Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Russ Feingold -- NO on Edwards

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
 
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 10:04 PM
Original message
Russ Feingold -- NO on Edwards
Edited on Thu Jan-17-08 10:41 PM by slipslidingaway
http://www.postcrescent.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080117/APC06/801170560/1036

Originally posted in this thread, but for those who do not read GD, the highlights of the article are below.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2708108


"From an interview with Russ Feingold in a Wisconsin paper:


On the Democratic presidential candidates

I did notice that as the primaries heated up, all of a sudden, all the presidential candidates — none of whom voted with me on the timeframe to withdraw from Iraq — all voted with me and when we did the Patriot Act stuff.

The one that is the most problematic is (John) Edwards, who voted for the Patriot Act, campaigns against it. Voted for No Child Left Behind, campaigns against it. Voted for the China trade deal, campaigns against it. Voted for the Iraq war … He uses my voting record exactly as his platform, even though he had the opposite voting record.

When you had the opportunity to vote a certain way in the Senate and you didn't, and obviously there are times when you make a mistake, the notion that you sort of vote one way when you're playing the game in Washington and another way when you're running for president, there's some of that going on.

On whether he'll make an endorsement in the Feb. 19 Wisconsin primary

Probably not. I'm having a hard time deciding between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, as are many people. Those are the two I take the most seriously.

I go back and forth, to be honest with you. I'm torn on this whole issue of who's more likely to be progressive and really seek change vs. who's ready to do the job today. It really is a true dilemma in my mind."


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
More Than A Feeling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 10:07 PM
Response to Original message
1. Feingold doesn't like it that Edwards stole his thunder.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 10:35 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. Thanks, I disagree with that analysis. My belief is that Feingold
Edited on Thu Jan-17-08 10:36 PM by slipslidingaway
feels Edwards is not sincere.

IMO, I would trust Feingold over over Edwards any day. And Feingold showed guts to stand up to the administration on several occasions.

Sad to see that he is being trashed here on DU by the some Edwards supporters.

Thanks for the link.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jeanruss Donating Member (194 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-18-08 12:03 AM
Response to Reply #4
21. fake progressives
I think the Congress has been playing games with us for a while. Some of them, like Feingold and Conyers acted as if they loathed Bush, etc. But when it came time to DO something they backed down. All they talked about before 2006 elections was impeachment, but now where are they? Have they signed on to Kucinich's legislation? Have they been standing with Wexler? I think it's easy to look progressive when there is zero chance anything will happen. Leahy only wrings his hands when his subpoenas get ignored. Everyone needs to realize we have NO REPRESENTATION in either house of Congress. Edwards knows this and is courageous for telling the truth. Even if none of the cowards in the Democratic Party will stand with him, we should. He will represent us. I don't care what these candidates did before. If you follow the money, you know what they'll do in the future. Edwards is the only one who will have a free hand to change things. Both Clinton and Obama will not. However I believe we will have another Republican President if Edwards is not the nominee, which is why everyone in government, from either party, is trying to stop John Edwards.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-18-08 12:07 AM
Response to Reply #21
22. I believe you have some of your facts wrong and do not view
Senator Feingold as a fake progressive.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PeaceNikki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-18-08 01:00 PM
Response to Reply #21
43. When did Feingold ever talk about impeachment?
BTW, he was not up for re-election in '06. He was re-elected in '04.

Are you calling Russ a "fake progressive"? If so, you know nothing about him at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DaLittle Kitty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-18-08 03:01 PM
Response to Reply #21
54. Just Like Dennis... Why Endorse CENTRIST REAGANITE .. OBAMA?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madeline_con Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 10:07 PM
Response to Original message
2. Isn't a link to another thread from the SAME day just a dupe? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 10:38 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. A reference for those who may not read GD? Should I have
copied the article here?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rpannier Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 10:27 PM
Response to Original message
3. This would be the same Feingold who voted FOR roberts???
Live in glass houses don't throw stones.

link:
http://www.c-span.org/congress/roberts_senate.asp
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 10:43 PM
Response to Reply #3
9. Nobody is perfect, but it did vote against the Patriot Act, the Iraq
invasion and the Homeland Security Bill to name a few others.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JI7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 11:51 PM
Response to Reply #3
20. i think he is saying that he doesn't find Edwards to be real
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-18-08 02:44 AM
Response to Reply #3
28. voting for Roberts is akin to co-sponsoring an illegal war?
In what universe? Feingold has an almost perfectly progressive record in the Senate. As does Leahy. Edwards. Nope.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rpannier Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-18-08 04:56 AM
Response to Reply #28
31. He co-sponsored it???
Edited on Fri Jan-18-08 04:57 AM by rpannier
Actually it was Lott-Daschle

link:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:HJ00114:@@@P
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-18-08 06:09 AM
Response to Reply #31
32. Actually Edwards did co-sponsor an IWR with Lieberman
From Wiki:


"Edwards voted for the 2002 Iraq War Resolution, and was one of 16 Senators to co-sponsor an early version of that bill, Joe Lieberman's S.J Res 46, which was not brought to the floor for a vote."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_John_Edwards

Edwards also endorsed the idea that it was OK to bypass the U.N. on going to war, and wrote an oped in support of it in the WaPo that hewed to the bushco line. He didn't reject the war or his vote for three years, until November 2005.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rpannier Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-18-08 06:19 AM
Response to Reply #32
33. Not according to the Library of Congress
Edited on Fri Jan-18-08 06:30 AM by rpannier
Note: S.J.Res. 45 was based on the original White House proposal authorizing the use of force in Iraq. H.J.Res. 114 and the substantially similar S.J.Res. 46 were modified proposals. H.J.Res. 110 was a separate proposal not considered on the floor.


on edit: I realize the following about SR 46. Which he was one of 16 co-sponsors. But the IWR was SR 45

on edit, edit: Which shows a considerale lack of judgement on his part when you look at the names of the cosponsors.And I don't just mean Lyin'Joe.

Sen Allard, Wayne - 10/2/2002 Sen Baucus, Max - 10/7/2002
Sen Bayh, Evan - 10/2/2002 Sen Breaux, John B. - 10/9/2002
Sen Bunning, Jim - 10/4/2002 Sen Domenici, Pete V. - 10/2/2002
Sen Edwards, John - 10/3/2002 Sen Helms, Jesse - 10/2/2002
Sen Hutchinson, Tim - 10/2/2002 Sen Johnson, Tim - 10/7/2002
Sen Landrieu, Mary L. - 10/2/2002 Sen McCain, John - 10/2/2002
Sen McConnell, Mitch - 10/2/2002 Sen Miller, Zell - 10/2/2002
Sen Thurmond, Strom - 10/10/2002 Sen Warner, John - 10/2/2002

For the most part there are some pretty crappy senators from both sides of the aisle on this list
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
harun Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-18-08 03:05 PM
Response to Reply #3
56. Roberts was qualified and it is Bush's decision who to put in the
chair, not the Senates. I can see the Senate vetting someone who isn't qualified or who is a radical but beyond that, it is the presidents pick. I know if I was president I would want to be able to pick who I want (if they were qualified).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
democrat2thecore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-19-08 01:38 AM
Response to Reply #3
71. He's not out now campaigning saying "I'm sorry for my vote" -nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Horse with no Name Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 10:40 PM
Response to Original message
6. Disheartening that Russ wants more of the same
I really thought he would be tired of that by now. Whodathunk it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occam Bandage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-18-08 12:45 AM
Response to Reply #6
26. Or rather, that Russ sees that Edwards is actually more of the same.
He'd know him far better than you would.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MH1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-18-08 03:15 PM
Response to Reply #26
57. It's amazing to me how blinded folks can be.
Edwards realized being "progressive" and reaching out to the netroots would give him a better shot than being what he was, so he reinvented himself and voila, instant progressive hero!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jackson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 10:42 PM
Response to Original message
7. No one cares about Feingold outside of Wisconsin and the netroots
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fabio Donating Member (929 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-18-08 01:02 PM
Response to Reply #7
44. Dude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PeaceNikki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-18-08 01:07 PM
Response to Reply #7
46. You should.
He's an amazing progressive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Divine Discontent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 10:43 PM
Response to Original message
8. I wanted Russ before I wanted Edwards
but Russ bailed on fighting to win the nomination of this party. He could have raised millions to battle, and I guess I don't understand the reason why he's leaving public office (correct?), but since he did, and I got to meet and listen to John, and read about who he's fighting for, and the plans he has, I have been more inspired than I ever have before - John is the real deal. He doesn't have to be running for president, he could be in the court room, or just staying on the estate - but he's NOT, he's out there in the elements, walking around kissing strangers, holding babies, and telling it like it is better than anyone.

So, despite my respect for Sen. Feingold, I don't care that he says no on Edwards.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jeff In Milwaukee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-18-08 03:18 PM
Response to Reply #8
58. I'm a little annoyed with Russ...
If the Senator had a pair, he'd be in this race himself. And since he wouldn't run despite our begging him to do so, I think he's forfeited the right to make snarky comments about those who thought this election was important.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jai4WKC08 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-18-08 04:16 PM
Response to Reply #58
62. I think he's just more realistic
He's twice divorced and still single.
He's Jewish.
He's short.

He has about as much chance of becoming president as I do.

I respect him all the more for not taking the money of people who care about him and throwing it down a hole.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jeff In Milwaukee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-18-08 04:41 PM
Response to Reply #62
63. Wisconsin is a VERY purple state...
We had a Republican governor for four freaking terms and a Republican majority in the statehouse (still do, in the Assembly). If Russ can win a statewide election here, he can do it anywhere.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jai4WKC08 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-18-08 05:01 PM
Response to Reply #63
64. It's not about red, blue and purple
It's about the superficial CRAP that someone has to be to win the presidency.

When we're lucky, we get all that and a decent, capable, competent individual too. More often, we get all that and someone who can muddle thru without fucking things up too bad. When we're unlucky, we get a George Bush.

Russ Feingold is a wonderful senator, of whom your state should be very proud. But he could never ever win a presidential election. And he knows it, which is why he didn't run. Another reason to be proud of him, imo.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 10:47 PM
Response to Original message
10. Oh, snap! - "He uses my voting record exactly as his platform"
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 10:47 PM
Response to Original message
11. I always thought that Feingold had excellent instinct.....
seems like that continues to be the case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laureloak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-18-08 03:24 PM
Response to Reply #11
59. THINK before you trash Edwards, Obama supporters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-19-08 01:28 AM
Response to Reply #59
70. I was discussing Edwards peculiar inconsistencies before I was for Obama....
so you should bark up someone else's tree.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ursi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 10:49 PM
Response to Original message
12. of all the opinions on this board, which post should I let sway me? Hmmmmm.
Not this one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vanboggie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 10:51 PM
Response to Original message
13. No dilemma for me
Edited on Thu Jan-17-08 10:52 PM by vanboggie
I just unsubscribed from Feingold's Progressive Patriots newsletter and told him why. At least he and Dennis are no longer clogging my mailbox.


Edited to fix typo.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Divine Discontent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 10:55 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. fixes that. I shall do the same. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 11:14 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. Just remember who had the correct judgment when it mattered...
the price of oil (partly due to Iraq's invasion) and the trade deals (especially China) are two major reasons our economy, and the people of our nation, are suffering.


http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Russ_Feingold

"...voted against NAFTA, GATT, and Permanent Most Favored Nation status for China, in great part because I felt they were bad deals for Wisconsin businesses and Wisconsin workers. At the time I voted against those agreements, I thought they would result in lost jobs for my state. But, Mr. President, even as an opponent of those trade agreements, I had no idea just how bad things would be..."


Feingold and Dennis also both voted against the Homeland Security Act and the Patriot Act.


Our economy and civil liberties are threatened...I'll support those who did vote and speak accordingly, not those who promise to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vanboggie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-18-08 02:26 AM
Response to Reply #16
27. Yep, I'll agree with you there n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-18-08 12:55 PM
Response to Reply #27
41. Thanks, being right the first time is important to me. Look at the
mess we are in now :(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
creeksneakers2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 11:10 PM
Response to Original message
15. He's right about Edwards
Edwards can't be trusted. What was Edwards' answer to the confess to a weakness question at the debate? He empathizes too much? What a phony!

And look at this - Edwards on Yucca Mountain:

Edwards: "I said the science that has been revealed since that time and the forged documents that have been revealed since that time have made it very – this has been for years, Hillary. This didn't start last year or three years ago. I've said this for years now – have revealed that this thing does not make sense, is not good for the people of Nevada, and it's not good for America."

Actually, Edwards had changed his position when he signed on as the 2004 running mate of presidential candidate John Kerry, who was opposed to the nuclear repository. That was long before the documents scandal erupted in March 2005.


http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/stacking_the_deck.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 11:34 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. I have not watched the debate, thought I would, but I've lost
interest in what the top three have to say, especially when there is nobody there to really challenge them on the issues :(


Also on Yucca Mountain, posted this last night.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4087454&mesg_id=4092127

The Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Dump Vote in Congress is Imminent!!!

Questions about scientific studies prior to the vote

http://www.nirs.org/alerts/04-30-2002/2

"...Despite a Dec. 2001 U.S. General Accounting Office report that a decision should be postponed indefinitely due to nearly 300 incomplete scientific studies, and a Jan. 2002 U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board determination that the Department of Energy's Yucca Mountain science is "weak to moderate," on Feb. 14, Energy Secretary Spence Abraham recommended Yucca Mountain as a suitable site for burying 77,000 tons of high-level radioactive waste. President Bush rubberstamped the reckless plan the very next day..."


Kucinich pointed out many of the problems with Yucca Mountain and voted No.

"BACKGROUND

Despite a Dec. 2001 U.S. General Accounting Office report that a decision should be postponed indefinitely due to nearly 300 incomplete scientific studies, and a Jan. 2002 U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board determination that the Department of Energy's Yucca Mountain science is "weak to moderate..."


Kucinich in 2000 addressing several issues including transportation of waste and scientic studies that might not be completed before approval.


http://kucinich.house.gov/UploadedFiles/yuccadeiscomments.pdf











Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jackson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-18-08 06:28 AM
Response to Reply #17
34. Where does Kucinich propose sending the waste?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-18-08 01:49 PM
Response to Reply #34
48. Not sure, did Edwards use the forged scientific studies as an
excuse for his voting in favor of Yucca Mountain? Again there were questions about the scientific studies BEFORE the vote. Is now using the forged studies as an excuse for his vote? What about the information that was already out there?

Also see reply #15
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/stacking_the_deck.html

"Edwards: "I said the science that has been revealed since that time and the forged documents that have been revealed since that time have made it very – this has been for years, Hillary. This didn't start last year or three years ago. I've said this for years now – have revealed that this thing does not make sense, is not good for the people of Nevada, and it's not good for America."

"...Actually, Edwards had changed his position when he signed on as the 2004 running mate of presidential candidate John Kerry, who was opposed to the nuclear repository. That was long before the documents scandal erupted in March 2005..."




There are too many inconsistencies for me whenever I research what Edwards is saying and what has occurred in the past, guess Feingold feels the same way.

:shrug:


Incomplete studies and weak to moderate science, there were some concerns before the vote about scientific studies and yet Edwards voted for it anyway???

http://www.nirs.org/alerts/04-30-2002/2

"...Despite a Dec. 2001 U.S. General Accounting Office report that a decision should be postponed indefinitely due to nearly 300 incomplete scientific studies, and a Jan. 2002 U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board determination that the Department of Energy's Yucca Mountain science is "weak to moderate," on Feb. 14, Energy Secretary Spence Abraham recommended Yucca Mountain as a suitable site for burying 77,000 tons of high-level radioactive waste. President Bush rubberstamped the reckless plan the very next day..."


http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0709-08.htm

"The action, coming after years of fierce lobbying and a recent blitz by environmentalists and business groups alike, was a victory for President Bush. It overrode a veto of the site by Nevada's Republican governor, Kenny Guinn, and cleared the way for the Energy Department to apply to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to license the waste repository, to be located 1,000 feet below Yucca Mountain 90 miles from Las Vegas.

The opponents of the site, led by Nevada's two senators, knew they had lost when the Senate voted 60 to 39 to consider a resolution to override Nevada's veto...

But they were unable to keep their party completely in line, as 15 Democrats joined most of the Republicans to vote to consider the Yucca Mountain resolution...

"A lot of special interests are behind this," said Senator Barbara Boxer, a California Democrat, who protested that the Yucca Mountain site risked contaminating California's drinking water. "Who are we fighting for here? Who are we fighting for here?"








Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ladjf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 11:40 PM
Response to Original message
18. I admire Feingold in a lot of ways. But, I was very disappointed
when he voted to support Israel last year when they were bombing Lebanon back to the stone age.

Sen. Clinton also voted approval of their actions. I don't remember what Obama's position was.

Anyway, no one does everything you'd like for them to do including Edwards. I agree that he made some bad calls while in the Senate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-18-08 12:14 AM
Response to Reply #18
23. I was disappointed with all of them as well, the news articles
say it was unanimous in the Senate and and 410-8 in the House, not sure if there were any missing votes.

Many times are policies seem so one-sided :(

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
smalll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 11:49 PM
Response to Original message
19. That's some straight talk from Feingold -
Edited on Thu Jan-17-08 11:50 PM by smalll
Feingold knows Edwards. They served in the Senate together. And with that statement, Feingold is telling us, in just about the clearest, harshest language that one Senator can use about another, that Edwards is nothing more than a PHONY.

I'm continually amazed that so many here, with eyes to see and ears to hear, can't grasp that essential truth. But we shouldn't feel too bad about ourselves I guess - on the Republican side, people like Rush Limbaugh (and even the "smart" conservatives over at National Review) make the same mistake - they continue to support their John Edwards - the man who says all the "right" things, but is nothing more than a shape-shifting adventurer: Mitt Romney!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-18-08 12:25 AM
Response to Reply #19
24. I agree, but also feel that this could be the beginning of
something larger. When Senator Feingold introduced his censor resolution he did not consult with others, I'm sure he knew what the response would be. Could it be that we are seeing the beginnings of a split in the party, those that have generally gone along with the administration, although protesting loudly, and are pulling the party to the right and the more liberal representatives who are saying, "We're not following anymore, you have crossed enough lines."

Which side, which side???

Yes, you cannot make it anymore clear IMO.

"...Feingold is telling us, in just about the clearest, harshest language that one Senator can use about another, that Edwards is nothing more than a PHONY..."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jackson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-18-08 06:30 AM
Response to Reply #24
35. Edwards is not a Senator anymore. Feingold can say whatever he wants about him
What he says about the other two has to be taken with a grain of salt because he still works with them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-18-08 12:46 PM
Response to Reply #35
37. And what he did say was not very flattering IMO and goes along
with what several people here have expressed, the inconsistencies of what Edwards says on the campaign trail and his actual record.

Senator Feingold did not have to express it as specifically as he did, to me that is telling.

Again I am thinking we may be seeing the beginning of a divide in our party, those who stood up for the people when it mattered and those who went along with administration policies.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jackson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-18-08 12:48 PM
Response to Reply #37
38. Did Feingold mention the thousands of other votes Edwards cast?
Did he put the Patriot Act and NCLB votes in context?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-18-08 12:52 PM
Response to Reply #38
40. I only know what is in the article, he highlighted inconsistencies
between what Edwards says and does. That's enough for me :)

"...When you had the opportunity to vote a certain way in the Senate and you didn't, and obviously there are times when you make a mistake, the notion that you sort of vote one way when you're playing the game in Washington and another way when you're running for president, there's some of that going on..."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jackson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-18-08 01:03 PM
Response to Reply #40
45. Did Feingold mention what he said about Edwards' work as a floor leader for McCain-Feingold?
Feingold attacked Edwards plain and simple and offered no context. To attack Edwards for the Patriot Act is wrong since it passed 98-1 (Feingold). Edwards is hardly alone in running against it after voting for it (the context in which it was passed needs to be remembered) but Feingold doesn't mention this. Similar things apply to the Ted Kennedy written NCLB.

The same attacks can be made about Hillary (i.e. Patriot Act) and Obama (i.e. ran against funding the war, voted to fund when elected) but Feingold doesn't.

Edwards' record? Here is a broader look at instead of flyspecking four votes out of THOUSANDS.

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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-18-08 01:58 PM
Response to Reply #45
51. It's the many inconsistencies as noted several times, Edwards
is portraying himself as the candidate against big business and for the people.

Yet his voting record tells a different story.

No need to post the same link to me with the bills he cosponsored, I answered in another thread that some bills and actions are more important than others.

Especially his advocacy for the Iraq invasion knowing that the intelligence was not up to date.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jackson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-18-08 02:15 PM
Response to Reply #51
53. Many inconsistencies?
4 out of thousands and two, the Patriot Act and NCLB, have nothing to do with business and being for/against working folk.

His voting record tells the same story: he has always been a populist.

The CIA director looked him in the eye and told him Iraq had WMD. That is what he knew about the intelligence.

Who is your candidate? Let's play the flyspecking game with him or her to show how much BS it is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-18-08 05:59 PM
Response to Reply #53
65. The invasion and trade policies are the two affecting our economy
the most at the most.

"Who is your candidate?"

Someone who does his homework and has a spine. :)

Not interested in 'playing games' as there are too many people dying and suffering both here and abroad.







Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jackson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-18-08 07:31 PM
Response to Reply #65
67. Oh. So you accepted the netroots Obamite "fact" about Edwards without looking at his record
No such dream candidate exists. If one did that would be great. I could easily flyspeck his or her record.

Edwards has a very good trade record. Let's compare him to St. Kerry, a prominent progressive saint 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/A15414-2004Feb28_2.html

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

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-18-08 12:49 PM
Response to Reply #24
39. Too late to edit, should be "censure resolution" n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
adnelson60087 Donating Member (661 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-18-08 12:44 AM
Response to Original message
25. I respect Feingold, but he's missing the forest for the Trees.
Hillary and Obama will do nothing he would like, while Edwards has the real passion for the message. He'll come around...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-18-08 02:47 AM
Response to Reply #25
29. He won't have to come around and gee
I trust Feingold and Leahy- the two most liberal Senators over you. They worked with JE. They know him. They chose NOT to endorse him. Both those guys were fighting like hell when JE was a conservative dem hawking the Iraq war for bushco.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rpannier Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-18-08 06:34 AM
Response to Reply #29
36. One question...
If he decides to support Clinton, which he has says he might, would you still trust his judgement over yours???

I'm assuming you're from California (cali). If I'm wrong I jumped the gun.
I'm from Illinois and Obama is a great Senator -- I still have qualms about Dick Durbin the King of Telecom Donations.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-18-08 03:45 PM
Response to Reply #36
61. I didn't say I trusted Feingold's judgment over mine. I don't
I trust Feingold's judgment over the anonymous poster I responded to. And if he endorses Clinton, I'll congratulate the Clinton camp on a great endorsement, as I've done with RFK Jr and Clark.

I'm not from California- though I was born there- I'm from Vermont.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
andym Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-18-08 03:18 AM
Response to Original message
30. Too bad that Feingold chose not to run for President
I am deeply saddened that a true liberal like Russ Feingold decided not to run for president this time around. He is both principled, consistent and astute in his judgment. It is America's loss. Perhaps only those with the biggest egos enter presidential elections.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-18-08 12:56 PM
Response to Reply #30
42. No, the toughest. (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
featherman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-18-08 01:08 PM
Response to Original message
47. DU fave Feingold disses DU fave Edwards
DU heads explode. Ain't politics fun?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tsuki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-18-08 01:55 PM
Response to Reply #47
49. My head explodes because it is an incredibly stupid thing to do.
Advice from the He-Coon of NWFL, never enter another's race. You only have enemies to make. If Feingold goes national at some point, there will be a lot of people who remember this incident negatively.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PeaceNikki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-18-08 01:58 PM
Response to Reply #49
50. "Incident"? Did you READ what he said? What was so stupid?
"I did notice that as the primaries heated up, all of a sudden, all the presidential candidates — none of whom voted with me on the timeframe to withdraw from Iraq — all voted with me and when we did the Patriot Act stuff.

The one that is the most problematic is (John) Edwards, who voted for the Patriot Act, campaigns against it. Voted for No Child Left Behind, campaigns against it. Voted for the China trade deal, campaigns against it. Voted for the Iraq war … He uses my voting record exactly as his platform, even though he had the opposite voting record.

When you had the opportunity to vote a certain way in the Senate and you didn't, and obviously there are times when you make a mistake, the notion that you sort of vote one way when you're playing the game in Washington and another way when you're running for president, there's some of that going on.

On whether he'll make an endorsement in the Feb. 19 Wisconsin primary

Probably not. I'm having a hard time deciding between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, as are many people. Those are the two I take the most seriously.

I go back and forth, to be honest with you. I'm torn on this whole issue of who's more likely to be progressive and really seek change vs. who's ready to do the job today. It really is a true dilemma in my mind."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tsuki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-18-08 06:05 PM
Response to Reply #50
66. That is not the point. I am not advocating either Clinton, Edwards
or Obama.

In Politics 101, during a primary, don't open your mouth. Why? Because a politician with national ambitions has only enemies, no friends, to make. Look at Clark's endorsement of Clinton. A lot of Clark supporters who would have like to have seen him run are now lukewarm. I thought that Kerry might be able to pull a Nixon and run in 8 to 12 years. A lot of Kerry supporters around here are now angry that he jumped into the election.

Leadership going partisan in the primary, a populist venue, splits the party and causes real damage, not to the candidates but those seeking to influence the grassroots.

The old saying, you cannot please everyone, is true. Those pleased by the endorsements will remember. Those not so pleased will remember. In otherwords, you've made enemies. Unnecessarily.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-18-08 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #47
52. I'm seeing it as the beginning of the divide in our party, those who
had the courage many times to speak out and vote for the people vs. those who acquiesced on important issues.

And I may be wrong :)

But I'm going with the people who held their ground, even though they might have been in the minority, maybe they'll become the majority someday.

If not I'll sleep better.

;-)



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thoughtcrime1984 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-18-08 03:01 PM
Response to Original message
55. Feingold represents my state well
He is one of the most progressive legislators, and he calls a spade a spade. Russ has walked the talk, whereas JE has never really voted in the Senate in a way that suggests that he is a true Populist. If I felt that he was truly what he says he is, he'd have my vote.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DCKit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-18-08 03:34 PM
Response to Original message
60. So Hillary and Obama are corporatists and J.E. is full of shit (like any other politician)...
We still have every seat in Congress and one third of those in the Senate available and up for grabs next November. THOSE are the important elections.

Even the worst pResident can't enact bad policy without willing enablers. The highest profile race is not, and will never again, be the most important until after we change the culture of the federal government.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreeStateDemocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-18-08 07:40 PM
Response to Original message
68. The senate is a club and will always looks out for fellow members part of the ruling class so
fuck'em.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jillan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-18-08 09:01 PM
Response to Original message
69. Feingold is right again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Political Heretic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-19-08 01:45 AM
Response to Original message
72. I respect the questioning of Edward's sincerity. I really do.
It's an important question. It's not like there isn't a discrepancy between his senate record and his message. I do have reasons why I believe in his sincerity, but honestly I'm too tired at this very moment to go into it. Sounds like a cop-out I know. I work nights, but had to be up all day running errands so I haven't slept. :)
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 May 06th 2024, 05:44 AM
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