Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The "cult" stuff is making DU look bad.

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
 
Renew Deal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-08-08 12:29 AM
Original message
The "cult" stuff is making DU look bad.
Edited on Fri Feb-08-08 12:36 AM by Bleachers7
I have been checking into DU throughout the day. The "cult" stuff is today's hot topic. Funny thing about it is that you are the only morons talking about it. I've looked at other prominent Democratic sites, and there's no mention. I did a google news search for cult and a hit piece against Obama comes up at the bottom of the page.

Do you really think that real people in the real world care about this stuff? They want to know how to get their kids back from the war that Hillary approved. They want to know how they will survive unemployment or an illness.

The puerile discourse at DU is disturbing, disgusting, and unattractive. This is decreasingly becoming a place to learn. It's increasingly becoming one of the biggest sewers on the internets. Why should new people join DU? Looking around today, I'd say stay away.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
scheming daemons Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-08-08 12:30 AM
Response to Original message
1. It's this week's "Snub gate"
...who knows what next week's will be...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lautremont Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-08-08 12:33 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Next week one of them accuses the other of sprinkling pubes into their ice cream.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Straight Shooter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-08-08 12:34 AM
Response to Original message
3. We're the "morons talking about it," but you started a thread on it. Okay, then. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Renew Deal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-08-08 12:35 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. Thanks for identifying yourself.
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Straight Shooter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-08-08 01:07 AM
Response to Reply #4
12. I quoted you. They are your words.
And you're being disingenuous. You read the threads. You know what I think of Barack. It seems a lot more people are beginning to think the same thing.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Renew Deal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-08-08 01:26 AM
Response to Reply #12
25. I have no idea what you think of Barack.
And I don't know why you think I should.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SheWhoMustBeObeyed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-08-08 12:36 AM
Response to Original message
5. Kooky tsunami conspiracy theories
This place has a fever, and more cowbell won't cure it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Renew Deal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-08-08 12:37 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. Those are always fun
Also anything to do with chemtrails. :tinfoilhat:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SheWhoMustBeObeyed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-08-08 12:41 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. Those were the days, eh?
A good LIHOP/MIHOP battle pales in comparison to the current nonsense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
psychopomp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-08-08 02:19 AM
Response to Reply #8
71. Amen
It has gotten to the point where posters I would never have expected to participate in the mudslinging have eagerly stooped to the basest level of name-calling.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lucinda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-08-08 12:38 AM
Response to Original message
7. Of all the topics at DU this season you think THIS is the one that makes DU look bad?
Okiedokie.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BattyDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-08-08 01:02 AM
Response to Original message
9. You know what pisses me off the most about the "Obama cult" comments?
They're coming from Hillary supporters, both in the media and here at DU. It's not Freepers who are saying this, it's FELLOW DEMOCRATS who are spewing this shit!

:wtf:

It's fine if some people don't see the appeal of Obama or don't "get" his message, but other people do and they feel like their voice will finally be heard by their government if Obama is elected. Yes, they have hope ... and there's nothing wrong with that! For the first time in 40 years, the Democrats have a candidate who is inspiring people to get involved in our democracy. Why are some people so angry about that? Why is that a bad thing? :shrug:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue_State_Elitist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-08-08 01:07 AM
Response to Reply #9
11. You know pisses me off most about the "Bill Clinton sex scandal" comments?
They're coming from Obama supporters!


Don't be so sensitive. Your leader isn't perfect.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BattyDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-08-08 01:24 AM
Response to Reply #11
23. I have not made one negative comment about Bill or Hillary.
But you're right ... there's a lot of stupid shit coming from both sides and frankly, I really wish it would stop.

I'm not sensitive about Obama's faults. I know he isn't perfect and I have no problem with people pointing out his flaws or criticizing his position on the issues. I'm not some brainless twit who got seduced by Obama's pretty words. The man isn't even my first choice for president ... he's my fourth.

What bothers me is this:

When people call Obama a cult leader, they're not insulting him, they're insulting his supporters ... they're insulting people who finally found a reason to get involved. How is that a good thing for the Democratic party in the long run?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
niceypoo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-08-08 01:42 AM
Response to Reply #23
37. Cult of personality
The 'cult' thing stems from Obama worship. It is a tad disturbing when you see people falling apart emotionally from hearing a canned stump speech

A cult of personality or personality cult arises when a country's leader uses mass media to create a larger-than-life public image through unquestioning flattery and praise. Cults of personality are often found in dictatorships but can be found in some democracies as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_personality">A cult of personality is similar to general hero worship except that it is specifically built around political leaders.

This is going to keep snowballing until Obama himself stops it, but he is too drunk on his own kool aid to even see it, and his campaign is intentionally fanning it. Eventually it will begin scaring people.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BattyDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-08-08 01:54 AM
Response to Reply #37
48. I know what a cult of personality is ...
but I don't see that among the Obama supporters I know. Of course some people cry when they hear him speak. No matter what you think of the man, you have to admit, he is a great orator!

After seven years of being pissed on and pretty much forgotten by the Bush administration, people get emotional when he speaks because they finally feel some hope and I honestly think that's what we're seeing. It's not blind worship, it's simply a release of all the emotions that have been building up for quite a while now. JMHO
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Renew Deal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-08-08 02:01 AM
Original message
Some of the people on DU are so detached from reality.
They don't know real people and what real people do. They are in their mother's basements typing about Obama. No one cares about this shit in the real world.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue_State_Elitist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-08-08 02:07 AM
Response to Original message
63. Says the person with nearly 30000 posts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sfam Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-08-08 01:08 AM
Response to Reply #9
13. Its a bad thing because its Obama inspiring people, not Hillary, and we ignore Bill...
Bill Clinton was supposed to be the inspirational figure. For a variety of reasons, his inspiration sort of fell off the rails somewhat. Yes, he made lots of changes, but he did NOT inspire a nation.

That Obama is doing this is just flat out offensive to them, and worse, indirectly says something bad about Hillary. Instead of simply saying we still like Hillary's pragmatic approach more, they feel the need to tell us how clueless we are, and how cultish we are acting. But they aren't really telling us this, they are REALLY hoping this becomes a debate point in the MSM.

And truly, that is what's so sad about all this. Hoping that this becomes a major debate point says something pretty specific about their approach to winning. This truly is the politics of the right and the politics of the past.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
niceypoo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-08-08 01:45 AM
Response to Reply #13
40. But when you ask about this 'inspiration' you get canned slogans or blank looks
Thats because there is nothing behind it, it is emotional fluff. He reads canned stump speeches written by professional paid speech writers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Straight Shooter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-08-08 01:12 AM
Response to Reply #9
15. "For the first time in 40 years, the Democrats have a candidate ..."
Do you realize how Biblical that sounds? Please don't repeat that outside of DU, you only reinforce the meme.

Dean was the most inspiring candidate, and the media killed his campaign. Edwards was an inspiring candidate, and the media killed his campaign.

Like it or not, the word "cult" is associated with Barack. You might say it was inevitable, considering his handlers trying to create an image of the perfect candidate, the one man to save all of us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Renew Deal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-08-08 01:35 AM
Response to Reply #15
31. Dean was more inspiring than RFK?
OK sure.

And that comment doesn't sound biblical at all. It's a fair observation, just as you observed that Dean is the most inspiring candidate in 4 years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Straight Shooter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-08-08 01:50 AM
Response to Reply #31
45. I was trying to bring up candidates in the recent past.
"40 years" is very Biblical. Most people recognize it as the time of wandering in the desert, until saved by Moses. I think there's a lot of subconscious association going on with Barack's followers, and certain things just bubble up to the surface.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Renew Deal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-08-08 01:54 AM
Response to Reply #45
47. The only one talking about bibles is you.
40 years is a period of time that includes RFK. Change it to 50 years and it includes JFK. Does 44 years make you feel better?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Straight Shooter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-08-08 01:59 AM
Response to Reply #47
54. "40 years" and obama is so inspiring.
BattyDem said she didn't mean to make the connection. I was pointing out how it can be viewed.

Hop on over to crooks and liars. They're having a major discussion on the obama cult. You can chime in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BattyDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-08-08 01:43 AM
Response to Reply #15
38. How is that biblical?
I'm not trying to make him sound like a savior because I certainly don't believe that. I do like Obama a lot, but to be honest, he's my fourth choice, LOL! (My first choice didn't run and my second and third choices dropped out.)

I'm 40 years old. I have never seen people - especially young people - feel so passionate about politics. Seriously ... I've NEVER seen anything like this. It amazes me. I wasn't around for JFK and RFK, but I've been told that young people had similar reactions to them, so that's why I made the "40 years" comment. It wasn't meant to be a statement about "a savior arriving after 40 long years" - LOL! I just don't understand why it was a good thing for the Kennedys to inspire people, but it's a bad thing for Obama to inspire people. :shrug:

Regardless of who gets the nomination, isn't it a good thing to have enthusiastic young people getting involved in politics and joining the Democratic party?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Straight Shooter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-08-08 01:57 AM
Response to Reply #38
51. I can't speak to the inspiration of the Kennedys.
I was too young. I remember RFK being assassinated, but didn't realize the impact until years later.

I addressed the 40 years comment in my response to bleachers7. Moses wasn't a savior, but he performed miracles to lead the people out of the desert. I can't remember too much after that, it's been a long time since I've read the Bible. Certain phrases stick with me, though, and "40 years" is one of them. "40 days" is another.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Renew Deal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-08-08 01:59 AM
Response to Reply #51
53. It was just as dumb in the response to me.
40 years is perfectly accurate. 44 years is accurate too, but makes it sound like LBJ. You can continue your witch hunt, it's hysterical.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Straight Shooter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-08-08 02:01 AM
Response to Reply #53
57. You are as thin-skinned and insulting as your candidate.
Buck up. You're going to be defending him a lot in the near future.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Renew Deal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-08-08 02:02 AM
Response to Reply #57
59. Right
Calling you out for your idiocy is "thin skinned."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Straight Shooter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-08-08 02:05 AM
Original message
You are as insulting as your candidate.
He sure is inspiring, isn't he? He's bringing out the worst in all his followers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BattyDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-08-08 02:10 AM
Response to Reply #51
66. I get it.
No problem. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Straight Shooter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-08-08 02:13 AM
Response to Reply #66
68. Thanks, BattyDem. A cheerful note on which I can extricate myself from this thread.
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
juajen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-08-08 01:18 AM
Response to Reply #9
18. We weren't angry until ya'll stirred up a hornets nest by your behavior.
Additionally, it's actually what I think is going on, and I know a lot of people agree with me. Did you read the article from obama's campaign that said, don't talk issues, just tell them your personal story, you know, how you came to love me? This was advice to his campaign coordinators. Try to find the thread. This is very cult-like. You know, don't ask questions, just love me and let the rest of the country know it.

We actually were very polite to you Obamites until you started getting too pushy and too vicious. That's karma. We may be in a minority on DU, but we are a vocal one, and we sure know how to type.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Renew Deal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-08-08 01:33 AM
Response to Reply #18
28. "Hornets nest"
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BattyDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-08-08 02:08 AM
Response to Reply #18
65. My behavior?
Excuse me, but I have not posted one negative comment about Bill or Hillary Clinton. Also, I have not engaged in any of the fighting, name-calling and "pushy, vicious" behavior. I didn't even begin supporting Obama until the day after Edwards dropped out.

I don't appreciate being labeled a cultist simply because some of his supporters have behaved badly. I heard about the "Obama conversion" stories and I think they're ridiculous! However, those people are in the minority. What about all the people who are simply looking for something besides the same old, Washington-insider ideas? I don't think it's fair to diminish all the people across this country who support him by suggesting that they are nothing more than blind, brainless fools who have fallen under his spell.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JVS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-08-08 01:22 AM
Response to Reply #9
20. What's so "fellow" about them?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BattyDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-08-08 02:14 AM
Response to Reply #20
69. Well ... we are supposed to be in this together
Edited on Fri Feb-08-08 02:15 AM by BattyDem
This is the DEMOCRATIC Underground, after all. :-)

On edit:
I REALLY hate primary season at DU, LOL!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eurobabe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-08-08 01:23 AM
Response to Reply #9
22. Granted some are from the other campaign, but how
do we really know most aren't trolls? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Renew Deal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-08-08 01:37 AM
Response to Reply #22
33. It's a mix of trolls, right wingers, and paid staffers.
Edited on Fri Feb-08-08 01:37 AM by Bleachers7
Just look at this thread, there's some here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nonconformist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-08-08 01:49 AM
Response to Reply #33
44.  So, if one thinks that Obama is not the messiah....
Then one is either a troll, right winger or paid staffer?

Wow, I hope I'm of the paid staffer variety, because I need the cash. Except I was an Edwards supporter, so who is paying me?

I actually notice that many of the Obama supporters spouting off right-wing rhetoric are new.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Renew Deal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-08-08 01:51 AM
Response to Reply #44
46. Actually, it's opposite.
If someone calls Obama the messiah they are a troll, right winger, or paid staffer. I wonder where you fall.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nonconformist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-08-08 02:00 AM
Response to Reply #46
56. Ahh, I see what you mean now.
I read it wrong the first time.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eurobabe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-08-08 01:55 AM
Response to Reply #33
50. Can't see them, half are "Ignored"
Edited on Fri Feb-08-08 01:55 AM by 48percenter
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:nuke: :nuke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BattyDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-08-08 02:21 AM
Response to Reply #33
72. Are there really paid people here?
I thought that was a DU myth. Wow ... this place must be pretty important if they're willing to pay people to post here.

DU is moving up in the world! Congrats, Skinner! :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lilith Velkor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-08-08 01:05 AM
Response to Original message
10. "making DU look bad"
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

DU has *always* been a political freakshow. And GD:P has been impossible to take seriously for a freakin' year.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
juajen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-08-08 01:10 AM
Response to Original message
14. Gee, I'm sorry you're upset. Can I even tell you how upset ya'll have
made Hillary supporters. So, can it. We ain't stopping. Ya'll deserve everything thrown at you, and we DUers are thrilled to be the leaders. I don't think it's against the rules to state what we believe, and that's the conclusion we've come to from what ya'll have written and by observing the behavior of his supporters all over the country. They, nor we, seem to know the first thing about what this man is planning to do to make his much heralded "changes". Maybe smile a lot and throw glitter? Oh, I forgot, make mudpies with the pugs, right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Renew Deal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-08-08 01:30 AM
Response to Reply #14
26. I'm not upset at all.
Just pointing out that you are part of the problem. Here's an observation for you. Hillary will never be president, so you are wasting your time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alittlelark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-08-08 01:15 AM
Response to Original message
16. It's getting weird.... It seems as though the paid
disruptor's are REALLY earning their $$$$ riling people up......

It is rather sad.

Those that are getting sucked into this GOP(paid for) morass have my pity, and absolutely NO RESPECT.



I can honestly say this is indeed worse than 2004.... very sad.


The really tragic thing is that they (GOP disruptor's) will have 5 or so more months to spew their poison and continue their divisive 'directive'.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Whisp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-08-08 01:15 AM
Response to Original message
17. I went to dailykos the other day...
didn't really peruse too much because I find it hard to navigate, way different set up than here, but they seem to be civil there.

this is like a 4 hole outhouse in a swamp compared to there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Straight Shooter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-08-08 01:23 AM
Response to Reply #17
21. kos hearts barack
But when you're a fish in the ocean, you don't know you're surrounded by water.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-08-08 01:25 AM
Response to Reply #17
24. Yes. I believe that I will be going there......
because this place here has become dangerous to DU and the Democratic party...at this point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jackson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-08-08 01:46 AM
Response to Reply #24
42. Good riddance
:party:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Straight Shooter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-08-08 02:03 AM
Response to Reply #24
60. Start your own site.
martyrsforobama.com
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NMMNG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-08-08 01:20 AM
Response to Original message
19. Just DU, eh?
American Thinker

Talk Left

Chicago Flame (From 2006 no less, so it blows the "new meme" line out of the water)

Guardian UK

Lavender Newswire

Those are just a few of the sources.


But then many claimed only DUers cared about Donnie McClurkin. They were wrong about that and they're wrong about this. Feel free to stick your head in the sand and cry persecution if you want. That's fine with me.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Renew Deal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-08-08 01:32 AM
Response to Reply #19
27. Those are not prominent Democratic sites.
They're where trolls live. Funny that you're aware of them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NMMNG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-08-08 01:35 AM
Response to Reply #27
30. I know how to work the Google
Do you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Renew Deal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-08-08 01:36 AM
Response to Reply #30
32. Yes,
And they're still not prominent Democratic sites.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NMMNG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-08-08 01:40 AM
Response to Reply #32
35. Who gives a rat's butt?
They're legitimate news sources and blogs that reference well-known publications. That proves the Obama-cult notion has been out there and is in circulation well beyond DU for some time. You don't approve? I'm not surprised and I don't care. Go back to your Egyptian river.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Renew Deal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-08-08 01:42 AM
Response to Reply #35
36. The Lavender newswire, talkleft, and the Chicago Flame are legitimate news sources?
Get a clue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Straight Shooter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-08-08 02:08 AM
Response to Reply #27
64. The Guardian is a troll site?
You've jumped the shark and landed in its mouth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
niceypoo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-08-08 01:34 AM
Response to Original message
29. It isnt going to go away, either
A cult of personality or personality cult arises when a country's leader uses mass media to create a larger-than-life public image through unquestioning flattery and praise.

A cult of personality is similar to general hero worship except that it is specifically built around political leaders.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_personality">Sound familiar?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Renew Deal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-08-08 01:38 AM
Response to Reply #29
34. Doesn't sound familiar at all.
You know why Edwards didn't win any states? Because he was exposed for the right winger he really is. Just look at his voting record.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jackson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-08-08 01:45 AM
Response to Reply #34
41. Real right-wing!
I don't expect an Obama cultist to know anything about the records of candidates, though. Obama is progressive! Hillary and Edwards are right-wing! HOPE! CHANGE! YES WE CAN!

Since the swiftboating of Edwards' record continues from the Obama camp his record deserves another thread. We Edwardians should never forget it was Obama and his lemmings who swiftboated Edwards. It wasn't Hillary.

Tip of my hat to PurityOfEssence for his great job researching Edwards' record.

PurityOfEssence (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 Sun Jan-06-08 04:05 PM
Response to Reply #9
17. Repost of Edwards' Senate Record notes

Much has been said about Edwards’ supposedly conservative term in the Senate. 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:@@ ...

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 skim 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 here; each phrase separated by a comma is a particular bill, and in most cases 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 ... (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?

(end of post)

The Bush Cartel is Shivering In Its Boots About John Edwards: This is An Actual North Carolina GOP Alert Sent to a BuzzFlash Reader

A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS

Below is a copy of an actual GOP alert sent out by the North Carolina Republican Party.

It illustrates how frightened the GOP is of Edwards spoiling the Neo-Confederacy "Southern Strategy" that the Grand Hypocrisy Party (GHP) depends upon to win presidential elections.

Sincerely,

Buzz

* * *

Dear XXXX,

Senator John Edwards' (D-NC) latest effort to package himself as a "mainstream North Carolinian" is entirely contradicted by a four-year voting record that consistently puts ultra-liberal special interests ahead of the people he represents.

CNN's Candy Crowley: "I want to ask you, lastly, about the political spectrum and where you are on it. You are often described as having a liberal voting record. The liberal groups tend to give you high ratings. The conservative groups give you low ratings. Are you a liberal Democrat?

John Edwards: "I'm a mainstream North Carolinian. I think my views and my values represent the values of most people in this country." (CNN's Inside Politics, January 2, 2003)

Bill Cobey, Chairman of the North Carolina Republican Party had the following response: "Senator Edwards, your voting record does not lie. 'Mainstream North Carolinians' don't vote like Georgetown Liberals."

Edwards made similar assertions in 1998 when he promised the people of North Carolina that he would be a moderate voice in the U.S. Senate. Edwards' record, however, reveals the liberal truth:

Edwards' Voting Record Matches Those Of Senators Ted Kennedy And Hillary Clinton

From 1999-2002, Edwards Voted With Senator Ted Kennedy 90% Of The Time. (CQ Vote Comparison, CQ Online Website, www.oncongresscq.com, 106th and 107th Congresses)

From 2001-2002, Edwards Voted With Senator Hillary Clinton 89% Of The Time. (CQ Vote Comparison, CQ Online Website, www.oncongresscq.com, 107th Congress)

Edwards' Liberal Record On Business/Job Growth

Edwards Received A 0% Rating From The Small Business Survival Committee For His Voting Record In 2001. (Small Business Survival Committee Website, www.sbsc.org, accessed Dec.1, 2002)

Edwards Received A 17% Rating From The National Federation Of Independent Business For His Voting Record In 2001. (National Federation Of Independent Business, www.nfib.com, accessed Dec. 1, 2002)

Edwards' Liberal Record On Education

Edwards Voted Against The Creation Of A Demonstration Public School Choice Voucher Program For Disadvantaged Children. (Amendment to S. 1, Roll Call #179: Rejected 41-58: R 38-11; D 3-46; I 0-1, June 12, 2001)

In 2000, Edwards Voted Against The Creation Of Tax-Free Education Savings Accounts For Children To Be Used In The Payment Of Public Or Private School Tuition. (S. 1134, Roll Call #33: Passed 61-37: R 52-2; D 9-35, March 2, 2000)

Edwards' Liberal Record On Abortion

In June Of 2000, Edwards Voted Against Tabling An Amendment That Would Have Repealed The Ban On Privately Funded Abortions At Overseas Military Facilities. (Amendment to S. 2549, Roll Call #134: Passed 50-49: R 48-6; D 2-43, June 20, 2000)

In October Of 1999, Edwards Voted Against Passage Of A Bill To Ban Partial-Birth Abortions. (S. 1692, Roll Call #340: Passed 63-34: R 48-3; D 14-31; I 1-0, October 21, 1999)

Edwards' Liberal Record On Health Care And Social Issues

Edwards Called For A Federal Prescription-Drug Benefit And Lamented Over The Lack Of Universal Health Insurance For Children. "Moving to health care, Edwards - his words being recorded by a National Public Radio reporter sitting near his feet - again called for a federal prescription-drug benefit and decried the lack of universal insurance coverage for children. 'In America,' he intoned, 'that's wrong, and we need to do something about it.'" (Eric Dyer, "Testing The Waters?" News & Record, June 23, 2002)

In 2001, Edwards Voted To Table An Amendment That Would Have Prohibited The Use Of Public Funds For Needle Exchange Programs In The District Of Columbia. (Amendment to H.R. 2994, Roll Call #328: Motion To Table Passed 53-47: R 5-44; D 47-3; I 1-0, November 7, 2001)

Edwards' Liberal Record On Taxes/Fiscal Responsibility

Edwards Voted Against President Bush's Bipartisan Tax Relief Package. (H.R. 1836, Roll Call #170: Passed 58-33: R 46-2; D 12-31, May 26, 2001)

Edwards Voted Against Permanent Repeal Of The Estate Tax. (H.R. 8, Roll Call #151: Failed 54-44: R 45-2; D 9-42, June 12, 2002)

In 2001, Edwards Voted Against A Capital Gains Tax Rate Reduction. (Amendment To H.R. 1836, Roll Call #115: Failed 47-51: R 40-8; D 7-43, May 21, 2001)

In 2000, Edwards Voted Against A Bill That Would Have Reduced Taxes On Married Couples. (H.R. 4810, Roll Call #215: Adopted 61-38: R 53-1; D 8-37, July 18, 2000)

In 2000, Edwards Voted Against A Temporary Suspension Of The Gasoline Tax. (S. 2285, Roll Call #80: Failed 43-56: R 43-12; D 0-44, April 11, 2000)

Edwards' Liberal Record On The Environment

Edwards Argued That President Bush's New Source Review Plan "Defies Common Sense." 'It defies common sense to me,' said Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C." (Karen Masterson, "Port Arthur Activist Testifies Against Easing Clean Air Laws," The Houston Chronicle, July 17, 2002)

AT ODDS WITH FELLOW DEMOCRATS

On Trade Promotion Authority

Edwards Disagrees With Kerry, Daschle And Lieberman On Trade Promotion Authority. Edwards voted against trade promotion authority, but Kerry, Daschle and Lieberman voted for it. (H.R. 3009, Roll Call #207: Passed 64-34: R 43-5; D 20-29; I 1-0, August 1, 2002)

On Common Sense Tort Reform

Edwards Disagrees With Lieberman On Tort Reform. Unlike his Senate colleague Lieberman, Edwards adamantly opposes liability limits and civil justice reform. (Jill Zuckman, "Medical Bill," Chicago Tribune, June 24, 2001; Senator Lieberman, Press Conference, July 15, 1999)

When Asked By Bob Novak, Edwards Could Not Recall A Single Conservative Position That He Has Taken On An Issue As Senator. "'I could give you an answer to that question if you give me a little time to think about it.' - Democratic presidential aspirant Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, asked by columnist Robert D. Novak in...the American Spectator to recall any conservative position he's taken in the U.S. Senate ." (John McCaslin, "Dependably Liberal," The Washington Times, October 15, 2002)

http://www.buzzflash.com/analysis/03/01/14_Edwards.html

PurityOfEssence (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 Sun Dec-30-07 01:35 AM
Response to Reply #15
24. I agree; the repeated "fact" that he wasn't a populist to start with is simply wrong

If one looks at his record, one sees populism as a very clear through-line.

People wave the bloody shirt of Stephanopoulos' grilling of him as some kind of proof of his calumny, when those same people seem to forget that little Georgie's a Clinton operative of the first rank. His leap to prominence came from being a key member of Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign, and he's a friend as well as a rooter. He has no more journalistic objectivity than James Carville does, and it's a form of deception to not have it tattooed on his forehead as he masquerades as a reporter.

Edwards is a classic Southern populist: pro-affirmative action, constantly trying to raise the minimum wage, for civil rights, for healthcare for the poor, pro-union and on and on. His Senate record is actually quite good, and I've posted to that effect. Anyone who has issues with this should look up the 203 bills he co-sponsored as a Senator.

It's all very convenient to say that he was a hawkish Democrat who changed his ways, but you'll note that the media NEVER tries to foist off the lie that he was a corporatist or anything of the sort. Except for this series of bills--which are hardly clear-cut, as I point out above--his record has been solidly for the little guy from the beginning. He voted for the China Bill, but that was Bill Clinton's pet and he was voting with his party. He voted AGAINST free trade with Singapore and Chile, and he's consistently voted for worker's rights, union rights, ergonomic rules, environmental protections and the usual "little guy" concerns. It's simply a chickenshit lie that he's only now become some kind of populist; his record shows that he has been all along.

Lest we forget, voting against tax cuts isn't that much of a personal risk for a John Kerry from Massachusetts, but it sure as hell is for a first-termer from North Carolina.

People constantly try to make complex situations simple, but they fall into one of the most despicable and self-congratulatory traps of human hypocrisy: flatly dismissing others as mere caricatures while demanding that they and their champions be given break after break and accorded the elaborate complexity of the gods. It's human nature, and it's the sucky part of human nature.

As for your primary point about admitting one's mistakes, I fully agree: the macho, blockheaded, uber-male approach of most politicians (regardless of gender) is tiresome, and to them, admitting a mistake is tantamount to admitting sheer worthlessness or admitting that they might occasionally pull over and ask for directions. Many people decry the inability of people to admit a mistake, but when someone actually does it, he/she gets pounced upon and torn limb from limb. It's vulgar and immature.

Why I shied away from addressing this first is that letting the conversation veer that way tacitly reinforces the big ugly stupid black-and-white lie that he's truly changed. He hasn't. He was good then and he's good now. Yes, he got suckered with the IWR, but Tenet looked him right in the eyes and lied to him. Others did too. Can you trust a man who changes his mind? Hey, at least you know he HAS one. He's done something truly courageous, and deserves a point or two for it. He also deserves points for addressing the issue of poverty; it's a sure vote-loser, but it's THE RIGHT THING TO DO and it's been his cause from the beginning.

Things aren't black or white, and those who insist they are are either fools or skunks. The very way bills are characterized is a good illustration of this, and it's important to try to see things in their totality and in their historical context.

Oh, and welcome to the board. I'm in LA; where are you?

(end of post)

Edwards's Record as A Freshman Senator
Lawmaker Labored on Issues Such as Health Care, Intelligence and Trade

-snip-

Edwards has little in the way of concrete legislative achievements, but he gained attention on issues ranging from health care to intelligence to environmental protection.

While aspiring to build a national profile, Edwards also labored on issues important to his home state, such as proposing amendments to help textile workers who were losing their jobs to lower-wage workers in other nations. In recent weeks, he increasingly has raised trade issues in trying to differentiate himself from Kerry.

-snip-

He voted to support abortion rights, authorize the war in Iraq, require criminal background checks on buyers at gun shows, block the confirmation of some of President Bush's most conservative judicial nominees, and prohibit oil drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

-snip-

But it was the patients' bill of rights, which Edwards had championed in his 1998 Senate campaign, that proved to be his biggest accomplishment -- and disappointment.

-snip-

Edwards voted against trade pacts with Chile, Singapore and Africa, which Kerry supported. But he voted in 2000 to grant most-favored-nation trading status to China, as did Kerry and most other senators. "I think it's clear that Senator Kerry and I have very different records on trade," Edwards recently told reporters. On the same day, Kerry declared: "We have the same policy on trade -- exactly the same policy."

In discussing trade, Edwards focuses on the 1993 North American Free Trade Agreement, which was enacted with Kerry's support five years before Edwards entered the Senate. While his campaign statements assert that "Edwards has consistently opposed NAFTA," the North Carolina senator recently told New York Times editors that NAFTA "is an important part of our global economy," although he wants tougher protections for the environment and worker conditions.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15414-20 ...

Clinton Defense Leader in Impeachment Trial

Kennedy-Edwards-McCain Patients' Bill of Rights

Kennedy-Edwards Minimum Wage Raise Laws

Vote Against Bush's First Taxgiveaway

Vote Against Bush's Second Taxgiveaway

Vote Against $87 Billion "I support Bush's War Bill"

Wrote Bill that allowed individuals to buy prescription drugs from Canada

Wrote and Sponsored Bill that would make sexual orientation a legally protected category in job discrimination

Wrote Sunset Provision into Patriot Act

Floor leader for Feingold-McCain Campaign Finance Reform.

Voted against the Chilean trade agreement, against the Caribbean trade agreement, against the Singapore trade agreement, against final passage of fast track for this president.

Actually defeated a Republican incumbent in a Red State who had the Helms Machine with him.

Edwards has a very good trade record. Let's compare him to St. Kerry, a prominent progressive who was in office the entire time Edwards was. Edwards is the closest thing to a protectionist that can get elected.

-snip-

Edwards voted against trade pacts with Chile, Singapore and Africa, which Kerry supported. But he voted in 2000 to grant most-favored-nation trading status to China, as did Kerry and most other senators.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15414-20 ...

St. Kerry

07/07/2003 U.S.-Chile Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act NV
07/07/2003 U.S.-Singapore Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act NV
08/01/2002 Trade Act of 2002 Y
09/19/2000 U.S.-China Relations Act of 2000 Y
09/13/2000 China Nonproliferation Act Y
05/11/2000 Africa Free Trade bill Y
11/03/1999 Africa Free Trade bill Y
07/17/1997 Most Favored Nation Repeal Amendment N

Edwards

07/07/2003 U.S.-Chile Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act N
07/07/2003 U.S.-Singapore Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act N
08/01/2002 Trade Act of 2002 N
09/19/2000 U.S.-China Relations Act of 2000 Y
09/13/2000 China Nonproliferation Act Y
05/11/2000 Africa Free Trade bill N
11/03/1999 Africa Free Trade bill N

Edwards voted right on every trade bill except one and that one was Bill Clinton's baby. It also was not as clear cut as it appears in retrospect. Edwards explained why he voted for it and it was a perfectly reasonable belief to have, a belief most of his Democratic colleagues shared. Edwards also opposed the Peru, South Korea, and CAFTA trade bills after he left office. Given his record he presumably opposed Oman as well, although I have not seen a statement from him on it. Edwards has opposed every trade bill to come down the pike in his career except one that noted rethug lites like Ted Kennedy and Patrick Leahy voted for, as did most Democrats.

Edwards can seriously be attacked for once supporting the war but the Big Lie, which picked up steam in February of 2007 (what happened that month?), that he was not a populist until recently and especially that he sucked on trade is nonsensical.

Edwards' trade record is identical to Ted Kennedy's:

07/07/2003 U.S.-Chile Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act N
07/07/2003 U.S.-Singapore Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act N
08/01/2002 Trade Act of 2002 N
09/19/2000 U.S.-China Relations Act of 2000 Y
09/13/2000 China Nonproliferation Act Y
05/11/2000 Africa Free Trade bill N
11/03/1999 Africa Free Trade bill NV

Does Kennedy suck on trade too? I hear he is a big Rethuglican in sheep's clothing! What has he done for the poor? Probably nothing. He is rich too I hear!


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Renew Deal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-08-08 01:48 AM
Response to Reply #41
43. He apologized for so many of his previous right wing positions
That no one knew what he stood for. That's why he didn't win a single state.

And don't forget his cheerleading for the Iraq War.

October 8, 2004: Edwards doesn't regret his vote.
``The vote on the resolution was the right vote, even in hindsight,'' Edwards, a first-term U.S. senator from North Carolina, said in an interview aboard his campaign plane on Oct. 8 (2004). ``It was the right vote to give the president the authority to confront Saddam Hussein,'' he said.

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=a...

Edwards in his own words on 10/10/2002

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r107:102:./temp/~... :

And of course this:

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I am here to speak in support of the resolution before us, which I cosponsored. I believe we must vote for this resolution not because we want war, but because the national security of our country requires action. The prospect of using force to protect our security is the most difficult decision a Nation must ever make.

We all agree that this is not an easy decision. It carries many risks. If force proves necessary, it will also carry costs, certainly in resources, and perhaps in lives. After careful consideration, I believe that the risks of inaction are far greater than the risks of action.

Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal.

Iraq has continued to seek nuclear weapons and develop its arsenal in defiance of the collective will of the international community, as expressed through the United Nations Security Council. It is violating the terms of the 1991 cease-fire that ended the Gulf war and as many as 16 Security Council resolutions, including 11 resolutions concerning Iraq's efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction.

By ignoring these resolutions, Saddam Hussein is undermining the credibility of the United Nations, openly violating international law, and making a mockery of the very idea of collective action that is so important to the United States and its allies.

We cannot allow Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons in violation of his own commitments, our commitments, and the world's commitments.

This resolution will send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

The United States must do as much as possible to build a new United Nations Security Council coalition against Saddam Hussein.

Although the administration was far too slow to start this diplomatic process, squandering valuable time to bring nations to our side, I support its recent efforts to forge a new U.N. Security Council resolution to disarm Iraq.

If inspectors go back into Iraq, they should do so with parameters that are air-tight, water-tight, and Saddam-tight. They should be allowed to see what they want when they want, anytime, anywhere, without warning, and without delay.

Yet if the Security Council is prevented from supporting this new effort, then the United States must be prepared to act with as many allies as possible to address this threat.

We must achieve the central goal of disarming Iraq. Of course, the best outcome would be a peaceful resolution of this issue. No one here wants war. We all hope that Saddam Hussein meets his obligations to existing Security Council Resolutions and agrees to disarm, but after 11 years of watching Hussein play shell-games with his weapons programs, there is little reason to believe he has any intention to comply with an even tougher resolution. We cannot trust Saddam Hussein, and we would be irresponsible to do so.

That is why we must be prepared to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, and eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction once and for all.

Almost no one disagrees with these basic facts: that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a menace; that he has weapons of mass destruction and that he is doing everything in his power to get nuclear weapons; that he has supported terrorists; that he is a grave threat to the region, to vital allies like Israel, and to the United States; and that he is thwarting the will of the international community and undermining the United Nations' credibility.

Yet some question why Congress should act now to give the President the authority to act against Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.

I believe we should act now for two reasons: first, bipartisan congressional action on a strong, unambiguous resolution, like the one before us now, will strengthen America's hand as we seek support from the Security Council and seek to enlist the cooperation of our allies.

If the administration continues its strong, if belated, diplomacy, backed by the bipartisan resolve of the Congress, I believe the United States will succeed in rallying many allies to our side.

Second, strong domestic support and a broad international coalition will make it less likely that force would need to be used. Saddam Hussein has one last chance to adhere to his obligations and disarm, and his past behavior shows that the only chance he will comply is if he is threatened with force.

Of course, there is no guarantee that he will comply even if threatened by force, but we must try.

Others argue that if even our allies support us, we should not support this resolution because confronting Iraq now would undermine the long-term fight against terrorist groups like al-Qaida. Yet, I believe that this is not an either-or choice. Our national security requires us to do both, and we can.

The resolution before us today is significantly better than the one the president initially submitted. It is not a blank check. It contains several provisions that I and many of my colleagues have long argued were required.

First, it gives the administration the authority to use all necessary means to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.

Second, it calls on the administration to do as much as possible to forge a new U.N. Security Council mandate, understanding that if new Security Council action proves impossible, the United States must be prepared to act with as many allies as will join us.

Third, it requires the administration to report to Congress on its plans to assist with Iraq's transition to democracy after Saddam Hussein is gone.

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. Such an Iraq could serve as a model for the entire Arab world.

So far, we have not heard nearly enough from the administration about its plans for assisting the Iraqi people as they rebuild their lives and create a new, democratic government. The president has said that the U.S. will help, but he hasn't offered any details about how.

As we have learned in Afghanistan, this administration's words are not enough. This resolution will require the administration to move beyond its words and share with Congress, and the world, its concrete plans for how America will support a post-Saddam Iraq.

Finally, in taking this action, Congress must make clear that any actions against Iraq are part of a broader strategy to strengthen American security in the Middle East, and indeed around the world.

We must do more to support existing non-proliferation and disarmament

GPO's PDF
programs that can help prevent access to the weapons-grade materials that tyrants like Saddam Hussein want. We must demand America's active and continuous involvement in addressing the crisis between Israel and the Palestinians, and promoting democratization throughout the Arab world. We must commit to developing a national strategy for energy security, one that would reduce our reliance on the Middle East for such critical resources.
The decision we must make now is one a nation never seeks. Yet when confronted with a danger as great as Saddam Hussein, it is a decision we must make. America's security requires nothing less.

Edwards in his own words 9/12/2002.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r107:1:./temp/~r1...

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I firmly believe that the issue of Iraq is not about politics. It's about national security. We know that for at least 20 years, Saddam Hussein has aggressively and obsessively sought weapons of mass destruction through every means available. We

GPO's PDF
know that he has chemical and biological weapons today. He has used them in the past, and he is doing everything he can to build more. Each day he inches closer to his longtime goal of nuclear capability--a capability that could be less than a year away.
I believe that Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime represents a clear threat to the United States, to our allies, to our interests around the world, and to the values of freedom and democracy we hold dear.

Saddam has proven his willingness to act irrationally and brutally against his neighbors and against his own people. Iraqi's destructive capacity has the potential to throw the entire Middle East into chaos, and poses a mortal threat to our vital ally, Israel.

What's more, the terrorist threat against America is all too clear. Thousands of terrorist operatives around the world would pay anything to get their hands on Saddam's arsenal, and there is every possibility that he could turn his weapons over to these terrorists. No one can doubt that if the terrorists of September 11 had had weapons of mass destruction, they would have used them. On September 12, 2002, we can hardly ignore the terrorist threat, and the serious danger that Saddam would allow his arsenal to be used in aid of terror.

Iraq has continued to develop its arsenal in definance of the collective will of the international community, as expressed through the United Nations Security Council. It is violating the terms of the cease-fire that ended the Gulf War and ignoring as many as 16 U.N. Security Council resolutions--including 11 resolutions concerning Iraq's efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction.

These U.N. resolutions are not unilateral American demands. They involve obligations Iraq has undertaken to the international community. By ignoring them. Saddam Hussein is undermining the credibility of the United Nations, openly violating international law, and making a mockery of the very idea of international collective action which is so important to the United States and our allies.

The time has come for decisive action. With our allies, we must do whatever is necessary to guard against the threat posed by an Iraq armed with weapons of mass destruction, and under the thumb of Saddam Hussein. The United States must lead an international effort to remove the regime of Saddam Hussein and to assure that Iraq fulfills its obligations to the international community.

This is not an easy decision, and its carries many risks. It will also carry costs, certainly in resources, and possibly in lives. After careful consideration, I believe that the risk of inaction is far greater than the risk of action.

As we set out on this course, we must be as conscious of our special responsibility as we are confident in the rightness of our cause.

The United States has a special role of leadership in the international community. As America and its allies move down this path, we must do so in a way that preserves the legitimacy of our actions, enhances international consensus, and strengthens our global leadership.

First, this means making the strongest possible case to the American people about the danger Saddam poses. Months of mixed messages, high-level speculation and news-leaks about possible military plans have caused widespread concern among many Americans and around the world.

I am encouraged that the President has overruled some of his advisors and decided to ask for the support of Congress. From the support of Congress, this effort will derive even greater and more enduring strength.

Second, the Administration must do as much as possible to rally the support of the international community under the mandate of the United Nations Security Council. We should tap into the strengths of existing alliances like NATO to enforce such a mandate. And let me be clear: America's allies deserve more than just token consultation. The Bush administration must make a full-court press to rally global support, much like the impressive effort President Bush's father made to rally the first international coalition against Saddam in the fall of 1990. If they do, I believe they will succeed.

If, however, the United Nations Security Council is prevented from supporting this effort, then we must act with as many allies as possible to ensure that Iraq meets its obligations to existing Security Council resolutions. After all, that's what the U.S. and its NATO allies did during the 1999 war in Kosovo, when a U.N. Security Council resolution was impossible.

Third, we must be honest with the American people about the extraordinary commitment this task entails. It is likely to cost us much in the short-term, and it is certain to demand our attention and commitment for the long-haul. We have to show the world that we are prepared to do what it takes to help rebuild a post-Saddam Iraq and give the long-suffering Iraqi people the chance to live under freedom.

Working with our allies, we have to be prepared to deal with the consequences of success--helping to provide security inside Iraq after Saddam is gone, working with the various Iraqi opposition groups in shaping a new government, reassuring Iraq's neighbors about its future stability, and supporting the Iraqi people as they rebuild their lives. This is a massive undertaking, and we must pursue it with no illusions.

Ensuring that Iraq complies with its commitments to the international community is the mission of the moment. Rebuilding Iraq and helping it evolve into a democracy at peace with itself and its neighbors will be the mission of many years.

Unfortunately, the administration's record to date gives me cause for concern. They must not make the same mistakes in post-Saddam Iraq that they are making in post-Taliban Afghanistan, where they have been dangerously slow in making the real commitment necessary to help democracy take root and flourish.

Finally, the administration must show that its actions against Iraq are part of a broader strategy to strengthen American security around the world.

We must address the most insidious threat posed by weapons of mass destruction--the threat that comes from the ability of terrorists to obtain them. We must do much more to support the many disarmament programs already in place to dismantle weapons and prevent access to weapons-grade materials in Russia and the former Soviet states; we must fully fund Nunn-Lugar; and we should work hard to forge international coalition to prevent proliferation.

We must be fully and continuously engaged to help resolve the crisis between Israel and the Palestinians. Disengagement was a mistake. The United States cannot deliver peace to the parties, but no agreement is possible without our active involvement.

We also must have a national strategy for energy security, working to strengthen relationships with new suppliers and doing more to develop alternative sources of power.

And we must do far more to promote democracy throughout the Arab world. We should examine our overall engagement in the entire region, and employ the same kinds of tools that we used to win the battle of ideas fought during the Cold War, from vigorous public diplomacy to assistance for democratic reform at the grassroots.

The path of confronting Saddam is full of hazards. But the path of inaction is far more dangerous. This week, a week where we remember the sacrifice of thousands of innocent Americans made on 9/11, the choice could not be starker. Had we known that such attacks were imminent, we surely would have used every means at our disposal to prevent them and take out the plotters. We cannot wait for such a terrible event--or, if weapons of mass destruction are used, one far worse--to address the clear and present danger posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jackson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-08-08 01:55 AM
Response to Reply #43
49. Spoken like a true cultist schooled in the Obamite school of swiftboating
Edited on Fri Feb-08-08 01:55 AM by jackson_dem
Who voted with him on the five "right-wing" bills Obama's netroots operatives flyspecked to swiftboat Edwards? You would know, right? You have such strong opinions on them. Surely you looked at the context, legislative history, roll call, etc. Or did you just drink the kool aid that Obama served on his swiftboat?

Hint: Kerry voted with Edwards/Hillary on all five. Leahy on 4 of 5. Ted Kennedy wrote one and voted with them on three of the five. Wellstone voted for the Patriot Act and No Child Left Behind.

When has St. Obama apologized? As many times as George W. Bush...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Renew Deal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-08-08 01:57 AM
Response to Reply #49
52. That's all you got?
A personal attack on me?

You support a candidate that is directly responsible for the war in Iraq. He went beyond Hillary's advocacy. He was a cheerleader. You have to live with that. Most Democratic voters chose not to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jackson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-08-08 02:00 AM
Response to Reply #52
55. Who voted for those "right-wing" bills?
More hints:

Patriot Act passed 98-1. NCLB passed 91-8 and 47-2 among Democrats. Bankruptcy bill of 2001? 83-15. China trade normalization? 87-10.

The AUMF is only a big issue on the blogs. If it were a big issue with folks outside of it Hillary would not be winning.

Nothing against you but I vented against the Obamite swiftboating. He has run the dirtiest campaign of any candidate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Renew Deal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-08-08 02:02 AM
Response to Reply #55
58. Dirtiest campaign?
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jackson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-08-08 02:04 AM
Response to Reply #58
61. They don't tell you who voted for those bills on the Obama swiftboat?
The vote totals, i.e. 98-1 and 47-2 among Democrats should give you a clue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yossariant Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-08-08 01:44 AM
Response to Original message
39. Worse is posted every day, week in and out. What has been said
about Bill Clinton in this DEMOCRATIC forum is unforgivable.

Go get some de-programming.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hill_YesWeWill Donating Member (652 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-08-08 02:05 AM
Response to Original message
62. I agree, #1 sign this does not matter: I have no idea what you're talking about
and I'm glad :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gmudem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-08-08 02:10 AM
Response to Original message
67. Yes this cult business is truly digusting and Rovian.
I don't understand how any Democrat can agree with this bullshit.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/02/07/and-so-it-beginsobama-excitementcult/

John Amato realizes that this is just the new MSM meme about Obama. To the Clinton supporters who stupid enough to talk Obama cults, you are officially tools of the Corporate Media.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jed Dilligan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-08-08 02:17 AM
Response to Original message
70. It's embarrassing
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
writes3000 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-08-08 02:35 AM
Response to Original message
73. The Accusation based in fear and a lack of understanding.
Are there Obama supporters who are over-invested in their candidate? Yes. Are there Clinton supporters who are over-invested in their candidate? Yep.

So what's really behind the "cult" insult? Two things, I think. One is fear. The momentum, the lines, the crowds, the passion behind Obama is like a tidal wave. And to fight that, to try to compete with that is intimidating. So "something" must be wrong. It must be brainwashing. It couldn't possibly be legit. Because if it were legit, it would be even more intimidating.

The second issue (and I think this is the real core issue) is that Obama's message/campaign has religious overtones. And religion scares the crap out of many liberal Dems. But here's the truth of it. Obama isn't trying to make this campaign about religion or God. The connective tissue his campaign has to religion is both things encourage people to BELIEVE in something intangible. His message is simply that all of us, individually and collectively, can be more than we are. We can demand more of ourselves, others and our country. The simple human truth is that people want to believe in something deeper. Obama is tapping into that. And that's why religious, non-religious, Dem, Repub, Independent, men, women, gay, straight, bisexual, tall, short, rich, poor, black, white, asian, hispanic, jewish and MORE are all tuning in. I think it's amazing to witness.

It's not a cult. But it is deep, powerful and inspirational.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BattyDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-08-08 02:40 AM
Response to Reply #73
74. Excellent post!
:applause:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jennifer C Donating Member (760 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-08-08 02:40 PM
Response to Reply #73
76. Well said
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
applegrove Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-08-08 02:23 PM
Response to Original message
75. I wish we could get over the cult stuff. And move on.
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 Apr 29th 2024, 07:45 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