Edwards's 5 priorities to change America

In a nutshell.



Cher

A pretty good starting point. The devil, of course, is in the details. I will be interested in hearing his specific proposals for moving forward ... his strategies for accomplishing these worthy ends.

Every main issue I care about is addressed there. Excellent!

Good for him! Good for the rest of us, too, because these stands he's taking, jumping out with them now, will help to frame and shape the debate.

he's running on more than just being against the war, which I
certainly appreciate.

in the last VP debate with Cheney I thought he didn't across very strong. I've always been a fan of his but I think he has questionable debating skills.

The format of the debate with Cheney was very restrictive, although I think he did very well. I have no doubts that he will kick the crap out of a Republican in the presidential debates.

Personal Injury attorneys protect citizens from people and companies that injure people through neglect or not caring! Don't use terms the noise machine uses to mislead the fools who populate the South and Midwest.

Republicans want to make the term, like "liberal," into a dirty word. It's not.

http://www.atla.org/
Association of Trial Lawyers of America

http://www.tlpj.org/
Trial Lawyers for Public Justice

he will not let any wannabe swifter run away with anything.

and I live in the midwest I think it just refers to what kind of lawyer he is.

make sure everyone understands it is a positive term - not negative. Trial lawyers defend citizens against abusive companies, corporations, etcetera...

I am a "liberal" - that is a term the right has tried to make as evil as "satanic" - we have to take it back and make it positive in the minds of citizens again.

sort of a return of Perry Mason...to get rid of the negative connotations.

Trial lawyers also represent innocent doctors and hospitals from overly aggressive patients who want to sue every time they don't get the outcome they desire.

The term "trial lawyer" is neither Dem or Repub. It's just a word (2 words actually) to describe someone's job. Like truck driver. Or mail man.

I am a proud trial lawyer.

AMBULANCE CHASER. None will stick to Johnny.

hopefully, he learned a great deal from '04.

progress, it turns out, depends as much on failure as
success.

There is a story that goes around that when John Edwards would give his closing arguments, OTHER ATTORNIES would come from all around town to sit in the gallery and listen to him because he was such a fantastic closer. He was also known for being able to think fast on his feet.

I think his debate skills are not in question. I think there were a lot of constraints put on him during the debate with Cheney from many directions.

I saw Edwards chew up and spit out liar Cheney.

On another thread you say Bush is better looking than Kerry...

Now on this one, you say Edwards didn't do well against Cheney in the debate??

I say that both of those comments are..

today in '04 was going to work for him after Dean dropped out but lasted about a week. hopefully he will get some steam. I want to wait & see what Gore is going to do before I get to busy with anybody.

I liked him as VP in 2004. I like him a lot for President in 2008.

He's a serious candidate. I haven't thought about him much, but this platform will appeal to those of us in the base. And we do the legwork in the party. He may be able to build even more activist support than even Dean did.

I want to see 911 investigated though!

We must fix our broken constitution and rescind the broad powers ceded by Congress to Bush, or we will continue teetering on the brink of totalitarianism.

"Strengthen the middle class"??

What about those of us who are overqualified, overeducated and FELL OUT of the middle class because we couldn't find jobs in the 90s??? Me and my Incredibly F***ing Goddamned Useless Doctorate Degree.

What does that mean? I'd like to know. I know the minimum wage has to be raised, and all that, but what is he going to do about all the good middle class jobs that disappeared???

Protectionism and tariffs? Repealing NAFTA? White collar unions? That's the only answer I can come up with.

This includes AGE DISCRIMINATION as well. I'm sure he's well aware of that, being a plaintiff's lawyer.



:shrug:

the issue isn't so much WHAT he supports, but HOW he proposes to do it.

Wanting universal health care is great. But HOW is it to be done?

-What will it cost to the working tax payers?
-Can the cost of subsidizing 40 million uninsureds be borne by the top 5%?
-What is Edwards plan to cut health care costs?
-Will the excessive medical tests be trimmed by putting a lid on
---litigation?
-Will Billions be spent on the terminally ill so they can be kept alive
---for a few weeks? These type of patients with insurance are the most
---profitable customers for hospitals and doctors. I have a personal
---experience in this type of situation.

:thumbsup::thumbsup:

"FIGHT PREDATORY LEADERS" (some mortgages, credit card companies, etc.)

It will be interesting to see how the Democrats running differentiate their policy platforms if they are going to be so similar.

He said the overall plan is more important, but he said several times that more troops always help the situation. Here's one example:

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, you know, I think it's possibly on a short-term basis to surge 20 or 30 thousand. It's a question of the level of pain you're willing to inflict on the rest of force, the people who are back here preparing, the people who are in the Guard and Reserve. That can be done. That, that's mechanically possible. The question is: What do you gain from it? As Robert said, we don't have any leverage against Iran. So, we're going to put these troops in there to try to stabilize the situation. Are we likely to succeed by increasing 20 or 30 thousand troops. Temporarily, I think you'll probably suppress some of the violence. They'll have more difficulty moving and so forth, but within six weeks, eight weeks, six months, if Iran wants to crank up the heat on the United States forces, they'll find a way to do this. So, how are we going to come back and deal with Iran? That's the question.

of the quote?

BTW, heard your guy VOTED to send the damn troops there to begin with against the advice of said general. :eyes:

In other words, Edwards was an architect of the IWR. Great creds for a future presidential candidate.

He said specifically more troops WAS NOT the issue and WOULD NOT solve the problem.

which is what the quote above says.

Clark did, however, say this (responding to a question on what the effect of a troop increase would be, NOT supporting a troop increase)

"I think you'll get more patrols on the streets of Baghdad. I think you'll get more snipers on rooftops. I think you'll get more roadblocks. I think it'll be more difficult for militias to move. I think you'll be able to occupy certain areas for longer without having to pull the troops back. In other words, I think you'll get some marginal military advantages. If the major problem is political not military, the question is: What is the President going to do to gain the political initiative? He's met with Maliki. He's met with Hakim. He's now meeting with the Sunni leader. What's going to emerge from that? Is there going to be a political strategic consensus? That's what's going to determine our success or failure in Iraq.

Not only did you attribute words to Clark which he did not say, you also left out that he said this in the same interview:

"It can't be won militarily. There are not enough forces to try to go in there and post a platoon at every street corner in Baghdad, and if you could, it wouldn't solve the problem anyway."

YOU LOSE.

edit for link: http://securingamerica.com/node/2030

I really wouldn't expect Edwards to know, since that isn't his area of expertise.

The point is both Edwards and Clark agree the goal needs to be to reduce troop levels, and there is no military solution to a political problem.

Clark says that it sends a good short term message to Iran and achieves good short term goals.

That's how I'm understanding his position, here's a snip from his website:
http://securingamerica.com/node/2030

when he said that a surge sends the wrong message to the rest of the world.

Wesley Clark: Bush's 'surge' will backfire
Sunday, January 7, 2007
The Independent | By Wesley K. Clark

"The truth is that, however brutal the fighting in Iraq for our troops, the underlying problems are political. ... And the real danger of the troop surge is that it undercuts the urgency for the political effort. ... fundamentally, the US and its allies need to proceed from a different approach within the region. The neocons' vision has failed."

<snip>

What the surge would do, however, is put more American troops in harm's way, further undercut US forces' morale, and risk further alienation of elements of the Iraqi populace. American casualties would probably rise, at least temporarily, as more troops are on the streets; we saw this when the brigade from Alaska was extended and sent into Baghdad last summer. And even if the increased troop presence initially intimidates or frustrates the contending militias, it won't be long before they find ways to work around the obstacles to movement and neighbourhood searches, if they are still intent on pursuing the conflict. All of this is not much of an endorsement for a troop surge that will impose real pain on the already overstretched US forces.

There could be other uses for troops, for example, accelerating training for the Iraqi military and police. But even here, vetting these forces for their loyalty has proven problematic. Therefore, neither accelerated training nor more troops in the security mission can be viewed mechanistically, as though a 50 per cent increase in effort will yield a 50 per cent increased return, for other factors are at work.

The truth is that, however brutal the fighting in Iraq for our troops, the underlying problems are political. Vicious ethnic cleansing is under way right under the noses of our troops, as various factions fight for power and survival. In this environment security is unlikely to come from smothering the struggle with a blanket of forces - it cannot be smothered easily, for additional US efforts can stir additional resistance - but rather from more effective action to resolve the struggle at the political level. And the real danger of the troop surge is that it undercuts the urgency for the political effort. A new US ambassador might help, but, more fundamentally, the US and its allies need to proceed from a different approach within the region. The neocons' vision has failed.

http://securingamerica.com/node/2091

What you posted is part of a larger interview in which Clark explains the issue is not troop strength, it's the overall policy, and so adding troops ultimately won't help because it's not primarily a military problem.

My question for you is, where did Edwards come up with the 40,000 number? What is his strategy behind that? Why not 20,000 or 60,000?

When I treat Edwards with the respect he is due?

Long time no see :hi:

we have not seen them around in a while.

:hi:

:eyes:

Not old news to me and maybe not to others but, if you insist, mum's the word.

that's why I got pissy, here's more info:


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-johnson/walmart-engineers-a-smea_b_34317.html

:hi:

Had I not posted this, I would not have received the rebuttal you so kindly directed me to.

By the way, my son found this on a gamer site, not a political site. Gamers take any effort to push to the front of the line, particularly on release of new systems like this, very seriously. And Wal*Mart very inappropriately considered this press release worthy. Feh.

Thanks for the info.

plus five games!

I attended the event in Des Moines and wrote about it on my blog here... http://commoniowan.blogspot.com/2006/12/report-from-edwards-event-today.html

I bookmarked your blog for my Iowa updates :hi:

(i think no "short list" can cover all that's needed)

increase minimum wage

reinstate Habeas Corpus

reinstate the Fairness Doctrine

reform lobbying regulations

enforce regulations on corporate taxes

stop outsourcing

investigate the Bush admin's crimes

Secure and fair elections using paper and pen.

Thus we end up with a Long List.
Now which candidate is prepared to run with it?

I think Edwards will really come out as the best option against Bush's reign of terror. No other candidate has described the Iraq surge better, and what he'll do when he is president.

Does that mean he's backing HR 676 and its equivalent in the Senate? I used his email response form to ask, but no answer yet.

Our school system is in disrepair and like W said, "Is our children learning?"