Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Any Edwards people want to comment on his 2001 bankruptcy bill vote?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
dorkulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 12:37 PM
Original message
Any Edwards people want to comment on his 2001 bankruptcy bill vote?
Full disclosure: I am teetering between Edwards and Obama. This isn't meant as an attack.

While the 2001 bill didn't pass, a similar version did in 2005. I think most of us agree it was a travesty against the common American, and a major victory for the debt industry. Now he says his vote was a "mistake." I agree it was, but it wasn't an accident. He knew what he was doing.

So how does he go from being a typical, compromised Senator in 2001 to an anti-corporate crusader today? Why should I believe him? Why do you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Atman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 12:39 PM
Response to Original message
1. I didn't like his answer to that one, either.
In fact, I don't recall his actually answering it, he just described that there were two different bills in two different years. But otherwise, I was impressed with his performance.

.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PresidentObama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 12:40 PM
Response to Original message
2. Find me a candidate whose perfect, and I'll shoot him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dorkulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 12:43 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Are you with the FBI?
:tinfoilhat:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mrdemocrat78 Donating Member (535 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 12:55 PM
Response to Reply #2
14. Shouldn't talk like that...
Considering we have the first Black candidate, the first Female candidate, and the candidate that EVERY HUGE CONGLOMERATE hates.

That is a real fear of many people; not something to be joked about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 01:01 PM
Response to Reply #2
19. I know that's a riff on "If you meet the Buddha on the road..."
but it's not exactly appropriate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bread and Circus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 03:20 PM
Response to Reply #2
31. hmmm...it's one thing if this were a question about traffic tickets...
but don't you think this issue goes to the heart of what Edwards is running on?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OneGrassRoot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 12:46 PM
Response to Original message
4. I think "compromised" is the key word.
I saw him interviewed a while back, and one of the things I admired the most was not only did he own up to his mistakes, he didn't try to blame them on anyone else. I think that, since that time, he's been fairly consistent in that message.

But, even more importantly, he said that he was influenced by the greed and power of Congress. He was not only disillusioned about how ineffective Washington is, but was disillusioned with how EASY it is to go in there and have good intentions and then be sucked in by the INFLUENCE heaped upon politicians.

He's human and he admitted it, and it's because he has experienced it and knows how easy it is to get sucked in that he is determined to remove that influence. Washington seems to be set up now to either convert "saints" (those with truly admirable intentions) to "sinners" or for those who maintain the intentions, make them completely ineffectual and beat them down.

Others may seize upon him admitting to more than one mistake, whereas I was struck by the honesty and how people - because of their life experiences (both professional and personal - can change.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VenusRising Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 12:49 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. Great post.
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dorkulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 12:53 PM
Response to Reply #4
10. I'd be interested in a link if you've got one
where he owns up to having been influenced by power and money. I agree people can change, but people can pretend to have changed too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OneGrassRoot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 12:56 PM
Response to Reply #10
15. I'll try to find later today, but this was from at least a year ago...
and I don't remember where it was, though it seems it was with Russert.

Absolutely people can manipulate: that's when it's up to each of us to tap into our own gut instinct after we've gathered all the facts and figures we can as to whether or not someone is believable.

I believe him, but I also completely respect the fact that others may not for various reasons.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
2rth2pwr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 01:09 PM
Response to Reply #15
23. What "facts and figures" do you have that show he's believeable?
I think people who have fallen for Edwards are just willing to believe his new "schtick"
without any proof. It's faith-based.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OneGrassRoot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 01:26 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. Okay, let me be as blunt as I can be here for all you who are determined to be shitty:
Edited on Wed Jan-16-08 01:29 PM by timeforarevolution
I'm not telling you who to vote for. I'm not telling you HOW to make that decision.

Most DUers CHOOSE to be as informed as possible. Myself included. There are plenty of "fact-based" threads here touting this, that and the other about each candidate - good and bad.

What I said was, after gathering the information that is available, sorting through the bullshit and disinformation, and keeping in mind that the TYPE of information that people seek will be different from person to person (we all have different priorities), THEN it's up to us to make a personal call as to who we believe.

There's nothing that's going to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt at this stage that any of them are lying through their teeth or that they are being honest.

It's called discernment. Use your own judgment - live with your decisions. Why are you 100% sure he's lying?

We're all doing the best we can based upon the information we have. Some of us can reason and use our own life experiences to base our decisions upon without everything being typed out in black and white in a report to give us the EXACT information we need to make a decision. Wouldn't it be nice if we always had that? And, believe it or not, some of us respect that others disagree and we don't think they're delusional or kool-aid drinkers or fundamentalist nutjobs.

No one's forcing you to believe anything.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jsamuel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 12:57 PM
Response to Reply #10
16. if edwards wanted to pretend, he would have said learning English should not be required for citizen
ship. The Hispanic population in NV would have liked to hear that, but Edwards stuck to his principles.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 01:03 PM
Response to Reply #16
21. That was very impressive.
:D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jackson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 03:33 PM
Response to Reply #16
33. And there are many other examples where that came from
Edited on Wed Jan-16-08 03:33 PM by jackson_dem
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cant trust em Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 12:54 PM
Response to Reply #4
11. How many times can someone apologize for being wrong
before someone says, "Hey, John. You seem to be wrong a lot of the time."

I think that John Edwards generally has the best answer out of the three, but it seems like he needs to run for president to make up for the errors of his senate record.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 12:55 PM
Response to Reply #4
12. Yup... they ALL make mistakes.
Owning up to them, however... not so much.

His willingness to honestly discuss mistakes he's made makes me think he's more trustworthy, not less.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jackson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 03:34 PM
Response to Reply #12
34. He should be credited for owning up. Most don't
And if someone believes there is a pure candidate with a pure record they are nuts. The difference is Edwards has the courage to admit his mistakes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
burythehatchet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 09:43 PM
Response to Reply #4
37. that's why he didn't go back. he was never cut out for senatorial duties. he
should have run for Governor.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fresh_Start Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 12:49 PM
Response to Original message
5. he said he was wrong
Edited on Wed Jan-16-08 12:52 PM by NYCALIZ
at that time there was a big to-do over inconsistency in bankruptcy treatment in the different courts, the issue of disparate homestead exemptions was being criticized, there was a sense of numerous repeat bankruptcies from consumer choice rather than events beyond the consumers control.

To some degree it was attempting to eliminate equality on bankruptcy treatment.

PPL in FL and TX have virtually unlimited homestead exemption, Joe Blow in OH could keep his tools of trade and several changes of clothing.

Examples of inconsistencies, some districts forced chapter 13 on 25% of filers, other districts have fewer than 5% chapter 13.

There was bad analysis and wishful thinking in those and in the 2005 bankruptcy bill.
Yes there are ppl that abuse the process.
But the majority of ppl are thrown into bankruptcy not from imprudent financial behaviour but due to loss of spouse, job, or illness.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Auggie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 12:51 PM
Response to Original message
7. I noticed no one offered to repeal the 2005 bill. Bad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sam sarrha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 12:52 PM
Response to Original message
8. we really dont know what was being bartered for in that case.. if you never made a mistake you run..
he is still the cleanest candidate, and the only one with an up front platform... hillery is playing chess and obama is preaching pie in the sky without a recipe.. or a pie crust
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sinkingfeeling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 12:53 PM
Response to Original message
9. Here, in this guest blog from 2005, he explains the main differences between the 2001 bill and the
2005 bill:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/bankruptcy/archives/2005/04/index.php



(April 14, 2005 -- 12:23 PM EDT // link // print)
Guest Blogger: John Edwards

This morning Elizabeth Warren and her students invited me to say a few words about the bankruptcy reform bill. I'm grateful for the opportunity.

I'm now spending a lot of my time tackling the challenges of poverty, but I learned a lot about bankruptcy on the campaign trail last year. I saw how many good families end up broke and poor, and
how they need the safety net of a fair bankruptcy law if they're going to get back on their feet.

Like a lot of Democrats, I voted for a bankruptcy reform bill before. I can't say it more simply than this: I was wrong.

The bill is supposed to crack down on irresponsible borrowers. That's the right thing to do. The problem is that this bill imposes big burdens on families who did everything right but went broke just because they lost a job or lost their health insurance. And, even
more than the legislation I supported, this bill doesn't crack down on the real abusers.

Two million Americans go bankrupt every year, but you might never know it. People keep it to themselves. They're ashamed about what has happened to them. But they aren't alone-these families are our neighbors, our brothers, our friends. And I've listened to so
many people tell me how their life was on track until hardship hit. Thanks to Professor Warren, we now know that half of families going broke suffered illnesses or high medical costs.

These men and women want to pay their own way, but they can't. They can't because the hospital wants $135,000 to cover the heart operation and the plant just cut back their hours. They can't because the bank is about to foreclose on a predatory loan unless
they can pay $40,000 in 48 hours. They can't because they lost their job and now the electric company wants a few hundred dollars more just to turn on the lights.

This bill won't do anything to give struggling families more security. It will only make it harder for good and decent people to start over. The new means test that will mean hundreds of dollars in new legal fees for families who barely have money to put
food on the table.

If we want real reform, we shouldn't punish every hard-working family looking for another chance. But we should get serious about the biggest abuses.

In some states, a multimillionaire CEO can drive his company into the ground, declare bankruptcy, and still keep his mansion-tennis court, Jacuzzi, and all. The 2001 bill at least stopped that by capping the "homestead exemption" at $125,000. This bill will
allow many multimillionaires to protect their mansions if they plan ahead.

We've also seen the credit card companies and predatory lenders become more aggressive. Today, many Americans have seen their interest rates triple to 29% or higher-not because they missed a payment, but just because they lost a job and needed another loan. Many more Americans are losing their homes because lenders
have hidden points and fees in their loans. These companies are making billions by kicking people when they're down. This bill does nothing to stop them.

Unfortunately, we know what the outcome today is going to be. But that doesn't mean we should give up the fight-it means we have to fight harder. If we want to stop bankruptcies, we need to address their real causes, like rising health costs. We need to stop the
abuses by the credit card companies and the predatory lenders. We need to make sure all families, and especially those who are poor, can build their savings and assets so they have some security if something goes wrong. It won't be easy, but it can be done.
That's what being American is about--standing with people who are struggling to do right, and taking on anyone who tries to take advantage of them.

If you want to learn more about the work I'm doing, I hope you'll check out my webpage.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dorkulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 12:57 PM
Response to Reply #9
17. Doesn't seem to explain any differences; just says "I was wrong"
again. He explains some details of the 2005 bill, but I don't see him saying those weren't a part of the 2001 bill.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dragonkeep Donating Member (131 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 01:51 PM
Response to Reply #17
26. One difference stated plainly is as follows:
In some states, a multimillionaire CEO can drive his company into the ground, declare bankruptcy, and still keep his mansion-tennis court, Jacuzzi, and all. The 2001 bill at least stopped that by capping the "homestead exemption" at $125,000. This bill will allow many multimillionaires to protect their mansions if they plan ahead.

Take a look at what this man has done since he was a Senator. He spent lots of time in New Orleans working on cleanup, exposed to what this disaster meant to the poorest among us. He's been to Europe, met with leaders there, been to Africa, did the same there, adding to his knowledge of what other countries are doing and needing, establishing contacts within foreign countries.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dorkulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 02:14 PM
Response to Reply #26
28. Okay, one difference.
Still, my main concern about the bill is what it does to the poor, not the rich.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sinkingfeeling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 02:12 PM
Response to Reply #17
27. Caps on exemptions were in 2001, not in 2005.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cosmik debris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 12:55 PM
Response to Original message
13. He served a different constituency
He was a junior senator from a state that had a very large banking industry.

While I disliked that vote, I was not a part of his constituency. He did not represent me. He had no obligation to vote according to my wishes.

It is also worth noting that legislators vote according to party policy rather than their conscience in order to promote the party's agenda rather than personal agendas. That's the way it works. You may not like it, but that's the way it works.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dorkulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 01:02 PM
Response to Reply #13
20. Sorry, but I don't think the whole state is populated by rich bankers.
I'm fairly sure that North Carolina has more poor people than bankers in it. If by 'constituency' you mean rich donors, well isn't that the problem?

And as far as party policy goes, this bill was favored by Republicans and opposed by (most) Democrats.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sam sarrha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 12:57 PM
Response to Original message
18. dont forget that the ReThugs never give them time to research the bills..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lint Head Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 01:05 PM
Response to Original message
22. Edwards admitted he was wrong and gave details as to why
he was wrong. Bush has never done that in his life. Other candidates come off to me as trying to seem like they are perfect and never make or admit mistakes. Nobody 's perfect, not even a politician. :dem:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 01:38 PM
Response to Reply #22
25. He also "admitted he was wrong" about co-sponsoring the IWR...
is it really sufficient to make such big "mistakes" to apologize later?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jackson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 03:36 PM
Response to Reply #25
35. Obama has made mistakes too. His supporters just pretend he hasn't
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 09:37 PM
Response to Reply #35
36. You're unable to explain your guy's BIG "mistakes" so all you can say is OBAMA made mistakes, too?
Pathetic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LaPera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 02:30 PM
Response to Original message
29. Bullshit! You're a Obama supporter who in the fuck are you kidding?
Edited on Wed Jan-16-08 02:32 PM by LaPera
At least be honest about it....I've read your other posts!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dorkulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 02:37 PM
Response to Reply #29
30. Typical.
Okay, now where's the post accusing me of being a freeper?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jackson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 03:31 PM
Response to Original message
32. Why don't you look at his entire record?
The bankruptcy bill:

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 12:24 AM
Response to Original message
14. Here are some things to think about

This is an exchange from earlier this month:

DODD: : Back in 2001 the congress passed I think one of the worst pieces of legislation of all time: the so called the Bankruptcy Reform Act. Senators Clinton, Biden, and Edwards voted for that bill, which drove a lot of people working class families into poverty, & made it very difficult for them to manage their lives & to get back on their feet again. John, you made a big issue of poverty, something you have dedicated your life to. So could you explain to me why you'd vote for a piece of legislation like that which did so much damage to so many families in our country?

EDWARDS: Yeah, I was wrong. I was wrong and you were right Chris. I should not have voted for that bankruptcy bill. It was a bad, bad piece of legislation. I think any of us who voted for it were wrong to have voted for it. I think there were some good provisions in it but I think on the whole when you look it at it actually did damage to low income families and working families in this country.

Source: 2007 Iowa Brown & Black Presidential Forum Dec 1, 2007

Why did he vote for it? For one thing, it also included AN INCREASE IN THE MINIMUM WAGE, something that has been a pet issue for him from the beginning.

I don't find any explanations from a quick web search, so even this is putting words in his mouth. Since I've already started to do so, I guess I'll continue.

The bill was novel in its means testing, which made it more difficult for people to completely wipe the slate clean if they had some ability to repay some of the debts. It didn't mean that people would be completely denied bankruptcy and made debt-slaves for the rest of their lives, just that they'd have to repay up to 25% of the debt if they could. The bill has been sweepingly mischaracterized as one that would deny ANY protection for individuals in a tight spot, and that's not the case.

It also tried to cap the homestead rules at $125K, so rich people in Texas and Florida couldn't play the time-honored game of the rich of piling up a huge mountain of debt by (among other things) buying a mansion and then welshing on their obligations and keeping the house. (Why do you think Kay Bailey Hutchison voted against it?)

Another big provision was the changing of rules on privacy brought in by Leahy. This actually gave a form of protection to those filing bankruptcy that they'd never had before. You may not be aware of it, but this is a big early cause of Edwards, with one of the two bills he sponsored being the "Spyware Control and Privacy Protection Act of 2000".

Legislation is often a rearguard action against looming legislation that could be worse, and there was a great deal of tactical maneuvering done in the sculpting of S.420. In the end, it wasn't a good bill, but the idea that some accountability should be had by those seeking protection from their creditors is hardly complete submission to corporations.

There are also the less pleasant aspects to it: it was a bill with overwhelming support, so perhaps it wasn't a battle worth fighting, especially coming from a state with a huge banking industry. I don't like to think that this was a major reason, but it would be disingenuous to not point out such a thing as an influence.

Please do remember, though, that he repeatedly used the term "predatory lending" in his stump speeches in '03 and '04, so he certainly stuck out his neck in the face of the powerhouse industry back home.

I would welcome any comments he's made on the bill, but I couldn't find any.

Once again, he has come down very specifically on the side of the little guys with his current proposals, and that should be taken into account.


Record:

PurityOfEssence (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sun Jan-06-08 04:05 PM
Response to Reply #9
17. Repost of Edwards' Senate Record notes

Much has been said about Edwards’ supposedly conservative term in the Senate. Like much “common wisdom”, this is largely unfounded.

When remembering that he came as a neophyte from a rather red state, it’s quite surprising to see just how populist he was on many key social issues. (Well, it’s not surprising to many of us, but to those of you who’ve been poisoned with the endless snideness about the “new” Edwards and the “old” Edwards, it should be an eye-opener.)

He only sponsored two bills, but he co-sponsored a whopping 203 in his six-year term. This is a partial list of them (yes, I omitted the Patriot Act and IWR; much has already been said about them) and bears a quick skimming. They’re in chronological order, so details can be found fairly easily. The two bills he sponsored were for research into the “fragile x” chromosome associated with mental retardation, and the “Spyware Control and Privacy Act”, an important early bulwark against attempts to compromise our computer privacy. This last one is a true civil-rights issue, taking on corporations and attempting to secure the rights of individuals, and it’s visionary stuff.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d106:SN03180:@@ ...

Russ Feingold said he was a “terrific asset” in getting campaign finance reform through. He was the person who deposed Lewinsky and Jordan in the impeachment trial; quite an important task to entrust to a newcomer in literally his first year in office. His opposition to Ashcroft in the confirmation hearings was vigorous and mesmerizing, even if it didn’t work. This is also the guy who tirelessly fought to keep the sunset provisions from being stripped out of the Patriot Act. His votes on labor and trade are solidly leftist, although he did vote for the China Trade Bill. Then again, since this was something Bill Clinton was solidly for, he was voting with his party. (Funny how Hillary supporters take him to task for this vote…) He also (along with Dodd and Biden) voted against the free trade bills with Singapore and Chile, unlike Senator Clinton, who voted for them.

Here’s a guy who constantly brought up the issue of “predatory lending” even though he hailed from a state with a huge banking and financial services industry. If you listen to or read his stump speeches from late ’02 and early ’03, you’ll wonder what the hell his detractors are talking about when they say that his populism is a new tack; his platform was economic and worker-oriented from the beginning, telling of how the Bush Administration was systematically shifting the burden of taxation from wealth to wages.

So here’s that partial list of the bills he co-sponsored. This is not a list of his votes, just those bills he actively got behind and worked to get passed. This is hardly the stuff of a closet conservative or an opportunist, as he’s been tarred, nor is it the record of someone who was just phoning it in. I would request, in interest of fairness, that the deriders among you at least skim through this VERY long list; it’s all pure fact.

When taking all this in context, it’s interesting to reflect on Kerry’s sneering that he probably couldn’t win re-election had he decided to run. Kerry may have been right on this point, but if so, it’s because of Edwards’ populism and social decency.

Details can be found here; each phrase separated by a comma is a particular bill, and in most cases attempt to use the bill’s title to lessen confusion and give the sense of the legislation.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/?&Db=d107&querybd ... (FLD004+@4((@1(Sen+Edwards++John))+01573)):

Sense of the Senate for funding lifestyle research for preventative medicine, Sense of the Senate honoring National Science Foundation, Sense of the Senate to preserve six day mail delivery, designating “biotechnology week”, Children’s Internet Safety Month, Joint Resolution against excessive campaign donations, to protect the civil rights of all Americans, Bi-partisan Campaign Reform, Restrict access to personal health and financial information, Establish a Center for National Social Work Research, provide more effective remedies for victims of sex discrimination in work, provide incentive for fair access to the internet for everyone, require fair availability of birth control, increase the minimum wage (’01), protect consumers in managed care programs, emergency relief for energy costs to small businesses, prohibit use of genetic information to discriminate on health coverage and employment, provide families with disabled children to buy into Medicaid, eliminate the loophole for interstate transporting of birds for fighting, provide funding to clean up contaminated land, informing veterans of available programs, Designating part of ANWR as wilderness, establish a digital network technology program, reduce the risk that innocent people be executed, restore funding for Social Security Block Grants, provide for equal coverage for mental health in insurance policies, amend Clean Air Act to reduce emissions from power plants, establish uniform election technology (sponsored by Dodd), extend modifications to funding for Medicare and Medicaid, Federal Funding to local governments to prosecute hate crimes, reinstate certain Social Security earnings exemptions for the blind, overhaul RR retirement plan to increase benefits, Establish a Nurse recruitment and retention program, amend FDA to provide greater access to affordable pharmaceuticals, Establish African American Museum within the Smithsonian, Federal funding for research of environmental factors in Breast Cancer, Increase hospital benefits under Medicare, Establish Tariff Quotas on milk protein imports, Federal funding for mental health community education, protect patients in managed care plans (again), establish Office on Women’s Health in HHS, increase the minimum wage, allow media coverage of trials, prohibit racial profiling, improve health care in rural areas, protect consumers in managed care plans, prohibiting trade of bear viscera, provide greater fairness in arbitration of motor vehicle franchises, provide adequate insurance coverage for immunosuppressive drugs, provide financial assistance for trade-affected communities, acquisition and improvement of child-care facilities, prohibit employment discrimination based on sexual orientation, establish programs to deal with nurse shortage, establish a National Cyber Defense Team to protect the internet’s infrastructure, provide services to prevent family violence, require criminal prosecution for securities fraud, reissuance of a rule on ergonomics, ensure safe pregnancy for all U.S. women, improve investigation and prosecution of rape cases with DNA evidence, improve national drought preparedness, increase the minimum wage (yet again), assistance in containing HIV/AIDS in foreign countries, emergency assistance for small-businesses affected by drought, child care and developmental block grants, provide economic security for America’s workers, enhance security for transporting nuclear waste, FEMA hazard mitigation grants, increase mental health benefits in health insurance, criminal prosecution for people who destroy evidence in securities fraud cases.

Is this the record of a corporate appeaser? Is this the record of someone just loafing about and collecting a paycheck?

Funny what you find when you read a little, isn’t it?

(end of post)

The Bush Cartel is Shivering In Its Boots About John Edwards: This is An Actual North Carolina GOP Alert Sent to a BuzzFlash Reader

A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS

Below is a copy of an actual GOP alert sent out by the North Carolina Republican Party.

It illustrates how frightened the GOP is of Edwards spoiling the Neo-Confederacy "Southern Strategy" that the Grand Hypocrisy Party (GHP) depends upon to win presidential elections.

Sincerely,

Buzz

* * *

Dear XXXX,

Senator John Edwards' (D-NC) latest effort to package himself as a "mainstream North Carolinian" is entirely contradicted by a four-year voting record that consistently puts ultra-liberal special interests ahead of the people he represents.

CNN's Candy Crowley: "I want to ask you, lastly, about the political spectrum and where you are on it. You are often described as having a liberal voting record. The liberal groups tend to give you high ratings. The conservative groups give you low ratings. Are you a liberal Democrat?

John Edwards: "I'm a mainstream North Carolinian. I think my views and my values represent the values of most people in this country." (CNN's Inside Politics, January 2, 2003)

Bill Cobey, Chairman of the North Carolina Republican Party had the following response: "Senator Edwards, your voting record does not lie. 'Mainstream North Carolinians' don't vote like Georgetown Liberals."

Edwards made similar assertions in 1998 when he promised the people of North Carolina that he would be a moderate voice in the U.S. Senate. Edwards' record, however, reveals the liberal truth:

Edwards' Voting Record Matches Those Of Senators Ted Kennedy And Hillary Clinton

From 1999-2002, Edwards Voted With Senator Ted Kennedy 90% Of The Time. (CQ Vote Comparison, CQ Online Website, www.oncongresscq.com, 106th and 107th Congresses)

From 2001-2002, Edwards Voted With Senator Hillary Clinton 89% Of The Time. (CQ Vote Comparison, CQ Online Website, www.oncongresscq.com, 107th Congress)

Edwards' Liberal Record On Business/Job Growth

Edwards Received A 0% Rating From The Small Business Survival Committee For His Voting Record In 2001. (Small Business Survival Committee Website, www.sbsc.org, accessed Dec.1, 2002)

Edwards Received A 17% Rating From The National Federation Of Independent Business For His Voting Record In 2001. (National Federation Of Independent Business, www.nfib.com, accessed Dec. 1, 2002)

Edwards' Liberal Record On Education

Edwards Voted Against The Creation Of A Demonstration Public School Choice Voucher Program For Disadvantaged Children. (Amendment to S. 1, Roll Call #179: Rejected 41-58: R 38-11; D 3-46; I 0-1, June 12, 2001)

In 2000, Edwards Voted Against The Creation Of Tax-Free Education Savings Accounts For Children To Be Used In The Payment Of Public Or Private School Tuition. (S. 1134, Roll Call #33: Passed 61-37: R 52-2; D 9-35, March 2, 2000)

Edwards' Liberal Record On Abortion

In June Of 2000, Edwards Voted Against Tabling An Amendment That Would Have Repealed The Ban On Privately Funded Abortions At Overseas Military Facilities. (Amendment to S. 2549, Roll Call #134: Passed 50-49: R 48-6; D 2-43, June 20, 2000)

In October Of 1999, Edwards Voted Against Passage Of A Bill To Ban Partial-Birth Abortions. (S. 1692, Roll Call #340: Passed 63-34: R 48-3; D 14-31; I 1-0, October 21, 1999)

Edwards' Liberal Record On Health Care And Social Issues

Edwards Called For A Federal Prescription-Drug Benefit And Lamented Over The Lack Of Universal Health Insurance For Children. "Moving to health care, Edwards - his words being recorded by a National Public Radio reporter sitting near his feet - again called for a federal prescription-drug benefit and decried the lack of universal insurance coverage for children. 'In America,' he intoned, 'that's wrong, and we need to do something about it.'" (Eric Dyer, "Testing The Waters?" News & Record, June 23, 2002)

In 2001, Edwards Voted To Table An Amendment That Would Have Prohibited The Use Of Public Funds For Needle Exchange Programs In The District Of Columbia. (Amendment to H.R. 2994, Roll Call #328: Motion To Table Passed 53-47: R 5-44; D 47-3; I 1-0, November 7, 2001)

Edwards' Liberal Record On Taxes/Fiscal Responsibility

Edwards Voted Against President Bush's Bipartisan Tax Relief Package. (H.R. 1836, Roll Call #170: Passed 58-33: R 46-2; D 12-31, May 26, 2001)

Edwards Voted Against Permanent Repeal Of The Estate Tax. (H.R. 8, Roll Call #151: Failed 54-44: R 45-2; D 9-42, June 12, 2002)

In 2001, Edwards Voted Against A Capital Gains Tax Rate Reduction. (Amendment To H.R. 1836, Roll Call #115: Failed 47-51: R 40-8; D 7-43, May 21, 2001)

In 2000, Edwards Voted Against A Bill That Would Have Reduced Taxes On Married Couples. (H.R. 4810, Roll Call #215: Adopted 61-38: R 53-1; D 8-37, July 18, 2000)

In 2000, Edwards Voted Against A Temporary Suspension Of The Gasoline Tax. (S. 2285, Roll Call #80: Failed 43-56: R 43-12; D 0-44, April 11, 2000)

Edwards' Liberal Record On The Environment

Edwards Argued That President Bush's New Source Review Plan "Defies Common Sense." 'It defies common sense to me,' said Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C." (Karen Masterson, "Port Arthur Activist Testifies Against Easing Clean Air Laws," The Houston Chronicle, July 17, 2002)

AT ODDS WITH FELLOW DEMOCRATS

On Trade Promotion Authority

Edwards Disagrees With Kerry, Daschle And Lieberman On Trade Promotion Authority. Edwards voted against trade promotion authority, but Kerry, Daschle and Lieberman voted for it. (H.R. 3009, Roll Call #207: Passed 64-34: R 43-5; D 20-29; I 1-0, August 1, 2002)

On Common Sense Tort Reform

Edwards Disagrees With Lieberman On Tort Reform. Unlike his Senate colleague Lieberman, Edwards adamantly opposes liability limits and civil justice reform. (Jill Zuckman, "Medical Bill," Chicago Tribune, June 24, 2001; Senator Lieberman, Press Conference, July 15, 1999)

When Asked By Bob Novak, Edwards Could Not Recall A Single Conservative Position That He Has Taken On An Issue As Senator. "'I could give you an answer to that question if you give me a little time to think about it.' - Democratic presidential aspirant Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, asked by columnist Robert D. Novak in...the American Spectator to recall any conservative position he's taken in the U.S. Senate ." (John McCaslin, "Dependably Liberal," The Washington Times, October 15, 2002)

http://www.buzzflash.com/analysis/03/01/14_Edwards.html

PurityOfEssence (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sun Dec-30-07 01:35 AM
Response to Reply #15
24. I agree; the repeated "fact" that he wasn't a populist to start with is simply wrong

If one looks at his record, one sees populism as a very clear through-line.

People wave the bloody shirt of Stephanopoulos' grilling of him as some kind of proof of his calumny, when those same people seem to forget that little Georgie's a Clinton operative of the first rank. His leap to prominence came from being a key member of Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign, and he's a friend as well as a rooter. He has no more journalistic objectivity than James Carville does, and it's a form of deception to not have it tattooed on his forehead as he masquerades as a reporter.

Edwards is a classic Southern populist: pro-affirmative action, constantly trying to raise the minimum wage, for civil rights, for healthcare for the poor, pro-union and on and on. His Senate record is actually quite good, and I've posted to that effect. Anyone who has issues with this should look up the 203 bills he co-sponsored as a Senator.

It's all very convenient to say that he was a hawkish Democrat who changed his ways, but you'll note that the media NEVER tries to foist off the lie that he was a corporatist or anything of the sort. Except for this series of bills--which are hardly clear-cut, as I point out above--his record has been solidly for the little guy from the beginning. He voted for the China Bill, but that was Bill Clinton's pet and he was voting with his party. He voted AGAINST free trade with Singapore and Chile, and he's consistently voted for worker's rights, union rights, ergonomic rules, environmental protections and the usual "little guy" concerns. It's simply a chickenshit lie that he's only now become some kind of populist; his record shows that he has been all along.

Lest we forget, voting against tax cuts isn't that much of a personal risk for a John Kerry from Massachusetts, but it sure as hell is for a first-termer from North Carolina.

People constantly try to make complex situations simple, but they fall into one of the most despicable and self-congratulatory traps of human hypocrisy: flatly dismissing others as mere caricatures while demanding that they and their champions be given break after break and accorded the elaborate complexity of the gods. It's human nature, and it's the sucky part of human nature.

As for your primary point about admitting one's mistakes, I fully agree: the macho, blockheaded, uber-male approach of most politicians (regardless of gender) is tiresome, and to them, admitting a mistake is tantamount to admitting sheer worthlessness or admitting that they might occasionally pull over and ask for directions. Many people decry the inability of people to admit a mistake, but when someone actually does it, he/she gets pounced upon and torn limb from limb. It's vulgar and immature.

Why I shied away from addressing this first is that letting the conversation veer that way tacitly reinforces the big ugly stupid black-and-white lie that he's truly changed. He hasn't. He was good then and he's good now. Yes, he got suckered with the IWR, but Tenet looked him right in the eyes and lied to him. Others did too. Can you trust a man who changes his mind? Hey, at least you know he HAS one. He's done something truly courageous, and deserves a point or two for it. He also deserves points for addressing the issue of poverty; it's a sure vote-loser, but it's THE RIGHT THING TO DO and it's been his cause from the beginning.

Things aren't black or white, and those who insist they are are either fools or skunks. The very way bills are characterized is a good illustration of this, and it's important to try to see things in their totality and in their historical context.

Oh, and welcome to the board. I'm in LA; where are you?

(end of post)

Edwards's Record as A Freshman Senator
Lawmaker Labored on Issues Such as Health Care, Intelligence and Trade

-snip-

Edwards has little in the way of concrete legislative achievements, but he gained attention on issues ranging from health care to intelligence to environmental protection.

While aspiring to build a national profile, Edwards also labored on issues important to his home state, such as proposing amendments to help textile workers who were losing their jobs to lower-wage workers in other nations. In recent weeks, he increasingly has raised trade issues in trying to differentiate himself from Kerry.

-snip-

He voted to support abortion rights, authorize the war in Iraq, require criminal background checks on buyers at gun shows, block the confirmation of some of President Bush's most conservative judicial nominees, and prohibit oil drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

-snip-

But it was the patients' bill of rights, which Edwards had championed in his 1998 Senate campaign, that proved to be his biggest accomplishment -- and disappointment.

-snip-

Edwards voted against trade pacts with Chile, Singapore and Africa, which Kerry supported. But he voted in 2000 to grant most-favored-nation trading status to China, as did Kerry and most other senators. "I think it's clear that Senator Kerry and I have very different records on trade," Edwards recently told reporters. On the same day, Kerry declared: "We have the same policy on trade -- exactly the same policy."

In discussing trade, Edwards focuses on the 1993 North American Free Trade Agreement, which was enacted with Kerry's support five years before Edwards entered the Senate. While his campaign statements assert that "Edwards has consistently opposed NAFTA," the North Carolina senator recently told New York Times editors that NAFTA "is an important part of our global economy," although he wants tougher protections for the environment and worker conditions.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15414-20 ...

Clinton Defense Leader in Impeachment Trial

Kennedy-Edwards-McCain Patients' Bill of Rights

Kennedy-Edwards Minimum Wage Raise Laws

Vote Against Bush's First Taxgiveaway

Vote Against Bush's Second Taxgiveaway

Vote Against $87 Billion "I support Bush's War Bill"

Wrote Bill that allowed individuals to buy prescription drugs from Canada

Wrote and Sponsored Bill that would make sexual orientation a legally protected category in job discrimination

Wrote Sunset Provision into Patriot Act

Floor leader for Feingold-McCain Campaign Finance Reform.

Voted against the Chilean trade agreement, against the Caribbean trade agreement, against the Singapore trade agreement, against final passage of fast track for this president.

Actually defeated a Republican incumbent in a Red State who had the Helms Machine with him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 11:01 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC