I think John Edwards is smarmy.

I feel like I'm one of the few people here who notices that he was a centrist as a senator, Mr. Happy Sunshine in 2004, and the second coming of Che in 2008. I don't think any of these people are the real John Edwards. As far as his supposed political awakening goes, if growing up middle class and losing his son didn't make him a populist, then how am I supposed to believe his wife's illness has made him a populist? I think it's all political opportunism.

If Edwards was selling me a used car, I wouldn't believe a word he said about it, and I don't believe a word he says about his political beliefs either.

Maybe, just maybe this is the real John Edwards and the 20 some years before he was a Senator he was the real John Edwards and Washington experience got to him and thats why he got out? And hes running a campaign against Washington insiders and lobbyists now???

:shrug:

I hate lawyers. They're all crooks. :P

When regulation is gone, all you have left to check their power is lawsuits.

and one of my lawyers was a jerk and a flake and when it became clear our trial was not going to make him millions he dumped us off on a junior lawyer in his firm. The junior lawyer was really good and nice and fought for our case, but she was later disbarred for embezzlement.

Not a fan of lawyers. :(

You are a scientist, you should know better than to make a judgement from such a small sample size.

to say that lawyers are paid to make whatever argument they can make that will get them money.

It's all about the highest bidder.

I am unbelievably insulted by your post. My parents in particular were among the most honest people I have ever known. Neither ever made much money.My father was a public servant and my mother was a trail lawyer who defended the poor, often for nothing. Both of them could have had much more lucrative professions but made their choice to help people.My best friend is currently a public defender and gets just a smidgen of what she would get in private practice as a Defense attorney. You are certainly offensive and offering a very unintelligent and prejudiced argument.

Public Defenders do a terrific public service ensuring that the constitution is followed.

Part of that is arguing that people who are UNDENIABLY guilty should be found innocent and let go. Your friend may not believe that her client should be freed, but that's what she is paid to get up there and argue. She may not make a lot of money at it, but that's her job.

Simple statement of fact.

That is offensive to me, my parents, my friends and many posters on DU.And it is also not true.


"lawyers are paid to make whatever argument they can make that will get them money.

It's all about the highest bidder".

And BTW, to the best of my knowledge , that is not what my friend does as a PD at all. She many times pleads her client as guilty. The bulk of her work entails guilty pleas.She has never argued that a person who is UNDENIABLY guilty should be found innocent and let go. She tries very hard to ensure that the punishment fits the crime.Sometimes there are mitigating circumstancesas well as other variables.Your ignorance of the legal profession is astounding.I suppose that is the reason you are able to arrive at such broad brush conclusions about a profession about which you know nothing.

My son Ian is going to Law School in the fall and Callie's guy is in law school in MN. I find the posters assertion disgusting and quite offensive. I used to like her now she is on ignore. The ignorance in her post is despicable and FUCKING pisses me off. Fuck her.

n/t

You are more fucked up then I thought. Read it again dear. Reset ignore it didn't work the first time.

:sarcasm:

What a trite little B@@@@ you are.

:hi:

Good to know you have something in common.

the DAV and did a lot for veterans. Obviously, that paid nothing.And I won't even begin to list the cases my mother handled for indigents.I can remember one incident when my Mom took on the entire police dept over the death of an indigent that had been a client of hers and we had to have protection because she was threatened but my Mom believed in justice.And she wasn't a PD.She was a trail lawyer. Yeah we were all about the "money" Right.This just sickens me that someone can be so stupid and biased. This is the definition of bigotry.If these remarks were made about race or gender, people would be up in arms but it is perfectly okay with some to degrade an entire profession. I hope the poster gets what they deserve.

My family was harassed to death. We told the neighbors and other "concerned folks" to fuck off. We were rebels!

Why, this lovely lil poster can't possibly be mistaken.All our experiences an menmories must be false!

But I wore hand me downs. Go figure.

I wonder why they didn't leave me "millions'???????

So I take exception to that dig as well.

"cool" to hate lawyers.....until they need one. People forget that lawyers get paid to see that the accused is guaranteed his constitutional right to a fair trial.

I look at lawyers as the first defense we have against a government gone wild.

n/t

Some lawyers can pick and choose their clients and take only cases they agree with. But, if it is a lawyer's job to defend people he or she does not necessarily like or agree with if they need a lawyer. So, a lawyer may defend a child abuser or a someone who has committed spousal abuse. That does not mean they approve of that conduct. A lawyer does not have to set aside morality but rather serves the high purpose of ensuring that a defendant or plaintiff is able to present his or her best case in the court. I'm sorry about your bad experience.

And that assessment is completely wrong. I love you to pieces, but you're really wrong about this. There are a few bad ones out there (and I've worked for a couple), but most of them are nothing like you describe.

and every day he goes into his office and works to get wrongfully injured(or worse killed) people some sort of compensation for what they have been through.

is he an "ambulance chaser"? hell yes.. but forgive me for thinking that people in ambulances should have someone to help them out when ever they've been injured as a result of corporations' actions and negligence.

don't decide that every single trial lawyer is bad just because you got stuck with one bad one.

btw, i also suggest you read "four trials." it is an excellent book and it might actually make you think differently of attorneys.

Thanks for your response.

In the sober light of day, I feel a little embarassed about what I said about lawyers.

Thanks for your response and your suggestions. :hi:

Aren't they all lawyers?

Edwards was just the most successful at it.

Unlike others, he didn't have personal relationships with the owners of multinational corporations, developers or rich slumlords. He had to go to court and win in order to get paid. Probably pissed off a lot of those same people the other candidates did "business" with. I am, of course, speaking of the Republic slate. :sarcasm:

J.E. was my third choice, but as more of these increasingly ignorant Rovian attacks are posted, the more I like him. Innuendo is one thing, but outright lies about widely and well known facts.... Well, we all know who uses THOSE tactics.

Kucinich is still the best man. Hopefully, he'll have a long and fruitful career in politics, but I don't see the WH in his future unless he accepts a cabinet position.

So, why bother spreading uninformed opinions?

I'm dismissive of his trial experience, it's a fact.

But he hasn't done anything since then to earn any particular respect from me either. :shrug:

for him. The mother of the little girl whose intestines were sucked out by the faulty pool drain, says she chose John for his integrity. She said it "shone out of his eyes" and she said he was not only her daughter's attorney but her "champion". She credits John with saving her daughters life. Yeah be dismissive , his clients aren't.

no equal rights, nothing of that sort. All three of our candidates are lawyers. Are you saying you don't like any of them?

including myself.

:P

:eyes:



:P

:P

Why did you drag me into this trainwreck forum?

:D

:shrug:

Why did *you* choose to enter this trainwreck forum? :shrug: :P

An article you probably won't enjoy. http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2967

zalinda

:hi:

for the "smarmy" comment.

Edwards supporters read that here hundreds of times a day. Most of us respect that someone can have that opinion, we simply disagree and keep talking about why we choose him as a candidate (as opposed to constantly trashing others' candidates).

:shrug:

percentage-wise, I haven't seen Edwards people getting into flame wars nearly as much as the Obama-Clinton crews.

Guess it's all in the eye of the beholder. ;)

hilary in the polls and the hilarys are about dumping on Obama. If Edwards gets up there then watch how..cause it's not pretty.

Edwards and his supporters get slammed PLENTY. LOL. See my sig line to see what we're constantly being called. B-)

Thus far, my impression is that Edwards supporters haven't gotten into engaging the trash talk as much as the other candidates. BUT, that could be changing...lol...hopefully not.

I think you can figure that out.

from..I encourage John Edwards because I believe he sincerely came about..some people can do a radical 180 and just because he didn't know these things after their son was killed doesn't mean he didn't have an epiphany when Elizabeth got sick. It really is quite a story the Edwards' have and I wish them the best.

Edwards is the anti-hilary and I like that about him.

Last time I checked, Edwards was a FIGHTER for his cause and does'nt hesitate to call out duplicity.

You have your style, and some of us others have our own, but we both support the same candidate.

I won't dictate your response, stop dictating others....okay?

What the fuck is going on around here, even between supporters of the same person?

John's a fighter, not a trash talker. I had to read the OP for this thread to get a clue what you may be upset about.

Okay, yeah, it was another Edwards "smarmy, used car salesman" thread - the kind we've gotten used to seeing here every day, many times a day. What many of us has done is post on why we support Edwards - and contradict lies. I knew plenty of Edwards supporters would jump in and do that very thing, rightfully so! I don't remember the comment to which I was specifically responding, but it seems it was something to the effect of "Edwards people are gonna start slamming you for that." I interpreted it as him waiting for Edwards people to come in and start trashing the author of the post. I'm not saying he/she wouldn't deserve it...

Call me a delusional asshat: I LIKE that we've been different from a lot of supporters from the other two camps. People have actually commented that they're taking a look at Edwards because we DON'T get into the trash.

I'm not going to diss another Edwards supporter, even if I personally don't care for his/her style - I'll keep it to myself. Up until the last few days, it was a fact that most Edwards supporters didn't get into a lot of bashing...not nearly like the other two camps.

I don't know exactly what your point was - if there is something that requires an all-out FIGHT, so be it, and I'll be part of it to defend what I think is right. Needless trashing which is filling up this forum is all I personally try to stay away from and thought most Edwards people did, too.

And I'll tell you what, this has pissed me off so royally that I dare you to come back and apologize.

Is everyone so sensitive that you can't fuckin' post AN OPINION without someone thinking they're being told what to do or how to act?!

Yeah, keep this shit up and we'll be looking at the other fuckin' mess on this board. I'd prefer we didn't go there. John is a fighter and focused on HIS STRENGTHS and lets others make their own decision as to whether they want to follow. He hasn't been known as a trashtalker at all and basically keeps his nose out of the shit unless it's absolutely necessary to bring an issue to light. I try to do the same here for the most part.

"the reagan years" and dismisses the Clinton presidency. Smug little prick.

so that s why you hate him....

:9

savior of the black race, defender of the faith, extirpator of heresy, etc.

Reasonable people see him for the intelligent leader that he is.

Obama is selling snake oil. I don't own any snakes that need oiling. He can take a hike.

I wasn't moved, but many were in tears. When I asked why, they couldn't give a reason.

Snake oil, plain and simple.

something and think you're da bomb..no one else can be moved by him. Maybe they see something in Obama that will help this country get outta the dark side.

We won't really know until he's president. I'm not willing to take that chance.

Politicians are all actors.

You don't know what you're going to get until they're in office, if not after. :shrug:

them, simply that he is a Southern White Male. Another thinks he fakes his Southern accent ... real deep stuff.:sarcasm:

Now I know everyone's got different senses about people, and some of my best friends are Edwards supporters, so I'm not bashing his supporters.

But if I'm dating someone and I get the feeling they're not an honest person, it's over. Someone else might know the person and date them and not get that sense. But if I pick up on something, I listen to it.

Same goes for political candidates. :shrug:

I don't get that same vibe from Edwards but, as you said, different people pick up on different things. I don't think there's anything wrong with listening to your gut instinct. I'm an Edwards supporter but I think everyone should vote with their own heart and not how someone else tells them to vote. :cheers:

:toast:

remark? LOL!

Smarmy? pot.kettle.black.

but never smarmy. :rofl:

:rofl:

Sorry - couldn't resist!

:hi:

:rofl:

to understand, its all about blind loyalty.

For everyone involved. I can't tell you if JE is truly a changed man. But I CAN tell you it does happen. And not just in the movies.

We all need to vote our instincts as well as our research though.

In my case, I'm voting for someone else in the primary, but if he gets the nomination, I won't have any trouble at all voting for him in the general.

I'm not feeling the love here though. :(

All we can really do is get the info, listen to them in the debates, seem them if possible, and make a choice. Part of that choice is through reason, and the other part is a gut check. In my case, everything sort of clicked for me once I made my final decision. :)

is the feeling that there's still a lot of Clinton haters around who have spent the last 7 years just sharpening their knives. :scared:

That and I think she's part of a political machine that I'm not real happy with. :(

But if you don't like the way they handle things, I can see where that would be much harder to address.

I don't have any problems with the "triangulation" aspect people complain about. I think that the only way to make progress on a problem, when two sides differ drastically, IS to find the middle ground that can be agreed upon. Then you go to work on them, to shift the middle again, closer to where you want it to be. :)

its like living in cloud kukoo land.....hey...listen to me......ITs NOT THERE! they said neverland,
it means fantasy....its time to grow up.



Bawahahahaha!


:rofl:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-lakoff/no-center-no-centrists_b_60419.html

:shrug:

Here's an article of his from the Huffington Post essentially arguing that there is no such thing as a political center.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-lakoff/no-center-no-centrists_b_60419.html

Oh, and I didn't mean for it to be a pro-Obama link. :P

I'll be baaaack.

I can tell by your recitation of Obama's talking points for the swiftboating of Edwards' record that you are an Obamite. What did Obam say yesterday about doing this?

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.
"We've cast hundreds and hundreds of votes. What you're criticizing her for, by the way, you've done to us, which is you pick this vote and that vote out of the hundreds that we've cast." Edwards calling Obama out for his hypocrisy in the CNN debate

jackson_dem (1000+ posts) Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Tue Jan-22-08 02:33 PM
Original message
The truth: Edwards' voting record on trade is like Ted Kennedy's

Edwards

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

Edwards also opposed South Korea trade, Peru trade, and CAFTA since leaving the Senate. I don't know if he commented on Oman but he presumably would have also voted against that.

Kennedy

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

I'm just curious,



So its safe to say when one doesn't like ones argument you put them on ignore? right!
I suppose everyone should be compel to listen to the mighty Jackson_Dem,
either that or take the high road. well......WHAT ARE YOU DOING HERE THEN?

There are places you can go where you can just listen to your own voice.

but wait....I forgot....ohhh...you have me on iggy....so you can't see this post...

BAWAHAHAHAHA!


:rofl: :rofl:

that is from your post...right?

my bad.


:hide:

All three of the candidates are centrists, but only one is pretending to be something else. :shrug:

Edwards: 40th most liberal member of the senate. (as per this article, linked above: http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2967 )

Clinton: 32nd most liberal member of the senate.

Obama: um... 10th most liberal member of the senate. ;)

http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/sen/lib.htm

Centrists, one and all.... :P

The Obama and Clinton gap is very revealing since they have the same voting record. How can one be 32nd and the other 10th?

they don't have the same voting record? :shrug:

:applause:

That's why it seems so silly to me how crazy people get around here about it.

one among them is the most likely to produce some changes that are beneficial for most Americans. If you trust none of them including the Pubs, would you stay abstain?

is a CHANGE back to the rule of law and respect for the constitution. :patriot:

sense to realize how important those things are for us all. Bush certainly wasn't it nor are any of the Republican candidates.

:toast:

I'd think a former professor of constitutional law might have a handle on how to get us back to where we need to be, though. :D

Lesser of two evils and all that. But I guess what I'm saying is it doesn't matter all that much to me which one gets the nom -- I'll vote in the primary, too, probably Obama or Edwards if it's close or Kucinich if it's not, but I don't imagine any of them are beacons of integrity.

:puke:

:shrug:

:rofl:

Being an adult is cool. :crazy:

Awesome. :D

big disappointment, something is wrong with it.

:puke:

i think it's flavored with roach spray.

:D

Check here for dates. http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2967

zalinda

and I'm not sure I buy into its argument.

The premise, if I follow it, is that he went from being the 40th most liberal senator to the 4th most liberal due to a true progressive change of heart and not due to a last minute bolt toward the left in the interests of courting real liberals. I'm interested in knowing on what basis the rankings were made, but I'm going to buy those rankings for the moment.

My skepticism comes from my memories of Edwards in 2004, when he was still defending his war vote and not attacking BushCo. I think if he'd undergone a progressive conversion he'd have made said conversion a part of his dialogue with potential voters, and not tried to stand by his record.

He's saying he's changed his mind now in 2008, but why not say it then in 2004?

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but for a guy who talks a lot about feelings and personal experience, I'd have expected to see that.

You know those people who think they know how to run and win campaigns. He's in control now.

zalinda

So he was wrong for YEARS in the Senate because he was listening to ChimpCo, then he was wrong in '04 because he was listening to his handlers, but now he's gotten himself sorted out? :shrug:

I see....

anything, you want to dis. You can go and stick where the don't shine, because that's probably where it has been most of your life.

zalinda

Sorry, I think there's a word missing in your post. :shrug:

In 04, he was talking about "two Americas" and sticking up for the working class.

before I had ever HEARD of Barack Obama. :P

Instead of pointing fingers, he was all about unification and coming together as a nation.

Now he's suddenly all pissed? :shrug:

(Hey, I was pissed before it was cool! :P )

One thing you are right about is that his wife's illness did not make him a populist. John has and will always be a populist. Sorry you don't feel you can support a candidate with the following qualities.

1. A candidate that performs well in debates.
2. A candidate that has an energy plan that does not include waste.
3. A candidate that has never taken corporate monies.
4. A candidate that wants to provide for the middle class and the poor.
5. A candidate that wants to raise teachers salaries.
6. A candidate that wants a national healthcare plan to cover all Americans.
7. A candidate that wants civil unions legalized.
8. A candidate that will investigate and act on illegal no-bid contracts.
9. A candidate that will end the war in Iraq in one year.
10. A candidate that is real, humble, admits his mistakes. Opposite of Bush.

freaking hair cut.....$400 for hair cut....are you kidding me.

and he is fighting for the poor, low income folks out there...lol!

What else would he be spending that kind of money on...I wonder?


:shrug:

Do you know what others pay for haircuts? Cheap shot.

for an hair cut, he admitted to it.

as a big deal. Probably no different than what other candidates are paying for their makeup and hair cuts. The stylists have to come to them. Heck, I got my hair cut and highlighted today. Cost-$150 plus tip-at a neighborhood salon.

Where's the snark and outrage?

hotel and give him a haircut. He didn't demand a $400 haircut. He wasn't even aware how much it cost. His people take care of that. Do you think Clinton or Obama go shopping for a cheap haircut? It isn't relevant. Rich people can care about helping the poor without giving up all their money.

I am disappointed that a fellow Democrat would repeat a Faux News talking point.

Sorry to drag this into the discussion, but there's consumption, and there's conspicuous consumption, and the house is the latter. :(

Probably quite a few. I doubt seriously there are any presidential candidates who live in shacks and very few who live in less than mansions.

:shrug:

Here's a link, and yeah, they all do have big houses, but Obama's and Clinton's look like normal houses:

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/1/22/133950/027

I've done some research, thanks.

helping low income family, its about giving his Lawyer buddies like yourself
more power in Washington, thats what its all about.


All these Gaddam Shyster Lawyers!

We need to be sensitive towards them, so as not to hurt their tender feelings. :(

:pals:

he's getting totally ripped off. :rofl:

:shrug:

a barber come out to his airplane to give him a haircut - the charges were big
although I dont remember how much...and that's all the media played on

same deal here. that's all you heard about 400 haircut - otherwise they wouldnt give him any media time.

cute.

real cute.

go ahead. let the MSM decide what candidates you have available to vote for, and
who the final candidates will be.

Suckerrrrrrr

who left school too early, to complete their educations.

:think: There's got to be money in that somewhere.

:rofl:

from ?

:P

Nah, actually, I'd buy a car from Clinton or Obama. Not Bill, but Hillary. But I'd check it out first. :)

are lawyers! Didn't you say lawyers are crooks?

5,000 miles later and there's the kind of lie you catch when the car DIES on the way home. :P

I don't think Elizabeth's cancer has anything to do with John's transformation. And it's kinda rude that you would even suggest it.

But since you mentioned "smarmy" :eyes:

I am only repeating what I've heard his defenders say about his new political conscience. :(

I guess we're hanging out in different threads, and if people are saying that then I guess I'm outta the loop. :shrug:

:)

why don't they?

she refused.

As far as I'm concerned, becauase both HRC and 0 have taken lobbyist money for their campaigns, I wouldnt vote for either of them

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?cycle=2008

Sauce for the goose and all.... :P

All I know is what's there. :shrug:

The other candidate's don't have the courage.

Once again Edwardians note that it is an Obamite promoting the Big Lie about Edwards' populist record.

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.
"We've cast hundreds and hundreds of votes. What you're criticizing her for, by the way, you've done to us, which is you pick this vote and that vote out of the hundreds that we've cast." Edwards calling Obama out for his hypocrisy in the CNN debate

jackson_dem (1000+ posts) Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Tue Jan-22-08 02:33 PM
Original message
The truth: Edwards' voting record on trade is like Ted Kennedy's

Edwards

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

Edwards also opposed South Korea trade, Peru trade, and CAFTA since leaving the Senate. I don't know if he commented on Oman but he presumably would have also voted against that.

Kennedy

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

actually be genuine. Just why do you think he is working this hard against such overwhelming odds? For kicks? Lord knows he doesn't need the money! It is what he believes is right and will honor his father's memory. Some people are just that committed to justice.

He has had to fight for M$M coverage while Paris-Hillary-Hilton and Nicole-Richie-Obama are been given center stage to duke it out. So, cut him a break -- or, at least don't diss him for some cheap shot reason to promote your own candidate.

He has not played any dirty trick on either Obama or Clinton -- it's time they show him the same respect/deference.

I think he wants to be president for himself, and not for his dad or anyone else.

I'd say the same for Obama and Hillary too.

Call me cynical. :P

:shrug:

i.e. If it's okay for you and some others to say Edwards is smarmy, then it MUST be okay for us to say Obama is conceited and over-rated.

Detailed policy debate on the issues is good for everyone and we did hear some of that last night, but your sort of childish name calling disempowers both of us by taking everyone's attention away from the issues.

"Edwards has completely changed his narrative twice now, and so I find it extraordinarily difficult to believe that this time he is completely genuine."

And I think that, frankly, Mr. Populist Firebrand will revert to Mr. New Democrat the instant he gets back in office and has to answer to more than just the progressive wing of the Democratic party.

Funny, how he spoke out just enough before the Invasion of Iraq to get on the record - at a time when the country most needed some strong voice to speak up, a time when doing so would have done some good, when hundreds of thousands were marching in D.C. (where I talked to a very hopeful Dick Gregory, BTW), a time when Obama's much vaunted and inspiring oratory COULD have changed some minds - and all we got was just enough to cover his butt.

Oh, but I supose that didn't have anything to do with any campaign that was in the works.

What makes your perspective absolutely right and anyone who disagrees wrong? Isn't that kind of arrogant?

Obama spoke out strongly in October 2002. He gave a strong, impassioned speech, at a time when nearly every Democrat in the nation (including--and especially--John Edwards) was selling out to make a quick political buck.

http://www.barackobama.com/2002/10/02/remarks_of_illinois_state_sen.php

Looked like political expediency to me.

Obama and Hillary ARE the Money Machine covering its bets on opposite ends of what was until recently the main issue spectrum: Hillary "pro-War" : Obama "anti-this-War".

Um, he was a state Senator in Illinois. Nobody knew who he was, or cared who he was; he couldn't even get a seat at the DNC until 2004. Speaking at anti-war rallies was about as much as you could reasonably expect him to do.

Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Breaux (D-LA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Daschle (D-SD)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Edwards (D-NC)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hollings (D-SC)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Miller (D-GA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Schumer (D-NY)
Torricelli (D-NJ)


Not that I'm trying to make an anti-war stance an act of political courage, but I'm just sayin' that it wasn't the way the wind was blowing for a lot of elected officials, including Edwards. :shrug:

He was an Illinois State Senator for God's sake.No-one f****ing cared what he thought.There were zero consequences to his shooting his mouth off. Later he was "quoted" as saying he "didn't know how he would have voted had he been in the Senate".

that Obama spoke out against the war with future political gain in mind.

I was responding to Patrice's post. :shrug:

With Edwards, it's not about the issues, it's about not trusting the guy.

You're free to feel that Obama is conceited and overrated, sure. But are those likely to make you completely discount his policy positions? In short, are those deal breakers? :shrug:

upon another assumption. That is: You can't claim that respect without giving it, because both perspectives are empirically equivalent, based on cherry-picked pseudo-facts. I don't trust Obama and that statement has as much validity as your not trusting Edwards. And for you to say or imply that it doesn't is proof positive that your process is not as open as you say. "Welcome one and ALL, but the information around here is going to come from one direction only. All meaning will be what 'we' say it is."

Deal breakers? I do discount policy positions that give away the candy store before the negotiations have even started, much less before all of the interested parties have had a chance to get to the table. I thought it pretty tricky to make a true point that Reagan was an zietgeist innovator and the Republicans a party of ideas, "But I didn't say they were good ideas". This kind of half truth about things like trickle down economics is particularly damaging at a time when tax cuts are once again on the table. Whether O supports those tax cuts or not, that kind of statement sounds like a validation to a lot of people and I think it was meant to sound that way. Yeah, he needs those folks to vote for him to win, but what happens after that? I think the answer to that question has to do with where his money comes from. Does he take support without giving it?

A notable example of his money is the Nuclear Power lobby, which industry is subsidized on the backs of the middle class and which will also edge out the development of Alernative Energy simply by means of its head start in the system. None of which mentions that Nuclear Power may not add to carbon polution, but it most certainly creates a lot of secondary economic development that DOES produce lots of carbon polution. Have you ever heard of strip mall or a highway that was stopped? Doesn't happen very often at all.

I also don't trust the over simplification of the Health Care debate into "Make it less expensive and everyone will get themselves insured thusly ensuring the financial viability of the insurance system(s)." That's pretty fucking optimistic; plenty of people WILL not do it until the last minute (especially given the new Recession and coming Depression) no matter the price and they will put a mortal strain on the system and the only thing that anyone will be able to do about that is raise the price. We mandate Education. We mandate car insurance if you're going to drive. We mandate all kinds of licenses. Why not Health Insurance? The problem with triangulation is that there are some situations in which it IS vitally necessary to stop triangulating, take ONE position and LEAD (the IWR comes to mind). Do you suppose that O's triangulation that produced a position not to follow the route of a mandated Single Payer health care system was too strongly affected by drug and/or insurance lobbies? If their influence was disproportionate to that of the rest of us, how would he know? Some cognitive weighting factors operate at levels that preclude one's awareness and the only thing you can do about that is to accept what the opposition says as a valid hypothesis. If he's all about integrating opposed sides, why don't we see something that includes more of the Single Payer perspective on this issue? I guess I'm asking why the triangulation stops where he says it does, instead of where we say it does? Isn't that contradictory to the whole idea of the dialectic?

In short, Obama seems to me to be similar to a lot of bright young people I taught AP Psych to. They wanted to claim that there are no absolutes (e.g. no Blue issues, no Red issues) no absolutes, except those that they defined and, though I could agreed with them that at least hypothetically there are no absolutes, if a given truth is, therefore, relative to it's situation and that situation includes me or others, it is necessary to hear more of me/others in the definition of that truth - and I have heard no means by which this is to happen with Obama. I keep hearing about all of these people who are being invited into the process, but the process itself is the same one that put us in this mess to begin with . . .

And that is not going to change without Public Campaign Finance (which O has mentioned but not emphasized); Fair Political Use of all Public broadcast resources, including the internet; and Paper Ballots hand counted in public on a national Voting Holiday (or holidays if you include a weekend).

:rant:

First of all, if you don't trust Obama, that's totally okay, but first let's agree about what's a feeling and what's a fact. When I see Hillary speak, sometimes I am inclined to like her and want her for president. This is based on feelings. Then I look at her voting record in the senate and I look at her prior 8 years in the White House and I am less inclined to want her as president. This is based on facts.

Looking at Edwards' resume, I'm underwhelmed by what I see. Then I see him talk and I think "Oh, he's kinda cool" and then I remember his voting record and I think "Wow, this guy's kinda slick. I'm not sure what he stands for at all."

With Obama, I like his resume, his voting record is tolerable, and he gives a good speech. But he's also said and done some underwhelming things. He is not a perfect candidate. He is, however, my favorite candidate of the current bunch.

Nuclear power is a complicated issue, and you're right to be worried about it. I don't think any of the candidates are what I'd like to see in an environmental president. I think Obama's policies are slightly better than those of the other two, but they're all in the pockets of big energy. It's funny you should talk about projects being stopped. I'm an environmental consultant from a long line of natural resource professionals, and yeah, it's an uphill battle. My mom stopped a gravel pit once though. :)

I think all the candidates have craptastic health plans. Again, I'm underwhelmed. :(

And I totally agree with your conclusions. :D

The real question is how do you change the process? :shrug:

Edwards would (ostensibly) go after the corporations, but I'm really worried that that would lead to increased outsourcing and an atmosphere of "us versus them" nationally which sort of scares me. Corporations are somewhere below lawyers in my list of unpopular entities :P , but I'm just enough of a conservative that I think working WITH the corporations to help them improve their practices is a more fitting role for government than attacking them. Especially in the already weakened manufacturing sectors.

A friend of mine and I were discussing this the other day, and his opinion is that a paradigm shift needs to happen where consumer solutions to problems need to be rejected and a new paradigm needs to come into being. He was a little vague about what that would entail, though. :P

Frankly, I'd like to see a president with some good isolationist trade policies, but that'll never happen. The real problem is that we're bleeding capital, both with this stupid war and with outsourcing, and we need to get that mojo back here on our soil. :(

:D

and particularly a very egregious bill that he cosponsored and rallied on behalf of. While many here at DU forget the jihads declared here in about a week, I will do what I always have intended to do and that is withhold my vote from anyone that voted yes on the IWR.

The IWR opened the door to rendition, torture, the elimination of habeas corpus, illegal wire-tapping, repeated violations of International Law, and the deaths of our soldiers and hundreds of thousand of innocent Iraqis who were shocked and awed and that was as good as it got for them.

I will hold those accountable for this abortion of a war even if others have forgotten their outrage.

:patriot:

It's not about whether we like John Edwards or his wife or his hair or his accent or his smile.

It's about which candidate has the best track record and the best vision for the future.

None of the candidates is perfect, but I think Obama is probably the best of the bunch.

At least he can say that Iraq is "a war that should never have been authorized". B-)

Edwards not only voted for the IWR he co-sponsored it and gave speeches in favor of it. Although he was on the Intelligence Committee, he did not bother to read the full National Intelligence Estimate, you know, the long boring part which essentially said "We're not so sure about this WMD stuff that we said was a slam dunk in the NIE for Dummies version that everyone else got to see."

The only conclusion I can draw is that he didn't want to know, and like Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, he voted for the IWR either because he agreed with invading Iraq or as a matter of political convenience. Frankly, I don't know which is worse.

I like a great deal of what he's saying now but he still hasn't won me over--I don't know if he ever can.

I also think Hillary is deceiving and Obama is inexperienced. It's funny (and tragic); back in 2006, I thought there would be no contest in the '08 elections for the Democrats. But now we are forced to choose between these damaged goods. Hillary the cold, shift-shaping chameleon, Obama the 'All-Tell, but No-Show', and Edwards the milder combination of the two. People treat this election like American Idol, rather than a political election for the most influential country in the world. The one weakness of a democracy: stupidity.

I'm curious. :shrug:

1) George W. Bush was such a public hate figure --- However, since then, the Democratic-majority Congress somehow managed to pull off worser ratings by bickering amongst themselves and being inactive. Plus, The Republican candidates pulled a magic trick by disowning Bush, while supposably still supporting him.
2) The Democratic party had two good oldies, Biden and Dodd, that stood strong for the ideal Democratic policies and bridged over Republican support --- But you know, screw them, let's just feed on the media attention with the other candidates. Throw a couple millions on the campaign trail. That will solve America's problems, right?

Even Edwards' spiel against corporations... what about the BFEE, ya know? They're enemy #1 in my book.

I'm also surprised that Biden didn't do better than he did. Oh well...

I do not see that at ALL

And how has your impression of him changed over time? Or has it? :shrug:

I don't think he's phony, I think he truly does care about the poor and the middle class. I simply cannot get past the fact that he co-sponsored the worst military blunder in American history. That was not simply a "mistake" someone can simply apologize for - for me it was a hideous travesty that shredded his credibility.

:)

He's a little more polished than either Hillary or Edwards, and that makes me trust him even less. I haven't seen anything from Obama other than a well-rehearsed schtick and a bunch of pandering to the Repugs.

The things that make me think Obama is genuine are his years as a community organizer and con law professor.

I think he doesn't say everything that's on his mind. He keeps his cards close, so yeah, there's a certain pig-in-a-poke quality there, but hey, isn't that true for every politician? :P

Edwards, on the other hand, looks like he's letting it all hang out, but I don't think he is.

Obama's reserved quality makes me think he would be potentially one of the greatest presidents ever, depending on what's really going on in his head. At worst I think he'd be mediocre and forgettable, but not bad.

Edwards talks a pretty good game, but (assuming he's the Real Deal) how will he help the poor and rebuild the middle class? I don't have a feeling about how he's turn ANY of his ideas into concrete changes in the lives of working people. I could see him a lot like Arnold, trying to ram through a lot of ideas and proposals only to get smacked down, and a smack down for a president is a hard thing to rebuild from. Assuming he's not the real deal, I could see him going down in history as one of the slickest presidents this side of Nixon, and just spending four years faffing around accomplishing little while America gets weaker. :(

Obama, on the other hand, is almost hypnotic. It takes you a minute to shake out the cobwebs and realize that he's not really saying anything.

To me, it almost doesn't matter if Edwards is the real deal (but honestly, if he's playing this for political gain, he's the dumbest candidate ever). The key is that he's saying the right things and he's saying them well. And he's forcing the other two to engage him on his turf. This is good for progressives, good for Democrats and good for the country.

Seriously, if Edwards wasn't in the race, Hillary and Obama would still be arguing about who wanted to nuke Iran the most.

Thanks for the response.