Edwards Sees Duty to Support Civil Rights

[NNN0LHI]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=694&ncid=703&e=3&u=/ap/20040220/ap_on_el_pr/edwards

SAVANNAH, Ga. - Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards (news - web sites) sought to broaden his jobs-and-trade theme Friday in hopes of courting black voters in key primaries, arguing that as a Southern politician he has a special responsibility to lead the nation on civil rights.


Edwards said he grew up in the South in the 1950s and the 1960s and witnessed segregation in its closing days, which he said makes him a messenger advocating civil rights.


"I have, as many of you have, seen the ugliest face of segregation and discrimination," he said. "That responsibility, by the way, is to lead, not follow, when it comes to issues of civil rights."


The North Carolina senator opened an outdoor rally in Savannah by listening to stories of workers who have lost their jobs largely to factories overseas. He said they underscore his call to toughen trade policies to better protect American workers.

more

[cid]

1. Didnt he vote for the Patriot Act?

whats his position now on that? Does he plan on amending it or repealing the violations of civil liberty contained in that?

[AP]

2. Along with 48 other Dems. And the one who didn't praised the work the dems

did to make the bill much less oppressive than the one the administration asked for.

[HFishbine]

3. Sigh,. We're back to that argument

"He's no worse than the rest of them." How inspiring.

[AP]

4. You remeber 9/11? You wonder why that happened? It was so

Republicans could get every fascistic desire in their hearts satisfied and so they could call Democrats unpatriotic if it were denied them. It was their Reichstag fire.

Well, read through the transcripts from the PA floor debate. The Democrats DID deny them a LOT of the fascistic crap they asked for, we still have a (semblence of) democracy, and the top two Democrats in the field couldl both beat Bush if the election were today.

So far we're doding a Fourth Reich, and you have Democrats to thank for that.

[HFishbine]

7. Is that Edwards' official position?

That 9/11 happened so that the republicans could fulfill their fascist desires? Is that on his web site somewhere?

[AP]

8. He said today that they're exploting it.

How do you think 9/11 happened?

You DON'T think they stood down on defense and secretly hoped something would happen?

In summer 2001, Bush went around and said he wouldn't take money out of SS unless there were a fiscal crisis, depression, or war. One day he said the first two, went on to his next sentence, realized he left out war, went back and repeated the sentence with 'war' added to the end.

That's when I knew something would happen that would bring on a "war." Or at least that's when I knew we were going to have a Reichstag fire.

And regardless of whether they planned it (which some DU'ers believe, not me) or whether they stood down on defense without knowing what would happen, but fairly certain something would happen (which I think is patently obvious), nobody can deny that they did, in fact, exploint 9-11 to get the things they wanted -- the PA, the IWR, victories in 2002 midterms. But I also think the Democrats have put up a pretty valiant effort in fighting back the full force of what they wanted.

Compare Hitler's success to Bush's. Hitler steamrolled Germany with a similar strategy. Bush might actually lose in 2004.

[HFishbine]

9. Facts don't get in your way, do they?

Making the claim, as you did, that 9.11 was the result of republicans wanting to fulfil their fascist desires is a far cry from the warning Edwards issued today: "George Bush and his team - they think they're going to exploit this tragedy for a few days at their convention." (1) So, that leaves unsanswered whether or not your initial claim reflects Edwards' position.

Second, you are wrong that Bush was making his "trifecta" remarks in the summer of '01. He didn't make such a comment until after 9.11, in April of '02 to be precise. (2) And when he did say it for the first time, his reference to having said it earlier was a falacey, he was actually rememebering Al Gore having said it. (3)

So, it's pretty funny that you knew prior to 9.11 that something was going to happen based on remarks Bush didn't make until months after 9.11.



1) http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/18472.htm

2) http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/04/20020416-8.html

3) http://www.buzzflash.com/alerts/2002/07/02_Trifecta.html

[AP]

10. I heard Bush leave out war from his list, and go back and add it.

Dana Milbank's denial notwithtanding, I heard it. He didn't say 'trifecta' but he did list those things.

And Edward said that Bush is explointing 9/11, which is all I claimed.

What do YOU think 9/11 was all about. How did it happen? How did Bush use it afterward?

Do you think he could have pushed through the PA without it?

[AP]

12. This didn't take long to find:

This is summer 2001, when I heard Bush say it, which is before 9/11.


in an August 20 speech Bush hinted that he could tap the Social Security surplus in case of recession or war...Soon enough, Bush's aides were claiming he had "always" made these exceptions--though there is no evidence he had ever made them before, and the White House has been unable to cite an instance when he did. Over subsequent weeks the imaginary escape clause continued to mutate, with Bush throwing in the specific (false) detail that he had made the exception during the campaign and adding "national emergency" to the list of exceptions he'd supposedly made. (Apparently, the "trifecta" plays better comedically.) In recent weeks Bush has rewritten his budgetary history yet again. Now the president tells audiences he has always said that in a time of recession, war, or national emergency, he could not only borrow from Social Security's surplus but could run overall budget deficits. In other words, the administration now justifies not only dipping into the Social Security surplus, but actually borrowing the whole thing and still running red ink...His original promise to reserve the Social Security surplus has fallen down the memory hole..."
http://www.thenewrepublic.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20020513&s=chait051302

[AP]

14. Hello? My facts were facts. Any response?

[HFishbine]

17. Tell you what

Go back and answer my questions first before you start demanding answers to yours.

[AP]

19. Which question? "Facts, don't get in your way?" I'm answering that one:

facts support my argument.

It seems that that your counterargument was that what I said happened didn't. I just showed you it did. So you're left without a counterargument.

If you have an argument, make it, and I'll deal with it.

[HFishbine]

21. I'll make it easy for you.

See post #7.

[AP]

22. Um, I answered that, and your response was to claim my facts were

inaccurate. My facts were accurate.

What do you want me to do? Invent rebuttals and reply to them?

[AP]

18. Nope? None?

[SangamonTaylor]

5. both

He has stated many times that some parts of the Patriot act need to be repealed, many need to be amended, and others are good for our security.

Those who question his commitment to civil rights should check out his questioning of Judge Pickering during the judicial nomination process. He is committed to nominating judges that believe in, and actually enforce our civil rights laws.

[AP]

6. People should also check out NC politics, and the racist Helms Machine

The first time Gantt (a black Democrat) ran for Senate in NC, the Helms machine pulled out all the stops on dirty campaigning. They did everything they could to keep BLACK voters from having their vote counted. In some counties, machines were "broken" all day. Courts ordered the polls to stay open an extra hour in some places, but the Helms Machine made sure that the polls didn't stay open long enough for everyone in line waiting to vote to cast their votes. And there almost definitely were enough voters in line to make a difference. Not only did they stop people from voting, the Helms Machine ran a very racist ad: it's message that it was a black man's fault that white, working class men weren't as rich as they could be.

North Carolinians, and especially black North Carloinians and North Carlonians who cared about race and about the fact that the state was being turned over to big corporations, like the pig farmers, thought that there was no chance that they'd ever get the Helms machine out of office after that election.

Edwards ran for office, and, against all odds, beat that machine. What he did was he gave a voice to all those who were disenfranchsed by the Helms Machine.

If you think back to FL 2000, remember how you felt when your vote was counted? Well that's how North Carolinians felt. They felt that democracy was never going to work for them.

John Edwards made it work. He was a hero for democracy in NC in 1998, and he's going to be a hero for democracy in America in 2004.

[HFishbine]

11. "If you think back to FL 2000...

remember how you felt when your vote was counted." (sic)

And remember how you felt when the Congressional Black Caucus tried to challenge the Florida results on the floor of the House and only needed one senator to stand up to support their motion? Think back to how that brave and noble defender of civil rights, John Edwards, was the only senator to stand up and say, "This is wrong. I will stand with the Congressional Black Caucus and challenge the disenfranchisement of thousands of minority voters." And remember how the house invalidated the Florida results and Al Gore was sworn in as president all thanks to the unyielding principles of John Edwards?

Remember that?


I didn't think so.

[AP]

13. Gore wouldn't stand up for himself. Gore gave up the fight a month before

that event.

The problem was that the guy on the top of the ticket didn't have enough conviction to care about having his supporters' votes counted.

It was good of the CBC to make a stand, but where was it going to go if a senator stood up? The battle had already been lost a dozen times in the previous months when Gore repeatedly chose the wrong strategies.

Gore asked Jackson not to protest and told him he might as well go home at some point before December after Jackson had offered to take it to the streets. Clinton tried to get advice to Gore on what to do, and Gore wouldn't accept. The two most knowledgeable recount lawyers in America told him the strategy to use to win, and he ignored it. (This is all in Too Close to Call, if memory serves.)

Gore was telling people not to stand up for him. And you expected a senator to tilt at windmills at that point in the game on Gore's behalf?

Greg Pallast says that Gore got calls from his corporate friends in NY who told him that he shouldn't expect to sit on any corporate boards if he didn't give up the fight.

What exactly was going to happen if the Florida results were challenged in late january.

[HFishbine]

15. And once again, in defense of Edwards we have

"He's no worse than the rest of them."

[AP]

16. Actually, the comparison is that Gore didn't have the conviction to

stand up for his supporters to have their votes counted.

Edwards saw this very same thing -- people not having their votes counted -- happen in NC in 92, and ran in 98 to give those people a voice.

And it's absurd to criticize Democrats in the senate for not standing up for Gore one month after Gore gave up the fight, chose bad strategy, told Jackson not to stand up for him, and, if you believe Greg Pallast, cared more about future income from Board of Directorships than he cared about being the POTUS.

[HFishbine]

20. You have a great gift for shifting the argument

away from contradictions. If Edwards is such a defender of civil rights, why didn't he stand with the Black Caucus to challenge the disenfranchisement of thousands of minority voters in Florida? Stay focused here, I'm not asking why he didn't defend Al Gore, I'm asking why didn't he stand with the Congressional Black Caucus; why didn't he stand with the disenfranchised voters in Florida? If your answer is that there were other considerations, so be it. But Edwards clearly had a chance to challenge an afront to civil rights and he sat on his hands.

[AP]

23. Gore quit a month earlier to go sit on corporate boards.

If any senator supported CBC, Gore still would have gone to sit on corporate boards.

Edwards is standing for Florida's disenfrenchised voters by running for president in 2004, which is what he did in '98 after he saw what happened in '92.

Did he go beat up Helms in '92? No. He beat up Helms when it mattered -- when there was an election in '98, which is what he's doing now.

Get it?