Edwards: We need to be democrats... back to our roots; Bush's plan insane

Edwards calls for return of depression era programs

MIKE GLOVER

Associated Press

INDIANOLA, Iowa - Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards called Sunday for a return of depression era jobs programs to rebuild the hurricane ravaged Gulf Coast.

Edwards said those programs would give new hope and money to victims of Hurricane Katrina as well as rebuild shattered cities, such as New Orleans.

He used the Work Products Administration as an example of a depression era program that built parks, bridges and other facilities that are still being used.

"We ought to have a new WPA like was used during the depression to create jobs, and we ought to bring those folks who have been displaced back into New Orleans to rebuild their city," Edwards said. "Give them a decent wage and decent benefits. That's the way to help rebuild New Orleans they way it should be built.

"Not just rebuild the city, but rebuild people's lives," he said.

Edwards spoke to more than 1,300 hard-core Democratic activists at Sen. Tom Harkin's annual steak fry, just outside Indianola.

Since the last presidential election, where he was nominee John Kerry's running mate, Edwards has opened a center for the study of poverty issues at the University of North Carolina.

He is traveling the country, making the case that the nation needs to face the growing level of poverty. He's made four stops in Iowa, where precinct caucuses launch the presidential nominating season.

Edwards said Hurricane Katrina has focused the nation's attention on poverty, because so many victims of the storm are poor.

He said that attention gives the country's political leaders an opportunity to make progress on the issue.

"The real issue is, in this window where people are paying attention, will we have leadership that sustains the effort?" Edwards said.

Edwards criticized President Bush's response to the storm, saying it showed a lack of understanding of the poor in America.

"He has consistently shown a lack of understanding," Edwards said.

He said a Bush relief proposal would give victims money in bank accounts that most don't have.

"He's talking about putting this money into people's bank accounts," Edwards said. "Most of these people don't have bank accounts."

Edwards said Bush also has suspended laws that require that the prevailing wage be paid on reconstruction projects.

"That's insane," he said. "What these people need is a decent wage. It's the reason so many of them are living in poverty to begin with."

Edwards has left little doubt that he's interested in another run for the Democratic presidential nomination, and being the keynote speaker at Harkins' steak fry was a plum assignment.

It's one of the largest Democratic events of the year, and allows Edwards to rebuild contacts he made during the 2004 campaign.

In his fiery speech, Edwards said the war on poverty takes Democrats back to their roots.

He said 1 million people have slipped into poverty in just the last year, a decline in living caused by Republican policies.

"We don't need another Republican party," he said. "We need to be Democrats because this party gives voice to people who have no voice, and they never needed it more than they do now."

Harkin has held his annual steak fry for 28 years and he echoed Edwards theme, pointing to the haunting images of the poor living in misery.

"I'll say this about Hurricane Katrina ... it opened our eyes," Harkin said.

Lt. Gov. Sally Pederson, who also heads the Iowa Democratic Party, said the momentum started by the steak fry is badly needed because the party faces a tough round of elections next year, including defending the governor's office.

Edwards said he'll be back often and that his theme won't change.

"Katrina has focused the country's attention on an issue that doesn't just exist on the Gulf Coast and New Orleans, but it exists all across the country and we need to take this window opportunity and act."

-----------------

Edit: Edwards was in Louisiana too. He talked about in his speech and this are a couple of accounts from those who heard him at Harkin's Stake Fry in Iowa today:

"Tears came to my eyes when JRE talked about going to Louisiana last week and talking to the survivors of Hurricane Katrina. He relayed the story of a man who held on to his wife's hand as the flood waters rose around their home. The force of the water made them lose each other's hands, and the husband watched his wife drown."

"JRE told us he had been to Louisana last week and how sad it was to see the poverty and the sadness of the people, he spoke of one man who he talked to that told him about the rising water and how he and his wife went to the 2nd story and the water was coming there also, he said his wife couldn't swim, but that he could and he took her hand and they went out a window upstairs, he said the current was so strong he could not hold onto his wife and she drowned, he made it to another roof. JRE said it broke his heart to hear this man tell the story along with others."

----------------------------------

Edwards is bringing the larger economy back into the picture here. Republicans always lose when economy is the issue (because they suck at expanding opportunities); I think it's time we legislate some true progressive ideas into our laws and policies... dlc stuff won't do anymore... our economic gap is widening every day and it's about time to speak up on that. I hope all democrats start talking about this issue. This is our message... this should be our vision... social & economic justice! It's time for a new "new deal" ... c'mon I wanna see more democrats stop voting for the bankruptcy bills and start doing something about this country's downward economic ride.... or else it'll be too late and we'll have ourselves to blame! Dammit, where are the progressives and the populists of my party? Oh, once upon a time... we used to fight for our ideals .... and we used to WIN!!

I'm glad at least one nationally significant Dem is speaking out though.

:-)

and it was a great speech. I didn't expect anything less though. John Edwards has spoke of our two America's for a very long time. Long before it was a popular topic of politicians. He is sincere, he is fired up and he is the leader we need to take on this cause.

Our other so-called leaders better step up or get left behind.

Denounce all DINOs who do not step up to the plate!

Or can we just IGNORE them?

Accentuate the positive, eliminate the negative? I think Edwards sees what Dean accomplished by running just slightly to the left of the mainstream candidates...i think this is how the party will finally move to the left...it won't be a revolution...it will be subtle.

Infighting is not productive. The "New Democrat centrists" will quickly notice how "returning to our roots" and having a strong coalesced message that expresses our core values, WORKS.

We should focus on supporting a return to our core values, as Dean and Edwards are both saying.

ignore them or you can replace them.

Democrats have to start acting like Democrats again. Let the DLCers and the Republicans fret over which ice sculpture to order from their caterer. The Democratic base needs to stand up and take notice of the bread lines.

I would love to have heard it live. Come to Alabama, John. :hi:

Edited to say: I'm pretty sure that won't happen, but I can dream. I love John and Elizabeth.

I hate that the state gets overlooked by Dems. There are large Dem pockets in that state, many in my neck of the woods (Madison County).

Someone needs to start putting pressure on the Dems to go down to Alabama to stump for votes. Bama could be turned blue or at least a nice indigo!!

can write to Dean and petition and see if they can come to the state?

I have a lot of contact information from VOTE so I can definately work to get something put together.

I love Alabama but I can't live there. Of course, NC is not much better. We have Dole and Burr. X(

It appeals to our streak of populism. I do want to think about it for a bit though. I want to assess for myself the probably efficacy of a 1930s era program in the early 21t century.

But at first blush, it appeals to my populist streak.

This is not his solution to eradicate poverty or solve our big economic problems. This is his idea for rebuilding NOLA. I personally think that building cities at the primary level can be done very effectively through a WPA-like program. And, it would also provide work for so many people who have to start from scratch!

But I guess some scrutiny doesn't hurt ;)

I hope this does some good. Oh, an initiative to sign as well. sounds better than BU**SH**'s plans to let Haliburton and etc. rebuild and pay lower wages.

http://ga3.org/campaign/new_america

Thanks for posting that...I was looking all over for it, but couldn't find the link. It would be so wonderful to get MILLIONS of signatures on that, to be sent to *.

after W spoke of programs the Repugs would normally call "socialist". How can they argue this when it is in keeping with W's "plans". We all know how that goes; he does the opposite of what he says.

This Edwards speech rules on many levels!

:yourock:

Who knows, maybe Bush got wind of them and was worried enough to pretend to be a democrat for one night.

Nobody was listening.

But, as I said in another post, the press never covered Clark, particularly not his domestic agenda.


SIGH

That's very different from a WPA-type program.

In fact, in this situation, it's the opposite. Edwards' point is the essence of Keynesian economics: putting money in the hands of people who work will increase aggregate demand and improve the economy for everyone.

Maybe in some other respect, he's a true Keynesian, but his civil service program was about patriotism and not about economics.

and unemployed since the last depression. 80% of NO left before the storm hit. There is only about 20% of them in temporary shelters around the country. What will happen to these people?

Texas had a very high unemployment rate before they got here. There just isn't enough jobs to go around.

The only sane solution anyone has recommended is Edwards suggestion of a WPA program. They have every right to have a voice in how NO is rebuilt, and have a right to the jobs it creates.

The democrats in Congress need to push this.

Galloway said that he was surprised to hear Republican talking points
coming out of the mouths of Democratic Leaders, he says that the whole
world has suffered by the lack of debate by America's Democrats on
GWB's policies. Please, let's have no DINOs, let quit having our
leaders spit on their base and realize that their base speaks for
the American worker who is the child that has been left behind upon
a sea of blood and oil.

I don't hate Sen. Clinton, I just want someone who is not a partner
in governing with corporations and I think she would be. I want our
president to be a "man of the people" not a "man of the special interests" I am not naive enough to believe that special interests
will never lobby, but the president must decide what is the best for the
country first.

to people who will then spend it, returning it to circulation, so more people can spend it, etc., etc. until it is all returned to the government in the form of taxes. Said taxes are then given(in the form of wages) to people again, refreshing the cycle.

Much more sense to give it to Halliburton's(sp) shareholders who will hoard it causing the economy to stagnate.

Very passionate, very inspiring. I went to Robbins(?), NC,to watch him announce his joining the race for the Democratic nomination. I was already really excited about Edwards.My husband just went because he had the day off. He walked out of there with stars in his eyes and saying for the first time in the twenty years that I had known him that he was excited about a candidate.

Edwards has a way of addressing an audience that makes you feel like he is talking to YOU. I guess it was all those summations. But I think he is a great asset to our party and his ability to communicate should be exploited at every opportunity.

RV, an FDR dem from way back.

He grew up understanding poverty and race - it's in his bones. He's been talking about "2 Americas" your YEARS. We'd do well to listen.

John and Elizabeth have the hope and ideas to lead us. May we have the vision to choose them.

business owner who provided very well for his family.

A Populist Make-over
Meet John Edwards, the corporate man

-The Edwardses were solidly middle class” when Johnny was growing up, according to a four-part profile of the North Carolina senator in his home state’s most prestigious daily, the Raleigh News and Observer. It’s true that for a few years as a young man Edwards’ father worked on the floor of a Roger Milliken textile mill. But Edwards père (a lifelong Republican, like his reactionary boss) quickly climbed upward, becoming a monitor of worker productivity as a “time-study” man — which any labor organizer in the South will tell you is a polite term for a stoolie who spies on the proletarian mill hands to get them to speed up production for the same low wages. Daddy Edwards’ grassing got him promoted to supervisor, then to plant manager — and he finally resigned to start his own business as a consultant to the textile industry. As a Boston Globe profile of Edwards put it last year, the senator never “notes that his father was part of management . . . ‘John was more middle class than most of us,’” says Bill Garner, a high school friend and college roommate-

http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/10/news-ireland.php

His father "worked the floor."

His father is NOT what that article describes. The man never went to college and is a very humble, working class individual. Believe me, his father was NOT in the upper echelon of the mill industry in SC or NC.

I can also tell you that "more middle class than most of us" in those parts of NC, is actually lower working class compared to most regions of the nation. Keep in mind, the South at that time was VERY poor.

raised in poverty as his PR team would like people to believe.

In fact, he talked about how his parents would sit at the kitchen table and try to figure out how they would come up with the money for his college at a cheap, Southern state University. He's always described his family as working class, not a family in poverty.

in LA Weekly, and they're consistently criticial of Edwards. He seems to have a problem with Edwards.

Here's another article from the same magazine (which, I believe, endorsed Edwards in the CA primary) where the reporter actually went to NC to interview people who knew Edwards:

http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/12/features-blume.php

FEBRUARY 13 - 19, 2004
Searching for the Heart of John Edwards
A trip home to assess the legendary lawyer
by Howard Blume

For some years, I’ve had two unusual links to John Edwards, the trial attorney–turned–presidential contender. First, Edwards was senior partner in the small law firm that employed a close friend, someone I’d grown up with in North Carolina. And second, another close childhood friend had been a client of Edwards in a heartbreaking, landmark case that Edwards had tried brilliantly.

But loyalty to friends aside, when I heard Edwards was running for president, my immediate reaction was “You’ve got to be kidding.” No offense, but how could a political newcomer seriously contend for the top job? The first-term senator from North Carolina hadn’t even been politically active before virtually buying himself a Senate seat. Didn’t North Carolina have business that needed tending to?

snip
 
Ask numerous Edwards’ associates and they’ll tell you they knew almost nothing of his political aspirations or political views before he ran for office. Partner David Kirby insisted he had regular political discussions with Edwards, during which Edwards demonstrated concern for public education and helping the disadvantaged. (Part of Edwards’ platform is to make college tuition free for the first year for every person who is qualified to attend a public college and is willing to work part-time.) Kirby’s account could well be true, but then again, Edwards’ loyal friend is himself renowned as a rhetorical strategist.

snip

“The practicing of law wasn’t about money to John Edwards,” said Kirby. “It sounds like a disconnect here, but that’s true. He was financially secure for a lifetime. He could have retired at age 40. He practiced law because of the mental challenge. He was a fierce competitor, and most importantly, he practiced law because he truly loved his clients.”

snip

Legal triumphs did, in fact, allow Edwards to join the ranks of the wealthy. But he started from near scratch, as the eldest son of teenage mill workers who lived in a three-room company house. His father would labor all his life to creep into the middle class, and watched with pride as the boy he christened “Johnny” became the first family member to attend college. After graduation from law school at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill, he married Elizabeth Anania, a girl he’d noticed in his first class, someone whom he’d immediately concluded was smarter and more sophisticated than he’d ever be.

I posted the idea for "a new WPA" for the hurricane victims a couple weeks ago, and I remember last week reading a post that Edward's had the same idea. It seems so obvious that the victims should be the ones given an opportunity to rebuild their city and their lives while using the skills they have or learning new ones! Also, my thought was that the program could be expanded to include national parks, inner city areas, etc. There are so many victims not all of them will be able to be employed rebuilding New Orleans.

It's good to see prominent dems speak out on the widening gap between the rich and the poor, and the shrinking middle class. Clark spoke to the same issue last week, and I think this is a good time to make this a Democratic rallying cry with the nation's attention focused on the plight of so many in poverty through no fault of their own.

I liked Edwards last year, but I wasn't crazy about him as a presidential candidate in the primaries because he didn't have the experience or the gravitas. This year, his message is dead on, and his gravitas comes through loud and clear for the post-Bush era. If Dean were running in '08, I'd be behind him first, last and always, but Edwards looks increasingly like the right candidate at the right time for the next election, when Americans will be in dire need across the board. He's saying absolutely the right things at the right time. Hilary can't hold a candle to this fire!

Hillary is a WOMAN!

And her hubby was PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES!

Doesn't that make her a shoe-in?

:sarcasm:

I look forward to the day when I woman will become president of the U.S. on her own merits, not because her famous husband was there first.

I think your post was in very poor taste. Democrats do not have to trash each other to choose a candidate. Hillary Clinton is just as qualified to be President as Wesley Clark, or John Edwards, etc.; probably more so. No, I do not believe she could lead an army effectively, but Presidents do not do this any more. By the time she runs, she will have had six years in the US Senate and over 20 years as First Lady in Arkansas and Washington, D.C.

Additionally, she was the first real working First Lady (perhaps Eleanor Roosevelt is the exception) and was working constantly for our country in non-paying roles. She is a lawyer and worked at the White House before Bill was elected Pres. in some capacity, I believe she worked on Watergate in some way. In other words, she was a professional working woman and has plenty of credentials. For God's sake don't eat your own, and, the Clintons, I'm very proud to say, are certainly my own.

Edwards has been speaking out about this with his Two Americas speech for a couple of years now and I'm thrilled to see him follow through the Poverty Center at UNC. I can't wait to hear him excoriate * for continuing to give tax cuts to the wealthy at such a dire time in our history, while he borrows billions to rebuild New Orleans and to continue waging war in Iraq.

Tell it, John Edwards!! :patriot:

for years, shame it took NOLA for people to listen and understand.

Thank you, JRE.:patriot:

PS - Another kudos, for not using NOLA as a 'photo op.' :loveya:

AMEN! CAN I GET AN AMEN!!! :applause:

About time! Thank you John Edwards!!!

We really need to start taking him SERIOUSLY!! He's been "at bat" since the election and has been holding up his end. Working against poverty EVEN before Katrina.

He put the issue on the table quite some time ago. I can really get on this BAND WAGON!

I always knew this about Mr.Edwards.His message prompted me to vote for him in the primaries.He has a bigger shot at the Presidential bid 2008 because the country is focused on what" happens' to be the message he has had from the beginning.If he does, sorry Hi C.(Hilary Clinton)but I want a president who is actually going to protect my rights and put up a fight.Someone that can win over the Moderate Repubs ( I mean,seriously Hill,repubs just hate us women)

spending.

It's totally impossible.

And Edwards would NEVER be able to pull that off as POTUS.

He'd be just like Clinton giving the MIC MORE than they actually asked for in order not to look weak.

Edwards may occassionally have a good message, but he is not in the position to help move America forward as President.

Because the question is how to fund these great programs we all want? In fact, that is the 200 Billion dollar question.

A Dems might say, increase taxes on the Rich....and I agree, but I don't think it is the only way to go. There are several approaches to the problem of our treasury deficit, which is an issue that also has to be addressed when we are talking about the problem of America's poor. Its great to have the programs lined up....but as I hear Bush being asked; How you gonna fund this great Stuff?

WHAT we should do has got to be accompanyed by HOW we are gonna do it? They can't be separated. That's too convenient and easy.

Edwards criticizes Katrina response, assistance plans


"There is a void. America and the world (are) waiting for us to fill that void," he said. "They are waiting for the kind of leadership that this country desperately needs."

http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050919/NEWS09/509190332/1056


Edwards calls for national discussion on the poor

Edwards criticized President Bush’s plans to rebuild New Orleans, saying he has “a complete lack of understanding” of how the poorest victims of the hurricane lived their lives.

Edwards criticized Bush for suspending a federal law that would require government contractors to pay workers the local prevailing wage for rebuilding the Gulf Coast in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.

“As a result, the people who go there to do business will take advantage of these people who so desperately need a job,” Edwards said.

“The question is how long is that window going to be open. Is this going to be transient, or is it going to be long term? And is the country going to make a serious long-term commitment to do something about poverty in America?” Edwards said.

http://www.globegazette.com/articles/2005/09/19/state/doc432e49c1c25e6696350280.txt

I agree completely with Edwards. Great speech.

Think about it.

would fund his domestic agenda?

Katrina is one more issue....not the only one. We can't be a fast food Issue nation, and copy the media who can only seem to concern itself with one issue at a time.

If another issue, like North Korea attacks or something similar next week that is not domestic, than what? Do we than put someone else up front and knock Edwards out of the box?

My point is that there are a myriad of issues to be addressed in and out of this nation.....and the bottomline conclusion is that Foreign and Domestic issues are intertwined. Part of the reason that FEMA wasn't funded as it should have is because of the 300 billion we have spent in Iraq and homeland security.

The reason that core domestic programs have been cut is because of the claim that there is no money for them (hope you heard Lindsey Graham on Cutting more today), but of course the money is going is in the 400,000 Billion (that's with a capital B) going to the defense Department annually.

We are running this government at a deficit into the ground. What is the proposal there besides raising taxes? There's got to be more than that way to skin a cat.

This nation's problems are weaved together seamlessly......and are firmly intertwined as Kucinich would agree, and all of those problems, including not only the diagnostic of the issues, but the various approaches to solving them have to be looked at.

Democrats need a full service party.

But, so long as you invest in projects that will return their investment, and so long as the money goes to workers (and not to cronies) and infrastructure, there will be a return on the investment.

A TRUE Keynesian (not a business- or military-Keynesian) would say that you also have to reduce military spending along with all the other crony-capitalist spending that isn't returning its investment and is only making the wealthy wealthier. However, a major reason we don't do that is because the current political reality (especially, campaign finance system and the M.I.A. free press) doesn't lend itself to doing the will of the people. WPA-style programs which deliver wealth to workers and a Democratic dialog that uses these frames are strategies that are very compatible with the broader solutions to the crony capitalism/corporatocracy problems.

As for current events knocking candidates out of the box, have you noticed Bush's ratings? They have tanked at an accelerated rate, right? What's the big difference? Iraq has always been a mess. But what has opened people's eyes? I really think Katrina has shown people the consequences of Republican policies and attitudes and it's resonating in a way that nothing else has.

Iraq has dominated the debate for years now, and hasn't been able to do that. Clearly something was missing. Yes, all the problems today are weaved together and people need to see how they all connect. But I think Katrina has done more to show people the connections than just about anything that has happened recently.

Nominated.

I think what he said, We need to be Democrats because this party gives voice to people who have no voice, and they never needed it more than they do now." could even be a vitally needed slogan for our party, a la, The Democratic Party: America's Voice.

This is a great speech, and I hope Edwards gets clearer and stronger on this issue, and eventually starts influencing the top Democrats to get "D"LC, Inc. out of there, and return to the American people. The economy is not "stocks" and "corporate profits," it is unemployment and standard of living. It was also appropriate that the speech be given in a place like Iowa, as many of the most impoverished-or-threatened-with-it people are farm families, killed by the Republican collusion with agribusiness; also, Sen. Tom Harkin is one of the greats. The thing about Bush not understanding that these really poor people didn't even have bank accounts to put a deposit in, reminded me of the first Bush, also a rich asshole, who once made a statement that poor unemployed people be given a tax cut (!!),and it had to be explained by a reporter, "But, Pres. Bush, these people don't have jobs"; they don't have ANY money. Now the little drunken cocaine addict similarly misunderstands. What a wonderful family. Remember, as Babsi Caviar says, these people are making out like bandits after this hurricane.

One correction from the article, though: It refers to the WPA as the Works Products Administration; this is not correct. It was the Works Progress Administration, and there is all the difference of meaning. The point was not just to accomplish these building projects; it was to help and better the conditions of the people doing the work, themselves. The people themselves were the project to be helped and restored to health, as much as the works. The original New Deal set of programs and departments was so great, such a complete response to all the calamity that had happened with the Depression, the Dust Bowl, corporate malfeasance and unregulated crime, and at that time lack of unions, that if Republicans hadn't killed so much of it, we might have been protected from the threat of Depression, outsourcing, planned downsizing and unemployment and all the rest we suffer from today. As it is, the reforms that remained have protected us from the most horrific Depressions since then, of a kind that used to be common before the New Deal. Also, the country was largely built by these projects; these were not "little make-work" jobs.

The National Recovery Administration regulated business (many things, for the first time ever), wages, hours, working conditions; the Civilian Conservation Corps. planted trees and removed diseased ones, built drainage ditches and reservoirs, cleared beaches for public use, and made a national system of public campgrounds, etc.; the Public Works Administration (which is what a lot of the projects actually were) built dams, bridges, canals, cultural parks for people to enjoy free, even built the Mall in Washington D.C., and brought electricity to millions (the TVA, Tennesee Valley Authority, for example, still exists). The WPA operated the actual projects of the PWA, and ran it. Also, the WPA had employment for artists, and most of the collections of treasured recordings in the National Archives--of former slaves, witnesses to the Johnstown Flood, etc., etc.--were WPA projects.

I grew up in a household that knew that Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt were saints, and saved this country. It is a thrilling thought to think that maybe Democrats themselves will realize that fact again.

with his message...which is an excellent message, and to the point.

However, your op ends with the sentence...."I'm glad at least one nationally significant Dem is speaking out though. "

I believe is not a true representation of what is actually going on, and I do believe that other prominent Democrats have been speaking out about this, and will continue to do so...

So yeah! for John Edwards and his message....
But nay for the op discounting what other Democrats are also saying while promoting John Edwards. It's not the way to go.....IMO

I haven't heard a single one. And, no I don't consider Kucinich a "nationally significant" democrat.

There are other dems speaking about other issues which are also important (Bill Clinton: Global warming,etc.; Clark: military; Feingold: Iraq withdrawl). However, as far as the economic landscape is concerned, I've only heard one solid voice of vision and reason.... and that is John Edwards'.

And by "nationally significant" I mean the kind that people in most of the 50 states have some idea about and whom the national media gives some attention.

Wes Clark On Bush's Economy and why Democrats are better at it, dated 9/12/05 at a speech to 1,000 at Ryder University...




John Kerry at Brown University



I personally believe that we have to be a full service party. One particular stance on one issue is limiting the myriad of issues that need to be addressed and resolved.

Just because another Democrat didn't specifically name FDR or the new deal, doesn't make their statement any less than John Edwards, although I give Edwards Kudos for excellent framing.

However, I also give dues to all Democrats that deserve them, no matter who I might be boosting.

Edwards' was a fine and strong statement, but he is NOT the only involved in the discussion. There are more than even these two out there speaking on Bush's economy and what Democrats are all about....and where this discussion needs to go. That's all I'm sayin'.....

presidential campaigns with as much force and conviction as they talked about the need for new leadership in the war on terror.

and admittely, once I had selected a candidate, I didn't follow what the others were saying quite as closely, although I tried.

I will tell you that Wes Clark did address the issues at point here...although it is certainly true, that those not did support him, may not have noticed.

An example is here of how Wes Clark was talking in reference to his tax plan DURING the primaries that you are mentioning...

"So if Karl Rove is watching today, I want him to hear me loud and clear: I am going to provide tax cuts to ease the burdens for 31 million American families -- and lift hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty -- by raising the taxes on 0.1 percent of families -- those who make more than $1,000,000 a year. And if that makes me an "old style" Democrat, then, I accept that label with pride and dare you to come after me for it. Because what I am talking about today is in the best tradition of Wilson and Roosevelt; of JFK, LBJ, and Bill Clinton - and it is in the best interest of the United States of America! And "You don't have to read my lips. I'm saying it!"

We need a higher standard of leadership in America. One that puts America's interests above the special interests. One that promotes open, honest government, and holds its leaders accountable, with real, measurable goals. And not just for the next election, but for the next generation. --Wes Clark 1/5/04
http://www.clark04.com/speeches/025/

Here's another view:
http://www.pahrumpvalleytimes.com/2004/02/18/opinion/myers.html

and another:
http://www.tnr.com/primary/index.mhtml?pid=1156

Of course Kerry covered a wealth of issues in his speech today, it was a far broader speech addressing a myriad of problems that concern Americans.

Kerry and Edwards Separately Blast Bush Over Katrina
http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=602

John Kerry: Katrina Stripped Away Any Image of Competence and Exposed To All The True Heart and Nature of This Administration
http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=601

"For the rest of the year this nation silently tolerates the injustice of 11 million children and over 30 million adults in desperate need of healthcare. We tolerate a chasm of race and class some would rather pretend does not exist. And ironically, right in the middle of this crisis the Administration quietly admitted that since they took office, six million of our fellow citizens have fallen into poverty. That’s over ten times the evacuated population of New Orleans. Their plight is no less tragic - no less worthy of our compassion and attention. We must demand something simple and humane: healthcare for all those in need - in all years at all times.

This is the real test of Katrina. Will we be satisfied to only do the immediate: care for the victims and rebuild the city? Or will we be inspired to tackle the incompetence that left us so unprepared, and the societal injustice that left so many of the least fortunate waiting and praying on those rooftops?"

I like Kerry has taken this step to articulate this. However, where was this voice last year? Kerry, like mostly everyone else, had to see the disaster of Katrina to see the "Two Americas" that Edwards talked about months before Katrina ever came on the radar. And, that was my point. Edwards is not just adding a paragraph about poverty and the growing economic gap in this country to his speeches, he's actually making poverty a national issue and trying to start a debate on it in this country. I do commend him a lot for that.

So yeah... dems like Kerry are doing the right thing by talking about this... however, when Edwards talks about it, I see a passion and courage of a level all of its own.

I agree with that large print about how the Dem party doesn't need to be like the GOP party. I am glad he is talking about poverty because that's the direction we are in because of this pathetic administration.

two americas

EDWARDS could be an excellent nominee for 2008! The short list one more time.

Location (southern), Intelligence, Compassion (working to end poverty for some time now), Charisma & Charm (hard to beat), Connects With An Audience and then there's ELIZABETH!!! One fine fine woman who would make a fantastic FIRST LADY!!

Oh, and just about forgot... he can't be labeled a LIBERAL! I'm a Liberal, but I could and would vote for JOHN EDWARDS!!

He's so smart

I want to see the rebuilding in the hands of the residents also...at a fair and decent wage.
Time to stop this cronyism crapola.

It would be good. VERY good. :thumbsup:

Lund-Lubber Republicans have no meddle for foul winds! ARRRRGGG!!!

Are we seeing a clear, Democratic message being formed here? A strong articulation of our core values as Dems?

Dean and Edwards did a conference call this past week to house parties. They sound as though they are on the same page.

I can't help but think... then why o' why did you help send some of those same poor people to Iraq?

And this bolded quote "We don't need another Republican party," he said. "We need to be Democrats because this party gives voice to people who have no voice, and they never needed it more than they do now."

Where was thier voice in the decision to go to Iraq? Because his voice was cheering it on. And I'll never get over that.

that most dems voted.
Sorry, but at the time, the intel and the information the senators were given showed that Iraq was a threat.
Hindsight is alwasy twenty twenty.
Can't go back and change the vote.

I met two members of the air force who had just arrived from Baghdad this past weekend while in Maryland for a college football game. They have a job to do and they are doing it honorably so don't trash them. They're in the same place Senator Edwards was in, he had a job to do and at the time it pointed to Iraq being a threat.
What would you do if you were told your life was in danger, would you do something about it, or would you decide to just stand there and wait until the event happened?

And since when did I trash the military? They take thier orders from the C.I.C. Besides, my husband's a marine, so don't give me that crap.

BTW, there were SOME who opposed this war from the onset.

but not all, and among those who made the mistake at the time are some great leaders.
At the time, they thought they did was right based on the information they were given. In hindsight it was wrong.

I think that some people did what they thought was best for the country at the time, politics aside. They made a mistake, I guess some people haven't made any in their lives? If so, pick up that stone.

talk to a retired general...oh, that's right they fired them. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

I guess he must have been too busy planning his presidential run.

The non-public meetings are top secret, so they don't make the attendence records public.

I suspect that public intelligence committee meetings aren't where they're hearing the most important information, so, when the Republicans turned this into an attack ad last year, it was just a lot of bullshit.

I'd still rather have either of them as president than Bush, who is technically present at every white house intelligence briefing.

don't you think he would have mentioned it in the debates?

Or do you think this was just a way for Republicans to divert attention from the real issues?

of informed people who said that the war was not necessary.

>Sorry, but at the time, the intel and the information the senators were given showed that Iraq was a threat.<

How come WE (at DU) KNEW this was all horse shit, that inspections were working and that invading Iraq was nothing but opening a can of snakes, yet the majority of elected officials were fooled?

Don't get me wrong, I voted for Kerry, worked my ass for his campaign, but I do still have a hard time with his support of the war. He is supposed to be smarter than us.

To use the military in an attempt to defend Edwards vote on Iraq is unbelievable.

I'm given him/her the benfit of the doubt that he/she is newly converted, and thus still spouts RW talking points.

...accused me of trashing the military and then used the ol' if you know someone's going to attack you bit. I'm a Clarkie, for cryin' out loud! :rofl: Anyway, new converts seem to like Edwards, so hopefully he/she has seen the light. ;)

Right on Mr. Edwards! Great ideas and oh what a fighting spirit you have. Where was this "piss and vinegar" in 2004? Why did you and Mr. Kerry let the Repubs walk all over you without returning some blows? Where was this fire in the belly when it really mattered? You have yourselves to blame for for your loss in '04. When will ud Dems learn to fight back and be just as vicious and nasty as the "Right"?

They should leave that to the other party, who does it so well.

The democrats can fight back without resorting to underhanded tactics and win. They simply must use the sort of message that John Edwards, Dean, Kerry, Clark and others are loudly proclaiming. The time is now.

I am proud to be a Democrat when I read things like this.

...AND I am PROUD to be a LIBERAL when I read things like this.

I never said underhanded anywhere in my message. I am proposing we use the truth and evidence thats already out there and really drive it home. We have to be ruthless and focused if we are to win elections. Have you noticed that we keep losing elections and (country becoming more "red state")the media battles beacause we are not as savvy at defending ourselves and being able to go on the offensive. This is why "Swift Boat" worked so well. Go ahead, take the high ground (whatever that means) and we will go on losing. Pres. Clinton sure knew how to fight back and be nasty/vicious/fierce when he had to. Don't put words in my mouth please.

vicious and nasty as the "Right"?" (and that was cut and paste from your post.) That Democrats should use the same hardball tactics as the Right seemed to be the general theme of your post.

Then you complain that I have put words in your mouth, when I respond.

Sorry, I just don't follow.

You intimated I said "resorting to underhanded tactics" (cut and paste from your message). NOWHERE was this written in my post. I did say as Dems we need to get as "vicious and nasty" as the Right (hey, take a hint from the Carville playbook which was VERY successful, it gave us a two term Dem president!!!) This is politics and it is nasty. I realize you and many other of my fellow Dems have no stomach for hardball politics and that is why we keep f'ing losing! However, it is nice to see that Demundergrounf has a lot of folks on board who feel the way I do: pointing out good dirt, obvious lies, scandals and the like perpetrated by this administration (i.e. hunta) and their surrogates. Again, don't put words in my mouth.

Your word "underhanded" implies lying and cheating. I propose no such thing. I suggest that we get just as "nasty" (exposing their scandals, personal foibles etc...) and "vicious" (hammering our message home, not shrinking from attacks, go hard and expose every bit of their dirt). Again, for the record (please backtrack and check it, I did not use the word 'UNDERHANDED". Your words, not mine. Just admit it, even Bush admitted he was wrong.

(The Swiftboat issue that you cite is a good example.)

You suggested we emulate them. I disagree. (and hence, my use of the word, "underhanded.")

I certainly DO agree that we need to speak out, not shrink from making legitmate attacks on them when the cause is just, hammer our message home, etc.

Do you realize the percentage of people who simply do not vote and give as a reason their disgust with exactly the sort of tactics you are proposing (as if they are something new)? Yes, we need to go after those things that expose their hypocrisy or dishonesty, but let's not go too far, or we become them.


Know your enemies well, for in the end that is who you become.
-Lao-tze

You and your fellow non confrontational Dems are going to continue down the road of continued failure and lost battles. Thank goodness there are ever growing masses of us on the left who have had enough and are willing to adopt hardcore tactics in order to win(and then push our agenda of economic equity, civil justice, racial equality and social responsibility forward). Yes, we will adopt Vicious and Nasty tactics when necessary in order to defeat the Repubs/Conservatives without becoming them. That is a ridiculous argument. Knowing your enemy well and even adopting some of their tactics (in this case a willingness to illuminate their hypocrisy and humiliate them at every opportunity). We don't need to be underhanded, we have truth on our side. We just need more of a backbone. Thanks for your Eastern philosophy quote, now here is mine:

1. All warfare is based on deception.
2. Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must seem inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near.
3. Hold out baits to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and crush him.
4. If he is secure at all points, be prepared for him. If he is in superior strength, evade him.
5. If your opponent is of choleric temper, seek to irritate him. Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant.
6.If he is taking his ease, give him no rest.
7.If his forces are united, separate them.
8. Attack him where he is unprepared, appear where you are not expected.--
Sun Tzu

If this is the brilliant strategy you suggest, I suggest it is a failure.

Several times I have agreed that we do need to stand up and fight. No argument there. And yet you seem to insist that I am against that. You appear to be confused.

To wit, you say:

"We don't need to be underhanded, we have truth on our side."

...yet only one sentence later you are suggesting this tactic:

"1. All warfare is based on deception."

I just can't argue with you about this anymore. It's futile.


Do you want to know why I most dislike Bush? It is because he is VERY intelligent, but pretends to be stupid. It is just an act. I believe he does this because he knows full well that silly people on the left will attack him for his malapropisms and fumbling. And when the left does attack him for his stupidity, then what happens? (Have you never realized this?) All the TRULY stupid people in the country vote for him because they identify with him. Bush WELCOMES those attacks; he wants them...that's why he does that. You truly HAVE "misunderestimated" him (oh, how I cringe as I say that!). That Bush is able to pull off a deception like this and yet have so many people like you go on attacking him, playing into HIS game, proves just how intelligent he is. So, you see, the sort of attacks that you propose are not necessarily such a brilliant strategy, are they? They can backfire.

Note well: If a democratic leader was to try something like the Bush pretend-stupidity, I would vomit. I want something better than this. I think a lot of democrats feel the same.

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

Sorry, I meant to say: "Knowing your enemy well and even adopting some of their tactics IS AN EXCELLENT STRATEGY" oops, left it out !!!

That's the message we need to hear more of.

It is time our party ACTS LIKE DEMOCRATS!

It's 2005, not the 1930's.

There was one FDR, & he ain't comin back.

If you think this platform will win a national election, I got a bridge to nowhere in Alaska I can sell you.

The Middle Class is teetering on the brink....will Dems mention them?

Or will they keep voting for Cafta, Nafta, etc.?

And will Edwards raise taxes on the Middle Class to pay for this plan?

The entire country is in economic crisis, except for the few winners in Bush's circle.

Dems always pick special constituencies to appeal to, rather than appealing to the whole. And then wonder why they lost.

Well said!!!

will pay for a great deal, and improve our fiscal status as well.

What's wrong with that?

in both the 2004 primaries and general election.

A country where * attains a higher position than John Edwards is a country that has something terribly wrong with it.

Why create jobs with a modern WPA when protecting American workers would work accomplish the same thing?

:thumbsup:

God knows the state of the union is in such a mess, we do need some regulation and a social conscience candidate. Edwards is looking like the man.

... for his Senate seat ?

I'm curious how he plans to stay out front of the party - or IF he does, given his wife's health problems - until 2008 ?


Thanks !

I think it's great. He has been speaking about this for a good while too. Wasn't that his message mostly in 2004 too? That's one reason why I really liked Edwards personally. I agree. If we start really fighting back and forgetting what all these talkingheads say maybe people will have a reason to vote for democrats again! I definitley believe we have to get back to the root of the party. The FDR, Kennedy democratic party.

administrations failings. Perhaps, that is because he has more first hand knowledge of the many of the issues and situations involving this President.