There have been a lot of threads pushing Edwards, but I see very little substance

[still_one]

Before I can even vote for someone I need specifics

For example, what is his position on us getting out of Iraq?

It is funny how certain people like Kucinich or Feingold and a few others have no problem giving specifics, while others seem to nuance around the issues.

Can someone tell what has Edwards accomplished?

I know he voted for the IWR and even though he appologized did NOT give a reason why he voted for it in the first place? If he came out and said that Congress should never have given ANY president that power because it violated the war powers act, and I screwed up, I might buy that, but instead it is words that we were lied to about WMDs or assured that no action would be taken unless they went to the UN again, which doesn't cut it. Why, because it was Congress who gave THEIR responsibility to the president, and even when they did they, they NEVER called the executive branch on not going to the UN a second time to authorize force

[Trajan]

1. Funny ....

I see more threads bashing Edwards right this moment ....

[still_one]

2. Actually, you have a point., but I would like to consider it less bashing than

trying to find out what he stands for

[Catchawave]

3. Pulling out 40-50,000 immediately

and allow the Iraqis to stand-up to their security responsibilities while we re-deploy, draw down and/or withdraw completely as they become stronger and at least show they want a democracy as badly as Bush wants it for them.

Totally against a "surge" (McCain Doctrine), which he feels sends the wrong message.

What's funny, I was watching all those healthy and strong young Iraqi men cheering in the streets celebrating Saddam's death. Too bad I haven't seen that kind of enthusiasm to protect themselves.

[still_one]

14. It sounds good on the surface, as long as it is not prolonged

[LSK]

4. the same can be said about Obama

Obama's only advantage is that he didnt have to vote on the IWR.

[elocs]

13. Since there are only 100 U.S. senators, there are only 100 people

who could vote for or against the IWR. That does leave out a lot of people who are potential candidates.

[Toots]

40. Actually it was passed by Congress not just the Senate.

:shrug:

[Clarkie1]

29. Obama's a better writer, and more of an intellectual. nt

[Eurobabe]

39. With that I would have to agree...

[Warpy]

5. Try these

John Edwards Congress votes database: http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/e000286/

John Edwards on the issues: http://www.ontheissues.org/John_Edwards.htm

His worst votes have been on "national security." His best votes are on kitchen table issues, and he has a 100% favorable rating from the AFL/CIO.

I think he's being supported here because of his "two Americas" rhetoric. It means there is a Democrat out there who has finally noticed how badly we're being killed by corporatism and the anti American economic policies favored by corporations.

My support is tentative. If he gets the nod, I'll gladly vote for him. I may not even have to shower after.

[LSK]

6. he also talks the talk with regards to Global Warming and Health Care

He seems to be mimicking Al Gore on global warming and he calls for Universal Health Care.

He also says what has to be said and not what is the most popular. At least with domestic issues.

His damned IWR vote seems to make all this good stuff a nonfactor for some folks.

[Toots]

41. It isn't just his IWR vote but how hard he defended that vote for so long

I do remember his apparent zeal for the war at the time...

[USA_1]

7. OK, But What Responses Will Be Used When ...

... the Republicans start with their attack ads, planted stories, and other libelous fabrications that will appear in the Internet, letters to the editor, and news media?


Will the Democrats be on the defensive again or will they take the fight to the Pukes?

[Warpy]

11. "Yeah, right, so when are (you/they) going to accuse him of

cannibalism?"

I've taken to treating those stories as what they deserve and letting anyone who repeats them that they deserve my utmost contempt for being stupid enough to buy that horseshit.

They do get the point. They're kinda slow, so it may take a while.

[USA_1]

15. Good to know that you're smart enough to think that way ...

but what of those people out there who hear or read such libelous bullshit and, seeing no answer or denial, fall for it?


The point is that Dems need to keep the Pukes on the defensive. But they never do. Instead, in the past few elections, it is they who allowed themselves to be on the defensive when Bush's record of endless failure should be the Dems' strongest arguments.

[ecstatic]

8. He's cute!

I don't like his accent though.

[IndyOp]

9. Finally! Substantive comments from THAL. ;-) (n/t)

[mnhtnbb]

10. Go see him in person. Catch him on TV with one-on-one interviews

I like his position on

1.) Iraq (start getting out NOW)
2.) need for America to return to moral leadership
(which means military might isn't the be-all end-all
3.) universal health care for Americans
4.) attention to global warming
5.) insistence that we all have a responsibility to solve
the problems in this country, which applies above/below
6.) acknowledging the poverty/have/have/nots issues.

I live in Chapel Hill. I was an early Deaniac (Jan 2003). I held my nose to vote for Kerry. But I honestly think Edwards is the best candidate (unless Gore gets in, which I think is looking less likely by the day)

I also think it's important to go see him in person because the media
can really affect your perception of him.

[barb162]

36. and he talks about the average American worker a lot too

I think he'd try do a lot to improve worker conditions and wages in this country and try to stop offshoring

[kentuck]

12. And who do you see with "substance"?

Seems to be a quality that might be in the eye of the beholder?

[Imagevision]

16. Edwards is more refreshing and assuring then Hillary....

[Sapphire Blue]

17. Ending poverty in the US in 30 years is pretty damn substantive, imo.

John Edwards: "We can end poverty in the United States within 30 years.": http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Sapphire%20Blue/91

[Lex]

18. Funny, there are a lot of the *same posters* trying to diss Edwards constantly.

The same old disingenious stuff.

The "search" button reveals that interesting phenomena.

[depakid]

19. Edwards' record and his actions "diss" his words without much help

Some of us only point out that he voted for the war- and FOR the bankruptcy bill the last time out (in 2001, I believe- despite the fact that Elizabeth practiced bankruptcy law) or that he went to work as a high priced consultant for a Wall Street hedge firm right just before he announced his "two Americas" poverty tour.

Those are simply facts that reasonable people might find inconsistent or disingenuous. When people see things like that, it's to be expected that they might question his priorities and his sincerity.

[Lex]

21. Maybe so. But after a while, it just looks like you have an axe to grind

against Edwards.

I'm sure, though, that you're just sincerely trying to jump into these threads to help the poor little politically uninformed DU'ers with their decision-making. /sarcasm

[depakid]

23. I just have a decent memory and look at the record

He talks a good game- but I've been around way too long to be taken in by talk.

Explain to me the inconsistencies I've pointed out? Those are simply facts that suggest an opportunistic politician as opposed to the persona I often see described.

A reasonable question re: the bankruptcy bill. Why would the "son of a poor millworker" -an attorney whose wife practices in the area vote for that? He can't say that was "a mistake." He knew exactly what was in that bill -more than most anyone.

Yet people want to believe he's some champion of the poor? That just doesn't add up. If there's a congruent reason someone can provide for that vote- or for taking a job at a firm that deals in hedge funds, of course I'll listen to it.

Otherwise, perhaps people might take note, lest they be had.

[Lex]

24. I have a simple question for you. When did that bankruptcy bill pass Congress?

And when did John Edwards leave Congress?

I know, because you told me, that you are an informed person who can't be fooled.

Hint. Read this:
http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2006/10/16/145158/48

[depakid]

25. This is what I mean by having a decent memory...

and not getting carried away with "big talk" -as opposed to actions taken. The bill was up for several votes before it finally got through.

The "credit card and financial industry welfare act" AKA in the Senate: "the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 2001" (the House version carried an even more Orwellian title).

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 107th Congress - 1st Session

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate

Vote Summary

Question: On Passage of the Bill (S.420, As Amended )
Vote Number: 36 Vote Date: March 15, 2001, 06:07 PM

<snip>

Alphabetical by Senator Name

Edwards (D-NC), Yea

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00036

See also:

Published on Friday, March 16, 2001
Going Backwards
36 'Democratic' Senators Vote For Credit Card/Banking Industry's Bankruptcy 'Reform'
...and they wonder why so many Democrats voted for Ralph Nader.

GW Bush and the credit card/banking industry won a huge victory last night as 36 'Democrats' joined their Republican 'colleagues' and voted to pass S-420 - the Bankruptcy bill.

I've never seen a bill that was so one-sided. The cries, claims and concerns of vulnerable Americans who have suffered a financial emergency have been drowned out by the political might of the credit card industry.

Former Dem. Senator Howard M. Metzenbaum now head of Consumer Federation of America:

Consumer groups and unions have been aggressive in opposing it, contending that the changes in bankruptcy law will take away an important means of relief for families hit by job losses. Former President Clinton vetoed last year's similar version, saying it would hurt ordinary people and working families.

"This is the most anticonsumer piece of legislation that the Congress is considering," said Edmund Mierzwinski, consumer program director for the U.S. Public Interest Research Group in Washington, D.C.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0316-03.htm

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

Explanations, anyone? As to why the "son of a poor millworker" would vote for one of the most oppressive pieces of economic legislation that's ever come down the modern pipeline? Especially at a time when whole communities across his own state were being devastated by offshoring in the textile industry?

More on that:

N.C. job losses spur anger, fear in textile belt

"Between 1977 and 1997, nearly 82,000 jobs were eliminated in the NC textile industry.2 This downward trend has accelerated since 1997, with over 100,000 textile jobs lost between 1997 and 2002. Nearly 70,000 apparel jobs were also lost in the same period (1997-2002).3 Not surprisingly, North Carolina recorded a high unemployment rate at 6.5% in 2003, ranking 41st in the nation."

http://www.soc.duke.edu/NC_GlobalEconomy/textiles/workers.php

[Lex]

26. The Bankruptcy Bill that was passed in 2005

was not the same one that was voted on in 2001.

In 2001 the Democrats knew the Republicans were trying to pass sweeping 'reforms' that would hurt middle class people and reward big credit card companies, so the Democrats were trying to craft a bi-partisan bill that would be a compromise so that the more draconian Republican "Reform" bill would be watered down.

They weren't able to stem the tide however, and in 2005 the Republican bill that the Dems like Edwards and others had tried to cut off at the pass, did pass in both the House and the Senate and became law.

There's lots of information out there on his viewpoint of the 2001 bill and the 2005 one that ultimately passed.

Look who else voted for it: Max Cleland, Hillary Clinton, Evan Bayh, Diane Feinstein, Barbara Mulkulski, Tom Daschle, Schumer, Stabenow, Leahy, etc.

[depakid]

31. It was basically the same bill

and had all the basic provisions that are now law. Read what they say for yourself.

The reason the 2001 bill didn't make it through the conference committee was because there were some procedural issues intertwined re: abortion that caused a schism on the far right.

That other Dems also voted for this travesty- just as they did with Bush's budget busting tax shifts that year, says little about Edwards' vote. At best it says (to me at least) that he went along to get along with the DINO trend.

I'll need a much better (and more credible) explanation regarding that vote before I (or anyone else should be) satisfied. I expect it to be an issue in the primaries- just as the Fortress Investments job will be. Something for the Edwards campaign to think about, if they want to be seen as "authentic."

[Lex]

34. LOL!

Well, I'll be sure to pass your knowledge along to them.

Calling Edwards a DINO pretty much tells me all I need to know, though.

[depakid]

35. Shallow thinking- and poor reading

Going along to get along with the DINO trend- does that make one a DINO? Maybe, depends on how often that they do it. My implication was simply that he didn't stand up for the working class when he had the chance- and when they were really hurting.

I've yet to see you OR anyone credibly refute that. My experience and memory tells me that the man seems to stick his finger up to test which way the wind is blowing- and then speaks or acts.

Hard to see how anyone thinking critically could conclude that sort of behavior is authentic. Whether you or the Edwards campaign wants to deal with it- I guess time will tell.

[Clarkie1]

30. I didn't know about the consulting work for the Wall Street Hedge firm.

Have any links for that allegation?

[depakid]

33. It's not an allegation- it's just an inconveient fact

that people don't like to talk about.

See, e.g:

October 13, 2005

John Edwards Hits the Street
The 2004 Democratic candidate for Vice-President joins Fortress Investment Group, where he will serve as a part-time global dealmaker

("a part-time senior adviser" is how the body of the article puts it).

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/oct2005/nf20051013_3314_db016.htm

On Fortress Investment LLC

http://www.hoovers.com/fortress-investment-group/--ID__149100--/free-co-factsheet.xhtml

From their website:

"Fortress’s managed funds primarily employ absolute return strategies. Investment performance is Fortress’s cornerstone – as an investment manager, the firm earns more if its investors earn more."

http://www.fortressinv.com/

October 18, 2005

John Edwards Starts Poverty Tour

http://www.dems.us/2005/10/john_edwards_st.html

-----------

Explanations, please.

[w4rma]

38. You're just unhappy that Sen. Edwards isn't a 'free' trader or a corporatist. (nt)

[Nutmegger]

20. He was one of the few who came out to support Ned Lamont

The others were scared shitless.

That's all I need to know.

[Clarkie1]

28. Clark supported Lamont. nt

[Nutmegger]

32. Yes and he did a damn fine ad for him too.

I like him too. If he throws his hat into the ring, I'll have to decided who I'm going to support during the primary!

[Cleita]

22. Not to worry. Worry around March of 2008, then you will

see the substance or lack of it. Frankly, if they don't hit the ground running on how we do elections before then, it's probably not going to matter. You will have the candidate of some other consortium's choice presented to you to vote for the lesser of two evils as always.

[Clarkie1]

27. He says he wants to pull 40,000 troops out of Iraq immediately.

No word from him as far as I know what he thinks the consequences would be for the 100,000 or so that would still be there, at least temporarily, or any other plan besides pulling 40,000 out now. He has not given specifics, as far as I know, about why he chose the 40,000 number.

Also, to clarify, Edwards co-sponsored the IWR; he did not simply vote yea.

[Pastiche423]

37. From his web site on the day of the IWR vote...

"Senators John F. Kerry of Massachusetts, Joseph I. Lieberman,
of Connecticut and John Edwards of North Carolina, and Representative
Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri all said they found the evidence
offered by Mr. Powell compelling. All said they would support
military action to remove Mr. Hussein even if the United Nations
did not sanction it."

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

-- Senator John Edwards (D-North Carolina)
October 10, 2002

http://edwards.senate.gov/statements/20021010_iraq.html <--- link is now dead.