07 06:20 PM
Response to Reply #21
49. FYI, this link is your best friend
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Steely_Dan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-27-07 07:16 PM
Response to Reply #21
53. I Admire Your
honesty and not running. It gives me hope and allows me to gain further respect for Edwards' supporters.

-P
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Snotcicles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-27-07 08:22 PM
Response to Reply #6
56. So what are they doing with the waste? and what is your candidates solution? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gmudem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-27-07 05:55 AM
Response to Reply #1
26. And Hillary's isnt?
Great post here btw. Nice to see some actual facts about Edwards senate record around here. It's a pretty rare occurence obviously.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catchawave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-27-07 09:06 PM
Response to Reply #1
61. I'm still to the right of most Dems....
Nothing wrong with that :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
asdjrocky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-26-07 10:08 PM
Response to Original message
2. Good work POE
K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeyondGeography Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-26-07 10:27 PM
Response to Original message
5. If you really care about electing a proven reformer, you'll look elsewhere
Edited on Wed Dec-26-07 10:28 PM by BeyondGeography
==Edwards was part of the legislative team working to pass the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, but lobbying and campaign reform were nowhere near the top of his agenda in the Senate.

During the 2004 campaign, Edwards gave a useful speech outlining his plan to limit lobbyists' influence. But, unlike the other Democratic candidates, he refused requests to reveal the identities of his big fundraisers. This time around, after considerable prodding, Edwards agreed to release the names of fundraisers -- all his fundraisers, with no specifics about how much they had collected. His campaign argues vehemently that it should be praised for this avalanche of information, not faulted. But the candidate knows who has reeled in $1,000 and who raised $100,000. Why shouldn't voters?

Clinton has shown no zeal for or even particular interest in the issue in the Senate; nor did she while in the White House. Indeed, as her handling of the health-care task force and Whitewater documents illustrate, Clinton's instinct is for secrecy, and her default position is to disclose only the minimum legally required. She consented to reveal her major fundraisers only after repeated editorial hammering -- and only after all the other leading Democratic contenders had agreed.

On this issue, Obama leads the pack -- I'd say PAC, but he (and Edwards) don't take their checks, either. He helped pass a far-reaching ethics and campaign finance bill in the Illinois state Senate and made the issue a priority on arriving in Washington. Much to the displeasure of his colleagues, Obama promoted an outside commission to handle Senate ethics complaints. He co-authored the lobbying reform bill awaiting President Bush's signature and pushed -- again to the dismay of some colleagues -- to include a provision requiring lawmakers to report the names of their lobbyist-bundlers.

He has co-sponsored bills to overhaul the presidential public financing system and public financing of Senate campaigns. It's nice to hear Clinton talk about how "we've got to move toward public financing" -- Edwards backs it, too -- but I don't see her name on those measures.

Obama readily agreed to identify his bundlers. Unlike Clinton and Edwards, he has released his income tax returns. Perhaps most important, Obama has pledged to take public financing for the general election if he is the Democratic nominee and his Republican opponent will do the same.

Any Democratic candidate wanting to "get the money out of American politics" (Clinton) or demonstrate that "the Democratic Party is the party of the people" (Edwards) ought to leap at this chance. The candidates' silence on Obama's public financing proposal -- they'll "consider" it -- has been more telling than anything they have actually said.''==

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/21/AR2007082101420.html

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
asdjrocky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-26-07 10:37 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. So you're saying Obama has a better record in the Senate than Edwards?
Also, being so dedicated to Obama, you know of course, he has 2, count em, 2 campaign funds. One of them of course, are just fine for lobbyist money, and the other, not so much.

My guys not perfect, I damn sure know that, and I don't pretend otherwise.

The last thing I do, is walk into a nice little thread on your guy, and try to knock him with something luke warm crap like this. I mean...

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Barack_Obama/Campaign_Financing

really, no one here is perfect, and people who live in glass houses, should not throw mud.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Triana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-26-07 10:44 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. what rocky said...
..JRE ain't perfect. None of them are, but Edwards is what this country needs - he's what the poor and middle class need - a man in the Oval Office fighting for THEM, for a CHANGE.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeyondGeography Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-26-07 10:49 PM
Response to Reply #7
11. Nobody's perfect; that's why we look at the record
and Obama has done more to clean up Washington in two years than Edwards did in six. Obama has the extra experience of reforming government at the state level. In his legislative career, he has accomplished far more than Edwards in the area of ethics and reform, hands down.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
asdjrocky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-26-07 11:01 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. Oh come on-
This is DU, show me something more than your opinion, show me some votes. You still haven't done that. You'd be perfect as a pundant on one of those shows where people just yell at each other.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeyondGeography Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-26-07 11:03 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. There's a link above if you care to re-read it
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
asdjrocky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-26-07 11:09 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. I can read.
It's a WP article, I'm talking votes. You say he has a better record. Show me. If you want to talk facts, I'm fine with that.

Tell me, did you click on my link to you? Do you have anything at all to say about that? Anything?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
silverojo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-26-07 11:26 PM
Response to Reply #11
20. Obama hasn't done jack shit
Obama voted "present" more than anyone should, and always makes lame excuses for it.

"Ethics and reform" is all well and good, but it doesn't put food on the table or medical care within reach.

This country and its people are in crisis right now, and we need someone who cares about the downtrodden and has a proven record of fighting for them. Edwards has done just that, even when he was a trial lawyer. That was long before 2004.

Prefer Obama if you like, but don't try to sell this bullshit of Obama "doing more in two years than Edwards did in six". You forget that Edwards was working when there was a Repuke majority in the Senate, so he faced obstacles that Obama didn't.

Even in stump speeches, Edwards does more than Obama. Edwards gives details of his plans for America, while Obama just goes around mouth-farting about "hope" and "change" without giving any details of how he plans to provide us with either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-27-07 06:16 AM
Response to Reply #20
28. "mouth-farting"
The last time I heard that term was in junior high school which leads one to wonder what exactly caused that particular term to erupt. Unless you're in junior high school in which case nevermind.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catchawave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-27-07 09:11 PM
Response to Reply #11
62. I disagree :( Obama's a nice guy and all....
But I've never seen a more wishy-washy state and fed record than he has. Don't pump him up w/o sourcing proof of what you claim.

"Present" is not "Presidential"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blackhatjack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-26-07 10:38 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. Good Job POE! But some posters here will never acknowledge the truth of your OP...
... they created their own reality and they are sticking with it(no matter what the facts show).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hippo_Tron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-26-07 10:45 PM
Response to Original message
10. He'd be in a better position if he'd been re-elected to his seat in '04
His record was certainly more progressive than that of red state dems like Mary Landrieu, Ben/Bill Nelson, Evan Bayh. I don't know what Max Cleland's voting record was like and I'd be pretty interested to see.

Kent Conrad and Byron Dorgan vote pretty solidly party line despite coming from red North Dakota although I suppose the state is small enough that they can meet a lot of their constituents face to face. Same goes for Tim Johnson, although he's a bit more conservative.

Max Baucus votes with the Democrats whenever it doesn't hurt pork projects or any particular corporate interest he represents.

All in all I'd say Edwards was pretty progressive for a red state Democrat, but remember that most red state Dems don't have presidential aspirations. Evan Bayh did, but he realized pretty quickly that he didn't have a chance. Edwards would have been in a better position proving he could get re-elected in a red state but still be liberal enough to have national appeal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PurityOfEssence Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-26-07 11:17 PM
Response to Reply #10
17. Yeah, but where'd he be had he LOST?
He'd be nowhere.

He also would have endured endless derision had he run for both, and some of it would have been deserved.

All in all, it was a rather sharp move.

As for your assessment of red-state Dems, it's quite refreshing to hear. It's very easy to dismiss politicians when comparing them against those with the luxury of representing bluish areas. Hell, very few people stand up to Pete Stark's record, but he's unassailable in his safe Northern California seat.

There's also a rather tricky point that rarely gets raised: the fundamental obligation of "representation". When one is elected, one isn't given Letters of Marque and Reprisal to maraud about as one sees fit, and an election shouldn't be seen as such. One is representing one's constituents, and one should sometimes vote as a fair representation of their true wishes rather than telling them what they should be thinking and ignoring them. It's a tricky ethical balancing act, and anyone who takes the concept of "public service" seriously should find him or herself on the horns of a few dilemmas from time to time.

Also, one very good litmus test for a politician's true beliefs and efforts is to listen to what other politicians have to say about him or her, and Edwards comes out rather well here. Until this election, Kucinich considered him the other contender he liked the most, and many other heroes of the left have had quite flattering and warm things to say about him, including Feingold.

Nice reply. In the hubbub of partisan support, it's nice to get nuanced observations from time to time.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yardwork Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-27-07 03:15 PM
Response to Reply #10
40. He was running for president and then vice-president in '04.
Edwards could not have run for reelection to the Senate simultaneous with his presidential bid. I wished at the time that he had run for reelection in 2004 instead of running for president. His decision to try for the White House landed us with Elizabeth Dole in his seat - the horror the horror.

Edwards is considered to be very liberal here in North Carolina, which has one of the largest set of military complexes in the nation. Overall it's a red state, despite a few pockets of liberalism.

I think that Edwards did well as a senator, and he'd do well as president.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-26-07 11:24 PM
Response to Original message
18. Kerry NEVER said anything like this to my knowledge
"When taking all this in context, it’s interesting to reflect on Kerry’s sneering that he probably couldn’t win re-election had he decided to run. Kerry may have been right on this point, but if so, it’s because of Edwards’ populism and social decency."

Can you supply a link? Not to mention I have seen Kerry speak many many times - and I never saw him sneer. Though the Edwards have said unflattering things about the Kerry's, I have never heard either Teresa or John Kerry answer in kind.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PurityOfEssence Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-27-07 01:13 AM
Response to Reply #18
23. I remember seeing a clip of it, but can't find it now
It was more of a flat, uninflected scoffing, but I can't find anything at the moment. I don't think it was my imagination; it's a pretty vivid memory.

As for Kerry not saying anything bad about Edwards, the Bob Schrum book depicts Kerry as having serious regrets about picking him and he relates a story about Wade that's very personal and bordering on character assassination.

The reference was not meant as an attack on Kerry, but I did feel that the Schrum piece was quite unpleasant.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-27-07 07:25 AM
Response to Reply #23
31. You remember wrong
Kerry has never said that. As to the Shrum book, you dispute all he says about Edwards, then believe anything Kerry is reputed to have said? That's brilliant.

Given the Edwards quote in the NYT article from a few weeks ago where he spoke of refusing to use the Kerry/Edwards campaign slogan "Help is on the way", preferring the lame "hope is on the way" - even though there was already plenty of hope at that point, it would be understandable if Kerry did have some misgivings - Edwards' primadonna act and his unwillingness to doing much attacking at all. It is also very understandable that he would express them to Shrum - and Shrum should have considered anything said a confidence. The fact is that Kerry has NEVER said anything publicly negative about Edwards - ever.

As to the story on Wade, again it is Shrum telling the story - not Kerry. If Kerry said it at that point, it was because it concerned him - he was selecting Edwards. The 2 most likely possibilities are that it is true or that Shrum made it up. It also does not come near character assassination. Not to mention that Kerry - neither then or now - ever said anything publicly on this.

Both Edwards have made many negative Kerry comments. Why is it ok for them to do this?- given that you make up and negatively characterize Kerry doing it. Any time you use the word "sneer", it is an attack.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cameron27 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-27-07 02:53 PM
Response to Reply #31
37. Good response!
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-27-07 02:57 PM
Response to Reply #37
39. Thanks,
Edited on Thu Dec-27-07 03:14 PM by karynnj
:)

I really don't get the Edwards' fans need to attack Kerry - and that was an attack. Kerry helped Edwards by making him VP. Otherwise, he would have never had the visibility he had. As to the Edwards, it simply makes them look tacky, especially as these little jabs are never responded to by the Kerrys. I also think that Edwards did NOT help himself in giving the NYT the information that he just couldn't be pushed to use the official campaign slogan. He signed on to be number 2 ("TWO"). I remember in 2004 that the media made an issue of Kerry/Edwards not being consistent on that slogan. I far prefer "help" as it is REAL to "hope", but what is more important was that the choice should have been Kerry's. Once Edwards gave his opinion, he should have followed. (My guess is that Edwards been in Kerry's shoes, with an uncooperative VP - we would still be hearing about it.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cameron27 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-27-07 08:13 PM
Response to Reply #39
55. I think his supporters are just following
the tact that both John and Elizabeth have been using since 04. I never understood their reasons for demeaning the Kerry's either, since, as you've said, JK gave him the visibility he's using to run in this election.

Kerry and Teresa have shown real class when it comes to the Edwards's. They're very lucky that he hasn't made any statements to challenge their revisionist history.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
politicasista Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-27-07 06:13 PM
Response to Reply #37
48. Good response here too n/t
Edited on Thu Dec-27-07 06:13 PM by politicasista
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PurityOfEssence Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 01:09 AM
Response to Reply #31
67. ''Edwards says he's the only one who can win states in the South -- he can't win his own state,''
This is from an article in the New York Times.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B06E1D9113EF930A25750C0A9629C8B63

It's an interesting article; it seems Senator Kerry has a habit of saying things off-the-cuff that are not necessarily intended for public consumption. The repetition of this habit is a bit fishy, though: he did it about Dean and he did it about calling the Bush Administration a bunch of crooks. Maybe he just needs to learn when not to speak, or maybe he likes having it both ways.

The sugary smarminess of David Wade really pulls the rug of deniability from under Kerry with this little gem:

"Everything he has said into an open mike has been prescient," said David Wade, the aide who travels with him regularly. Explaining his boss's latest remark, he said: "I'm not going to say whether it's deliberate. I will say we enjoy keeping our friends in the press on our toes. And I will say that every statement we made he stands by."

You state that it's a "given" that I make up something like this to mischaracterize Kerry. That's making a fatuous pronouncement that I'm a liar, since it's a "given", and not even open to dispute or mitigation. That's just plain ugly. I'll grant you the benefit of a doubt that you denied me and presume that your tireless and encyclopedic knowledge of Kerry's '04 campaign is simply incorrect, but that doesn't excuse the personal assault.

Let's move on to your other issue about Shrum's relation of Kerry's words.

Where do I "dispute all he says about Edwards"? I don't. For all I know, it may be true. Telling a story like this without asking for secrecy is a bit out of line: he's depicted as relating something Edwards said in the deepest personal confidence. To depict this as calculatedly using his own son's death for personal gain is a vile charge; if he said this in a private context, it's still a violation of trust and an attempt to convey an impression of immorality on Edwards' part. If words like this are put in his mouth by no less than Shrum in no less a publication than Time, shouldn't he dispute them if they're not true? Letting something of this prominence stand is tantamount to endorsing it. Maybe Shrum is doing what you accuse me of: fabrication, but if so, Kerry is woefully remiss in not standing up for himself; this story makes him look like someone who can't be trusted with a private moment.

As for Kerry NEVER having said anything negative about Edwards, this simply isn't true. Take a look at this:

http://www.guardianangels-mn.org/politics/KERRY-ATTACKS-EDWARDS-ON-EXPERIENCE.html

Not going negative is the standard approach for a front-runner; the fact that he didn't do it much does reflect well on his character, but it's also the norm.

I've answered your demands: this was not a faulty memory or an ugly fabrication. You've literally called me a deliberate and unprincipled liar, and you've distorted my characterizations to boot.

Surely this doesn't reflect as poorly on Edwards' supporters as the original reaction would suggest.

Any thoughts, anybody?



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 10:50 AM
Response to Reply #67
68. I apologize for comments that you perceive as me calling you a liar
Edited on Fri Dec-28-07 11:02 AM by karynnj
Your quotes do not say what you said and certainly do not include a "sneer". The quote is NOT speaking of re-election, but the general election. ''Edwards says he's the only one who can win states in the South -- he can't win his own state"

The NYT article, which is incidentally very anti-Kerry, simply has Kerry saying to Wade that Edwards wouldn't carry NC - which was what polls showed. The context here is general election, not the Senate race. No Democrat was winning NC or most of the South. How is this a smear? It is an opinion based on the available information. Where is the "sneer"? I doubt Kerry sneered at Wade. The fact is that when Kerry announced his choice of Edwards, his comments indicated it was not because of an anticipated win of NC, but other factors that led him to pick Edwards. (Note Nagourney uses the word disparaged, but the comment simply disputes an Edwards claim - it does not disparage him. This is Nagourney desperately searching for examples for a negative Kerry story. Note the negative verbs and adjectives Nagourney uses for Kerry.)

The David Wade comment was spin, and good spin at that, but Nagourney countered it in the article because he was attempting to create a meme that was actually not true. The fact is that every example given has Kerry saying things that are not all that different than what he said on mike. The difference was that they were franker and more direct. He apologized for none of them and none are particularly bad, smear anyone, or distort anyone's record.

The second link really shows that Kerry did not make any real attacks on Edwards. The closest is saying that JRE was in diapers during Vietnam - which Kerry quickly apologized for. (JRE was too young for Vietnam, but not that young. The comment was openly made in a debate after others were asked what they did in the Vietnam era. It was a joke.) Everything else is simply stating the truth - Edwards had very little foreign policy or military experience.

As to the Shrum book, unless Kerry were directly asked, it would be silly for him to bring it up. It would give it more visibility and unless Kerry wanted to itemize each and every thing he wanted to dispute, it would lead to people pointing out that Kerry had not disputed them. Note that Edwards has not disputed the story. Frankly, I don't get why Kerry always is assigned a greater responsibility than Edwards on everything. It also may be that the story is true.

If you accept the story as true, you need to accept the entire story. If I were Kerry, I would have been disturbed that Edwards told a story he had already told Kerry before - saying that he never told anyone. This would lead me to believe that he had told others, likely many others, and had forgotten Kerry was one of them. Shrum knew Edwards well - more than Kerry did at that point. Given that Edwards did use similar emotional techniques to manipulate juries Kerry may have needed confirmation that Edwards was genuine. This was part of making the very important VP decision. Edwards chose to make that part of the input to the process. Shrum was inside the bubble. It is Shrum who made the story public.

The ledger still has far more Edwards attacks on Kerry - including in the 2004 primaries and since than Kerry attacks on Edwards.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LSK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-27-07 06:22 PM
Response to Reply #18
50. Kerry made up his mind when he botched that joke about the troops in Iraq
And the right wing buried him once and for all with that comment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-27-07 10:02 PM
Response to Reply #50
63. How does that answer to the post you are answering to?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
killbotfactory Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-26-07 11:24 PM
Response to Original message
19. Yeah, apart from all the bad stuff he supported
He has a good record. Like Clinton, or anyone else in the race.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-26-07 11:42 PM
Response to Original message
22. The issue isn't purity on his past record. It's growth and the current platform
I find his platform the only one of all major candidates that has a basis in reality. He recognizes the problems of the poor, income inequity, and corporate control and greed. He voted for Iraq and said he was wrong to do so and there are a couple of others. But he's grown over the past two years and it's in a reasonable progression.

The Senate record is of secondary important in supporting the current platform. It doesn't really get him any political advantage with the media barons when he talks about those subjects. He will get credit with the people if he'll kick a little harder and get a bit more strident. Full tilt populism is the goal here. But he's looking good among those who can win.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
2hip Donating Member (350 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-27-07 05:46 AM
Response to Reply #22
25. Thanks for expressing it so succinctly!
Now get outta' my head. lol


        Edwards '08 tees!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-27-07 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #25
35. Right after I review the pictures;) Thanks!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saltpoint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-27-07 06:30 AM
Response to Reply #22
29. Concise and potent by content and surgically pragmatic post. You don't do
Edited on Thu Dec-27-07 06:54 AM by Old Crusoe
textbook thinking. You ransack the entire library and distill it into meaningful prose.

Damn good. Thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-27-07 02:51 PM
Response to Reply #29
36. Long time buddy!
Thanks. Let's hope he nails it in Iowa or NH or somewhere. I can't help but think that "The Empire" will fire back a huge volley at Obama for his skilled put downs.

Virginia is ready for Edwards message. That's how Webb got in. His populism was a key to his victory. Edwards is much better at it.

Corporate media will start up but that's just fuel for the fire. The public trusts used care sales people more than any major media outlet (except McClatchy).

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saltpoint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-27-07 10:43 PM
Response to Reply #36
66. I'm lured in by a blue Virginia! That sounds encouraging. I know Webb
is a pretty good soul but my god it was way too close for comfort versus Cement-Head Allen.

Webb knocked that cretin out of the White House sweepstakes, in addition to being a class act.

I think you're exactly right on your call that the corporate media will try to take out anyone who represents meaningful reform. And these days, there's a ferocity in Edwards' eyes. It flickered in 2004 but it's white-hot now. I hope it lights the prairie out in the Hawkeye State.

A great 2008 to you, good writer, good person.

Great to cross paths with you on these boards.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OzarkDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-27-07 08:30 PM
Response to Reply #22
58. Agree, he's a very smart candidate who learns quickly
and has a good grasp of what policies will improve the future of the country. He strikes me as someone who is looking for comprehensive solutions with far reaching impact, placing emphasis on what will work vs a watered down agenda that tries to please too many people and groups.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kurovski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-27-07 04:58 AM
Response to Original message
24. K&R. (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-27-07 06:57 AM
Response to Original message
30. Please. This is revisionist history at best.
Only 8 dems co-sponsored the IWR. JE was one of them, and he went further than most is his fervor for the Iraq War. He insisted that Saddam had biological and chemical weapons. He defended his vote for 3 years- until the end of 2005- when he was setting up his run for the presidency. How convenient. JE supported providing unconditional military aid to the right wing gov't of Columbia. He voted for legislation that prohibits the US from cooperating with the ICC. He voted for a bad bankruptcy reform bill and the China trade agreement in 2000. He voted yes on bush energy legislation. He voted no on letting U.S. troops serve under U.N. command on peace keeping missions. JE had a mixed bag record as a Senator- but one thing he wasn't was a progressive.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClassWarrior Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-27-07 10:38 AM
Response to Reply #30
33. Links?
NGU.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClassWarrior Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-27-07 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #33
34. Yeah, that's what I thought.
:eyes:

NGU.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
killbotfactory Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-27-07 02:54 PM
Response to Reply #33
38. It's public record.
And, at least one then-member of the Senate, John Edwards, who has been railing lately in favor of higher safety standards for Chinese-made products, defended his 2000 vote supporting expanded China trade with the famously reported comment, “it does us no good to pretend that these remedies are perfect and that people will not be hurt.”

“Senator Edwards knew seven years ago that people would be hurt, so why did he vote for China trade?”Kucinich asked.

http://strengththroughpeace.blogspot.com/2007/11/kucinich-blasts-edwards-on-china.html

While admitting that Edwards may not accept money from lobbyists in Washington, Dodd noted in an August 19th press release how his opponent has voted on bankruptcy legislation in the past as if he had other interests than those of the financially needy in mind.

The Dodd camp specifically pointed out Edwards voting actions on the Bankruptcy Overhaul bill in 2000. According to the press release, that bill would have essentially made it easier for courts to make debtors repay their debts rather than allowing them to discharge them. While Dodd and 11 other Democrats rejected this bill, Edwards voted in favor of it. Dodd even noted in the press release how President Bill Clinton vetoed this bankruptcy bill because it was too tough on debtors.

http://www.totalbankruptcy.com/bankruptcy_articles_john_edwards.htm

and those are just two
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
harmonicon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-27-07 04:01 PM
Response to Reply #30
42. shhhhh
the truth hurts - don't let it get out
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LSK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-27-07 06:24 PM
Response to Reply #30
51. which bankruptcy bill?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-27-07 10:03 PM
Response to Reply #51
64. The previous one, that failed...
You know that Edwards was not in the Senate in 2005
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gowexler Donating Member (91 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-27-07 07:12 PM
Response to Reply #30
52. There is a speech floating around out there
I can't seem to find it, but Edwards sounded exactly like Cheney when he was pushing for the IWR. And then there's the patriot act...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
venable Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-27-07 09:05 PM
Response to Reply #30
60. easy to say, and would you like to comment on whether he is a progressive now?
didn't think so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenArrow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 01:36 PM
Response to Reply #60
71. he's a "progressive"
in the same way George W. Bush is a "compassionate conservative."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cynthia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-27-07 09:27 AM
Response to Original message
32. Thanks for doing this research
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Papagoose Donating Member (361 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-27-07 03:37 PM
Response to Original message
41. I think there is a perspective issue in play...
Edited on Thu Dec-27-07 03:38 PM by Papagoose
When I lived in a strongly Democratic town in Pennsylvania, I viewed John Edwards as a pretty conservative Democrat. I wasn't thrilled at having him on the ticket in 2004 either. Since moving to rural Georgia earlier this year, I appreciate just how Liberal John Edwards is - for a Southerner. People here perceive him as a left-wing radical - which he is not.

I should add - to me, calling someone "Liberal" is one of the highest compliments one can pay.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
harmonicon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-27-07 04:08 PM
Response to Original message
43. ... apart from that, how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln?
This is just completely silly. You admit to brushing over the Patriot Act and IWR, but then claim that there was some sort of coverup of this guy's record? Please.... that's like saying a great baby sitter reads your kids stories, helps with homework, cooks...... oh, and the molestation, but let's not count that. This guy is a piece of crap who sold us all out. He had a hand in eroding the civil rights of you and every other american, as well as taking part in justifying the meaningless deaths of hundreds of thousands (I want you to think of how many people that really is) of innocent Iraqis. What a great guy - it would be crazy not to vote for him!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
progressivebydesign Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-27-07 04:15 PM
Response to Original message
45. I really like John Edwards, and find I"m in line with most of his positions.
I'm wishing I could have a hybrid avatar of Edwards and Clinton, as I like them both.. Hillary has the edge for me because I've always admired her, and know several people that have worked for and with the Clintons and just love her, and rave at what an amazing, intelligent, warm, and kind, person she is.

John has my vote should he get the nod...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-27-07 05:58 PM
Response to Original message
46. Edwards, in my opinion, is the only Dem that is worth voting for. But it looks like our Corp msm
has already ordained HRC and given the brain dead state of the American public, I must say that hope is in short supply.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catchawave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-27-07 08:03 PM
Response to Reply #46
54. WE have to keep fighting....it's worth it :)
Go Team Edwards :toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nutmegger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-27-07 06:07 PM
Response to Original message
47. R&K [n\t]
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pastiche423 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-27-07 08:22 PM
Response to Original message
57. An ADA rating of 60%
is very honorable and progressive?

A very honorable and progressive senator:

voted for the Patriot Act

voted for Homeland Security

voted for Yucca mtn

voted for *'s war resolution and co-sponsored the damn thing

voted for bankruptcy bill

voted to exempt fuel refiners from liability

voted against regulation of drinking water

did not bother to vote on an Iraq investigation

Was a DLcer

That honorable and progressive senator will SAY anything to be president, yet he DOES jack shit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
venable Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-27-07 09:04 PM
Response to Original message
59. K and R
excellent post, POE
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooky3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-27-07 10:03 PM
Response to Original message
65. Thank you, Purity.
It's a pleasure to read about something other than the "horse race."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MethuenProgressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 10:53 AM
Response to Original message
69. "He only sponsored two bills" and you omit his Patriot Act and IWR votes?
Revisionism.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PurityOfEssence Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 01:24 PM
Response to Reply #69
70. He did not "sponsor" them, and I said I was omitting them because so much had been said already
This is in the beginning of my post, and it's obvious and prominent. Your intimation that I'm ducking or minimalizing them is ridiculous.

He was a co-sponsor for 203 bills, and the ones with a progressive bent were listed to bring some perspective to a falsely dismissed record.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon May 06th 2024, 10:49 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC