Some thoughts about John Edwards

[knight_of_the_star]

This is based heavily on the PATRIOT Act and IWR.

Kerry, I'm sure, is not feeling so good about his vote on PATRIOT, as are most of the Senate Dems who voted for it. I mean, there was only ONE who voted against, one abstention. That doesn't show popularity, more that Congress was duped. And I'm pretty sure that Kerry and most of the members of the Senate who see it for what it is, they are probably feeling pretty sick in the stomach about being so cruelly manipulated.

Edwards doesn't. He helped write part of the thing. He had said that he believes it is the right thing to do.

Iraq War Resolution. Kerry is saying that he was duped (I know, I have a hard time believing it) but at least he is coming out questioning Bush on it. He went so far as to prove that by voting down the 87 billion dollar check.

Edwards is saying he is proud of his vote and support of the war. Yet he voted against the 87 billion dollar check. Think of how that will play over in the GE, saying he backs the war but won't give it more funding. Doesn't sound too consistent, does it?

We want to run someone who is actually OPPOSSED to Bush, not someone who agrees with him on two BIG issues, and trust me they will beat him with a club over those two, you all know that Rove and Co will do so mercilessly.

While I don't care much for Kerry, in fact everyone knows who I still am voting for here, at LEAST he is on the other side of those issues of Bush. And this is not something to shill for Kerry.

Just some things to think about John Edwards.

[deminflorida]

1. He's by far the easiest candidate for the Bush Administration to

bash in the general election. I think the Repubs even had a "Bash John Edwards Day" a while back. They prefer him over Kerry, period.

[deminflorida]

2. I'll even add this....

It was questionable as to whether Edwards could re-win his Senate seat from North Carolina this term. This is the guy we should give the nomination to?

[knight_of_the_star]

4. I know

Joe and Dick dropping out of re-running makes sense, they've both been at it for a while and deserve retirement, but being forced out of the Senate after only ONE term speaks volumes about the man's political potential. At least Wes Clark had solid military experience and a good career in spite of not getting along with "the good ol' boys club." Edwards can't really claim anything like that.

[Lex]

8. Did you just say that

Edwards was "forced out of the Senate after one term"?

Please explain.

Also, do you know any person currently running for President who has gone up against a Republican incumbent in a Southern State and beat that Republican incumbent?

Edwards did.

[knight_of_the_star]

14. Here's another one

He looks like if he runs again he will LOSE. Is it possible it was either:

a.) a fluke

or

b.) anti-incumbent feelings. Those often do funny things in elections.

What I've heard coming out of there shows that if he were to run for the Senate again this year, he would lose.

[AP]

19. Even Howard Fineman admitted today that he could have won that seat

if he were running for it (although he made up a BS reason for what's going on in NC).

[atre]

27. Actually

What alienated North Carolinians was the perception that he had been running for President rather than representing the state in the Senate. If he had not run for President, he would not have had that problem.

[arewethereyet]

3. another take

look, America is OK with Iraq and the War on Terror. You can buck it but they are.

However, you can neutralize Bush's attachment to it by doing exactly what Edwards is doing.

Then what is there for Bush ? Jobs/Economy. NAFTA good/NAFTA bad.

Draw a CLEAR line with something people CARE about.

Thats why Edwards is accomplishing what he's accomplishing.

[knight_of_the_star]

5. Bad idea

People worry AS MUCH about national security as they do the economy. And don't expect Bush not to use that kind of approach against him.

I can see it now, "WEAK ON DEFENSE!!!! HE WON'T EVEN DISCUSS IT!!! HE AGREES WITH BUSH ON IT, WHY IS HE RUNNING TO REPLACE HIM?"

We have to have someone who will REPLACE Bush, not just re-write his economic policies. If you are looking for a repeat of what Clinton did, you are looking in the wrong time and place. We weren't stuck in an occupation of a foreign nation and suddenly ultra-paranoid about terrorism in 1992. A lot of people DO fall into the latter, and we ARE in the former.

And Bush IS running as a "war president." He will blame the economy on his little war, and Edwards will be stuck.

ON EDIT: agreeing on something in this political climate does NOT neutralize, and it won't with those issues in this day and age.

[arewethereyet]

9. I guess we'll find out in November

but I'm not sure how you make the jump from agreeing that defense is importent (Edwards current position) to weak on defense (your idea).

He DOES discuss it. He's running to replace him because he has a better plan to put America on a superior economic footing WHILE being diligent. Doesn't hurt to have a chairman of the joint chiefs be a confidant if you want to project seriousness regarding defense.

I suppose we'll need to agree to disagree on this.

[knight_of_the_star]

13. I don't have to make the leap

That is the leap that Rove will take. He has shown to do things like that before, remember South Carolina?

[DaisyUCSB]

11. How is a politician who has 4 years of foriegn policy experience

going to call someone with 6 years of foriegn policy experience weak on defense without it backfiring.

Edwards has better policy proposals for how to improve security than Edwards, and the electorate appreciates someone who spends some time talking about what they would do instead of JUST complaining. And, no, it would be you're inevitable knee-jerk response if I didn't suffice to say, he has and will continue to critisize and take the offensive to Bush but it will be effective if he does both

[knight_of_the_star]

6. Silence speaks louder than words.

The lack of replies is enough of an answer for me tonight.

[Lex]

10. It's hard to know where to

begin answering your post. Lots of stuff just plain misleading, if not outright false.

[knight_of_the_star]

17. Then answer

But I have facts to back up what I say as well. I don't say something unless I can put some weight behind it.

[DaisyUCSB]

7. How many times can you mislead in one post

"they are probably feeling pretty sick in the stomach about being so cruelly manipulated.

Edwards doesn't. He helped write part of the thing. He had said that he believes it is the right thing to do."

You know who else "helped write part of the thing" EVERY OTHER MEMBER OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE. Why don't you leave you're out-thin-air "probablies" for a post that isn't a smear. At least some of the other smear threads which try to spread the same BS use some facts.

"Iraq War Resolution. Kerry is saying that he was duped (I know, I have a hard time believing it) but at least he is coming out questioning Bush on it. He went so far as to prove that by voting down the 87 billion dollar check."- - Kerry has NEVER said that he was duped. He has virtually the same position as Edwards, and other than the PROCLAMATION from Dean and Clark, after it was passed that they WOULD HAVE voted against the Iraq congressional resolution, they have the same position as well.


"Edwards is saying he is proud of his vote and support of the war. Yet he voted against the 87 billion dollar check. Think of how that will play over in the GE, saying he backs the war but won't give it more funding. Doesn't sound too consistent, does it?" - - KERRY HAS THE SAME FREAKING POSITION AND THE SAME FREAKING VOTE, Edwards has NEVER said that he was "Proud" of his vote, but he does stand behind it, and he has consistently critisized Bush's handling of and rush to war, he has CERTAINLY NEVER said he was proud of the war.

[knight_of_the_star]

12. Kerry's position was different on IWR

He has been out in the public saying he was duped into it, which actually DOES play well with people that aren't political junkies. Edwards has said no such thing, for one.

Another thing, where is your proof the Intell Committee helped write the PATRIOT Act?

Also, Clark was OPPOSED to the war, if you bother to read his ENTIRE testimony in the hearing that he was at in September of 2002, not the Matt Drudge version. The one that says that Saddam, in his opinion, has no weapons to speak of and is NOT a threat. I would have hoped you would have known that based on your avatar.

ON EDIT: Being patronizing doesn't help you any.

[AP]

20. Is Kerry really saying he was duped into voting for it? That's lame.

Did you happen to read the other lame threads here in the last two days about this issue?

Edwards was on the committee that made sure that bill had things that the Republicans didn't want in it. Edwards didn't author any of those things, and certianly didn't author ANYTHIGN that came from the Justice Department in the original version. But he was on the committee responsible for taking out the worst stuff and putting in a few good things (which even Fiengold applauded).

[RafterMan]

15. Are you just picking on the word?

EDWARDS: I think that we were right to go. I think we were right to go to the United Nations. I think we couldn’t let those who could veto in the Security Council hold us hostage.

And I think Saddam Hussein, being gone is good. Good for the American people, good for the security of that region of the world, and good for the Iraqi people.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3131295/

He sounds reasonably proud, to me.

Certainly moreso than Kerry:

"Did I think Bush was going to charge unilaterally into war? No. Did I think he would make such an incredible mess of the situation? No. Am I angry about it? You're God damned right I am. I chose to believe the President of the United States. That was a terrible mistake."

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/clips/news_2003_1210b.html

[knight_of_the_star]

16. THAT is what I was talking about

I was trying to find something on his campaign website, but for some odd reason he doesn't have anything official on his website for the Iraq War. You have to search his site to find anything, and all it gives are statements from the time just before the war.

[RafterMan]

18. You mean Edwards?

Here's my favorite:

"My position is very clear: The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. I am a co-sponsor of the bipartisan resolution we're currently considering.

Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave threat to America and our allies -- including our vital ally, Israel. For more than 20 years, Saddam has obsessively sought weapons of mass destruction through every possible means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons today, that he has used them in the past, and that he is doing everything he can to build more. Every day he gets closer to his longtime goal of nuclear capability. We must not allow him to get nuclear weapons."

It's pure Bush!

http://www.johnedwards2004.com/page.asp?id=62

[AP]

21. It's pure Clinton and Gore. Read the Age of Sacred Terror and the Clinton

Wars.

Also, I don't see how this is going to hurt Edwards. People are saying Bush is going to kill him on foreign affairs. With what? His vote on the PA and the IWR? Right.

[RafterMan]

23. Huh

Funny how Clinton and Gore never got around to invading.

Were the Republicans were blocking their righteous crusade?

[DjTj]

29. Clinton and Gore were in power before 9/11...

...nobody knows what anyone would have done as President after 9/11 except for what Bush did.

Clinton enforced serious sanctions and enforced no-fly zones over Iraq. It was about as invasive and aggressive a policy we had against any sovereign nation.

Anything anybody here says about what anybody else would have done in the wake of 9/11 is pure speculation.

[RafterMan]

31. Sigh.

You again!

Now you're claiming that 9/11 altered the level of threat posed by Saddam Hussein?

How! The threat posed by SH on 9/12 was EXACTLY the same as it was on 9/10.

The increase in John Edwards' level of fear did not correspond to any alteration of facts in the real world. Will he govern by mood-swing?

Of course I can't say what anyone else would have done. But I can say that anyone who decided to invade Iraq was a plain fool.

[DjTj]

32. Nope.

9/11 did not alter the threat posed by Saddam...

BUT it did alter the perceived threat of terrorism.

The increase in the American peoples' level of fear did not correspond to any alteration of facts in the real world, but it gave a President the support he needed to invade Iraq.

Look, I'm almost completely sure that neither Clinton, Gore, nor Edwards would have launched a ground invasion of Iraq, but nobody can say that with 100% certainty

A majority of Americans in early 2003 were fools because they thought invasion was the right course, but in a Democracy sometimes the fools will win.

Our task is to make sure we get this fool out of office.

[HFishbine]

34. Another Bush Argument

Well put. The Chimp himself couldn't have said it any better.

[aldian159]

25. No one else on Senate intell. is running,

Graham is out, so no one else is running.

[AP]

22. If you want to read the legislative record for PA, here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=354765

If you want to be able to continue writing posts like the above regardless of the facts, don't bother ...

[PurityOfEssence]

24. This is absolutely preposterous

Edwards does not flatly defend the Patriot Act; he has problems with lots of it, but does say that parts were necessary, like providing the ability to tap an individual instead of a phone number.

Before that heinous mess of a rights-grab, it was impossible to get a court order to tap an individual, you could only tap a number. That is ridiculous in this day. He is on record for saying that it's been radically misapplied, and he was THE TOUGHEST CRITIC OF ASHCROFT DURING HIS CONFIRMATION HEARINGS AND VOTED AGAINST HIM.

Edwards doesn't just blow with the wind and say that it's all different now and the whole thing was bad, he stands by parts of it, and he thinks the rest IS bad. He was also instrumental in making sure the sunset clause was there, lest we forget.

As for the IWR, that was an authorization based on closed-door information, and he's said that the reason he did it was the nuclear question.

Voting against the administration's $87B blank check is an act of resilience: he's not going to just let them have their way. I absolutely hate this simplistic thinking: either give us everything we want or you're stranding our boys in the desert. That's crap. His vote was because it was a pork-laden boatload of graft, and on top of that, it was offered as a demand for the administration to do as it pleased without oversight. That needs to stop, and he knows that. It's not inconsistent, opportunistic or fickle. Yes, the effort needs to be funded, but that doesn't mean one has to just let these gangsters bill as they please. Letting them know that is crucial, and if they want to pick on that, it'll backfire.

Kerry's record has some real bombshells in it, and it's merciful that there are many fewer in Edwards', whether due to his shorter career or what. The monarchists are going to ram Kerry's vote against the first Gulf War down his throat, and that's a real corker.

Edwards has voted against the administration very aggressively, and he's been very engaged in the Intelligence Committee.

Why does the American Conservative Union rate him as farther to the left than Kucinich? He's been consistent with a class warfare message, and THEY HATE THAT. As the late, grating Lee Atwater said: "the best way for the Democrats to win the Presidency is to fight class warfare.

They tried the evil trial lawyer schtick in '98 and failed miserably; his cases were ethical. If they want to blame the cost of health care on his causing the explosion of malpractice premiums, that'll blow up in their face, since they have no health plan and the insurance companies have used the physicians as stooges to make good on huge losses in high tech investments. The administration can't bring up health care without getting burned.

He's only had one marriage, he's a good Methodist, he's the Horatio Alger story writ large and he's squeaky clean. They're terrified of this guy. The fear is palpable, and it's confirmed by the conservatives I know.

This guy is literally THE BEST CANDIDATE WE'VE HAD IN FORTY YEARS, and it's shocking how hellbent so many are to throw away a golden opportunity.

[katieforeman]

26. Keep fighting the good fight Purity.

You are %100 correct.

[atre]

28. Excellent post

[spooky3]

33. Stop confusing us with the facts! :-)

[Barad Simith]

30. Edwards has a good exit strategy:

http://www.johnedwards2004.com/page.asp?id=104

- Involve our allies, the United Nations and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in establishing a free Iraqi government with legitimacy in the region and around the world.

- Create a NATO-led multinational peacekeeping force to ensure that the Iraqi people live in a place that is safe and secure.

- Ensure that the Iraqi people - not some puppet government - shape the nation's future under a government that reflects the nation's diversity.

- Help develop a prosperous economy by making clear that Iraq's vast oil reserves will not be exploited by the United States or others.

Unless the United States takes those steps to meet its ongoing responsibilities in Iraq, Senator Edwards cautioned, the victory that our military achieved could be squandered as radical clerics take advantage of a power vacuum in the postwar chaos.

A cosponsor of the resolution that gave President Bush authority to wage war in Iraq, Senator Edwards and others stressed during the run up to the war last fall that the administration needed to focus on what would happen in Iraq after Saddam Hussein was driven from power.

The senator first laid out his four-step proposal for postwar Iraq in a Senate statement on April 10, one day after the fall of Baghdad.

"It is in America's national interest to help build an Iraq at peace with itself and its neighbors because a democratic, tolerant and accountable Iraq will be a peaceful regional partner," Senator Edwards said.