Edwards Repeatedly Used Reagan As An Example Of Change

[AlertLurker]

Jan 17, 2008:

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/01/17/politics/fromtheroad/entry3724550.shtml

"I can promise you this: this president will never use Ronald Reagan as an example for change."

May 23, 2007:

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070901faessay86502-p0/john-edwards/reengaging-with-the-world.html

"For 50 years, presidents from Truman and Dwight Eisenhower to Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton built strong alliances and deepened the world's respect for us. We gained that respect by viewing our military strength not as an end in itself but as a means to protect a system of laws and institutions that gave hope to billions across the globe. In avoiding the temptation to rule as an empire, we hastened the fall of a corrupt and evil one in the Soviet Union. The lesson is that we cannot only be warriors; we must be thinkers and leaders as well."
...
"Millions cheered in Berlin when President John F. Kennedy stood with them and said, "Ich bin ein Berliner." Millions of people imprisoned behind the Iron Curtain silently cheered the day President Reagan declared, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" Even if these ordinary men and women did not always agree with our policies, they looked to our president and saw a person -- and a nation -- they could trust.
...
"We also need to renew our commitment to engagement and diplomacy in order to solve problems before they occur, rather than scrambling to deal with crises after they have erupted. With engagement comes far greater knowledge and the potential for progress and even trust. Presidents Kennedy and Reagan talked with Soviet leaders at the height of the Cold War, in both cases turning back major threats to our national security. We need to do the same with Iranian and North Korean leaders."

Does Edwards somehow believe that NO ONE will be able to dig this up? How STUPID does he actually believe people are?

[MonkeyFunk]

1. good find

Edwards talks a good game, but I don't believe a word of it.

[OneGrassRoot]

2. Nope, sorry...there were threads about this yesterday and it's just apples and oranges.

and, remember, I have never been anti-Obama or an Obama hater, so I have no agenda. He's been my second. And, YES, I'm informed; I just happen to disagree with your take on Obama's Reagan comments.

[AlertLurker]

6. I didn't have a take on Obama's comments.

It was Edwards' hypocrisy I was pointing out.

For the record, I'm not an Obamite, either.

As a northern neighbour, I can't vote, anyway.

I just believe that Edwards is so full of it that he should be called out when he does stuff like this, for ONCE.

[OneGrassRoot]

11. Understood. And this is an instance where....

we'll just need to agree to disagree. I don't see any comparison between the two, but I understand you do.

:hi:

[JDPriestly]

25. This statement refers to Reagan as having continued a tradition

established by Kennedy and respected and followed by all presidents. Edwards does not point to Reagan as an agent of change. Reagan was not an agent of change. Or rather, to the extent Reagan was an agent of change, it was for the worse. It was for hate rather than love.

[chimpymustgo]

3. Stupid. This is about Reagan and the Soviets. Nothing about CHANGE in the USA. Get lost.

That's just being stupid - grasping at straws.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

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

[KittyWampus]

16. this is the second time I've seen you call another DU'er a troll.

[Tennessee Gal]

5. Those quotes do not make your point.

They are all about diplomacy, foreign affairs, and respect for America around the world. They simply point out that before Bush, we had respect.

They are not about change.

[terip64]

7. exactly, thanks for putting it into words for me. n/t

[moriah]

9. Besides, he said he "will never"...

... not that he hasn't in the past.

:)

In a nation where the meaning of "is" can be twisted (and I'm a Hillary supporter), those distinctions are necessary...

*duck and cover*

[AlertLurker]

12. Semantically, you are absolutely correct.

When politicians go into "CYA mode," this is EXACTLY what happens...

I wonder if I should e-mail this little gem to the Obama campaign to test the theory on Mr. Ed-Wards?

[LynneSin]

13. You don't think the Obama campaign doesn't already have this

and realize they really don't have anything to use against Edwards.

[AlertLurker]

14. Well, if they didn't before, they have it now.

What they use or how they use it is their own business, I suppose.

Nice bunny. Nice pancake. Mmmmmm...pancakes - great idea!

[AlertLurker]

10. I think your interpretation is too narrow.

He couples Reagan with Truman, Eisenhower and Kennedy to illustrate HOW the USA gained respect worldwide by being advocates for change. He uses Reagan and the Wall as an example of how the world can be transformed by strong USAmerican leadership and laments the current state of worldwide opinion to illustrate what he hopes to accomplish if he gains the WH.

At least that's how I see it...

[AP]

15. Where is the word "change" anywhere in that quote?

[sam sarrha]

19. why dont they be honest and call him a wet brain alcoholic drug addict loser..

:shrug: we would get a standing ovation in the UN

[iamahaingttta]

8. Go back to lurking...

Please let the adults continue with our conversation.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

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

[Joe the Revelator]

18. This is how Edwards supporters deal with factual evidence of hypocrisy?

Awesome.

[AlertLurker]

20. So everyone having fewer posts than you is a freeper?

Threats?
Fallacies?
Smears on my beloved Glorious Nothern Homeland?
Dumbf#ckistan?

WTFistan?

This is all you got? Is this what passes for political discussion around here? I really don't mind those who disagree with my interpretation and/or have something to add to the discussion, but don't you think that you are going a little over the top, here?

Too bad Red's been dead for 27 years - I'm sure he'd be ashamed of you. Bad ol' hoss...Bad!


:rofl:

[Tom Rinaldo]

21. Not good analogies

For one thing Edwards always paired Reagan with other Democratic Presidents in these quotes to make a larger point about American leadership, he did not pit him against Democrats to make a larger point about why Americans were dissatisfied with Democratic leadership. And of course none of these quotes are about Domestic policies and poltics, which others have already pointed out.

[AlertLurker]

22. I understand/respect your viewpoint, but disagree.

What would be the point in pairing Reagan with these great presidents if it wasn't to allude to the fact that, LIKE THEM, Reagan WAS a transformational president in many ways? He certainly didn't SEEM to be Reagan-bashing...

I believe that he coupled Reagan with Truman, Eisenhower and Kennedy to illustrate HOW the USA gained respect worldwide by being advocates for change - and how he, himself, could be that agent of change necessary for the US to gain worldwide respect again if elected POTUS.

I do not believe that Obama was talking about Reagan's domestic policies and Edwards' rebuttal: “I can promise you this: this president will never use Ronald Reagan as an example for change” fails to mention anything about domestic policy, either.

I don't believe that the analogies are perfect, either, but I do believe that they prove my point.

You can interpret his comments as narrowly (or as broadly) as you like to suit your point of view, I suppose - it IS YOUR opinion, after all.

[JDPriestly]

27. Read the quote please.

Edwards states that American presidents have a tradition of conducting foreign policy in a certain way. He cites presidents from both parties to support his claim that the tradition exists. Edwards does not suggest that Kennedy, Clinton or Reagan changed the American way of conducting foreign policy. To the contrary, he demonstrates how they all conformed with the established tradition regardless of their party.

Edwards did not use Reagan as an example of change. He used him as an example of the continuity of a fundamental tradition in American foreign policy. Edwards is a lawyer. He uses language very carefully. That is how he made his millions.

[JDPriestly]

26. You struck an important point.

Obama contrasted Reagan favorably against his Democratic predecessor, Jimmy Carter. That is completely insane. Jimmy Carter was millions times the man that Reagan was. Reagan was a shallow suit who could read a script fairly well and grin for the camera. That is all he was. He was out of the loop 95% of the time. Remember Iran-Contra -- both he and GWB were out of the loop.

[sandnsea]

23. You're right of course

What Reagan did on the international scene was worse than the domestic. But don't expect anything resembling honesty on DU regarding Obama. They've ginned up more hate than exists towards John Kerry, whoda thunk it.

[JDPriestly]

24. Edwards uses Kennedy and Reagan to illustrate that he is talking

about a tradition in our foreign policy that has been respected by both parties until GWB. Edwards does not use Reagan as an example of change. To the contrary, he is saying that even Reagan carried on the tradition that men like Kennedy held to which was that you turn back threats to national security through patience and negotiation.