Edwards twice voted in favor of Yucca Mountain - now he says he is the only one against Nuclear

[jillan]

power.

I am beginning to wonder if there is anything he hasn't changed his mind about.

And what does he really feel? What does he really believe in? I honestly don't know because he
changes his mind all of the time.

The IWR
Yucca mountain
bankruptcy laws
offshore investments
sub-prime mortgages

I could go on, but it's making me really dizzy just trying to keep up with where he stands today.

[beachmom]

1. Yup. It seems he is sorry for his entire Senate career. Yet people

fawn over someone who has no actions to back up his rhetoric.

[redqueen]

4. Hyperbole & nonense.

"fawn"?

Ugh.

[beachmom]

9. Oh, I have been reading the fawning on these here boards forever.

And it's time to speak honestly. It's called not just talking the talk. But walking the walk. Edwards has nothing to back up his rhetoric.

[redqueen]

14. Hey, call it whatever you want, no one's trying to force you to agree.

Just know that when you use loaded words, it says something... not about those you slime, but you.

[beachmom]

30. Okay, passionate enthusiastic praise for rhetoric that is NOT backed

up by his Senate record. You're kind of stuck on one word. Oh, and supporters are fawning over other candidates, too. It's just Obama and Clinton aren't populists with a non-populist record like Edwards is.

[redqueen]

36. Sorry... but I'm very picky about words.

:)

And yes, he did take a while to come around, and unfortunately was out of the Senate by the time he had his change of heart.

I'm sorry that you don't trust him, cause he could use your support... like I keep saying... choosing one of the top three is a matter of deciding whom we think we can most trust to get the best job done as a leader. I've made my choice and I'm very comfortable with it.

:hi:

[jackson_dem]

39. BS

Edwards' has always been a populist, regardless of what the Obamite swifboaters of Edwards say. I posted his record in a thread and again here. None of the swiftboaters have responded.

[jackson_dem]

38. The truth about his Senate record

Note that no one has went into this thread and defended the swiftboating of Edwards' record, which is done primarily by Obamites. Anyone really interested in his record what have read it. If they still honestly believed the Big Lie about his record they would have stated so in the thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4082013

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.

[redqueen]

41. Thanks for trying...

:hi:

I can't help thinking that it's just being studiously ignored.

[AlertLurker]

42. What you need to know about Edwards' Voting Record:

http://votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=21107

02/02/2000 Bankruptcy Reform bill - Voted Y
11/19/2002 Homeland Security Act of 2002 - Voted Y
05/21/2004 Condemning Iraq Abuse of Prisoners resolution - DID NOT VOTE
10/11/2002 Use of Military Force Against Iraq - Voted Y
10/06/2004 National Intelligence Reform Act of 2004 - DID NOT VOTE
10/25/2001 USA Patriot Act of 2001 - Voted Y
09/14/2001 Military Force Authorization resolution - Voted Y
09/16/2003 FCC Media Ownership bill - DID NOT VOTE
09/19/2000 U.S.-China Relations Act of 2000 - Voted Y

[jackson_dem]

82. As John has said, you can flyspeck a few votes out of hundreds with any candidate

Since you are probably an Obamite (the biggest proponents of the swiftboating of Edwards' record) let me play your game with Saint Obama.

10/18/2007 Prohibiting Funds for Groups that Perform Abortions NV
09/06/2007 Prohibiting U.S. Assistance for Groups that Support Coercive Abortion NV
10/26/2005 Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Funding Amendment N
04/18/2005 Future Military Funding for Iraq Amendment NV
12/18/2007 Inclusion of Iraq Operations Funding with the Consolidated Appropriations NV
12/13/2007 Energy Act of 2007 NV
12/14/2007 Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act of 2007 (Farm Bill) NV
12/06/2007 Temporary Tax Adjustments Act of 2007 NV
12/06/2007 Temporary Alternative Minimum Tax Adjustment Act of 2007 NV
11/01/2007 Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007 (CHIP) NV
10/30/2007 Amtrak Reauthorization NV
10/25/2007 Amtrak Federal Subsidy Limits NV
10/18/2007 Prohibiting Funds for Groups that Perform Abortions NV
10/03/2007 Border Fence and Customs Appropriations NV
09/27/2007 State Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) Reauthorization NV
09/10/2007 Bridge Repair Funding NV
09/07/2007 Student Loan Lender Subsidy Cuts and Student Grants NV
07/26/2007 Implementing the 9/11 Commission Recommendations Act NV
07/26/2007 REAL ID Funding NV
03/07/2005 Minimum Wage Amendment N
To highlight how easy it is to swiftboat a Senate record I will point out that Obama vote for a Minimum Wage Amendment on the same day
09/20/2007 Expressing Support for General Petraeus and All Members of the Armed Forces NV
07/26/2007 Implementing the 9/11 Commission Recommendations Act NV
07/26/2007 REAL ID Funding NV
07/19/2007 Sense of the Senate on Guantanamo Bay Detainees NV
06/06/2007 English as the Common Language Y
12/18/2007 Iraq Withdrawal Amendment NV
11/07/2007 Appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies NV
09/07/2007 Student Loan Lender Subsidy Cuts and Student Grants NV
07/20/2007 Student Loan Lender Subsidy Cuts and Student Grants NV
12/13/2007 Energy Act of 2007 NV
06/21/2007 Energy Act of 2007 Y
06/14/2007 Offshore Drilling in Virginia NV
07/29/2005 Energy Policy Act of 2005 Y
06/28/2005 Energy Policy Act of 2005 Y
11/08/2007 On the Nomination of Michael B. Mukasey for the Office of Attorney General NV
06/11/2007 Attorney General No Confidence Vote NV
12/06/2006 Robert Gates, Secretary of Defense Y
4/21/2005 John Negroponte, Director of National Intelligence Y
02/15/2005 Michael Chertoff, Secretary of Homeland Security Y
01/26/2005 Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of State Y
11/07/2007 Appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies NV
11/01/2007 Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007 (CHIP) NV
10/23/2007 Appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies NV
09/27/2007 State Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) Reauthorization NV
07/25/2006 Child Custody Protection Act N
12/18/2007 Iraq Withdrawal Amendment NV
12/04/2007 United States-Peru Trade Agreement NV
09/26/2007 Expressing the Sense of Congress Regarding Iran and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps NV
09/06/2007 Prohibiting U.S. Assistance for Groups that Support Coercive Abortion NV
07/19/2007 Sense of the Senate on Guantanamo Bay Detainees NV
11/01/2007 Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007 (CHIP) NV
0/18/2007 Prohibiting Funds for Groups that Perform Abortions NV
09/27/2007 State Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) Reauthorization NV
6/21/2006 Increasing Minimum Wage Amendment N
03/02/2006 USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Y
10/18/2007 Prohibiting Funds for Groups that Perform Abortions NV
09/06/2007 Prohibiting U.S. Assistance for Groups that Support Coercive Abortion NV
12/04/2007 United States-Peru Trade Agreement NV
09/19/2006 U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement Implementation Y
06/29/2006 U.S. -Oman Free Trade Agreement Y
09/10/2007 Bridge Repair Funding NV
11/01/2007 Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007 (CHIP) NV
09/27/2007 State Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) Reauthorization NV
10/18/2007 Prohibiting Funds for Groups that Perform Abortions NV

http://votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=9490

Funding the war: "Until he ran for president, Sen. Obama supported every funding bill for Iraq, some $300 billion. <2005 Vote # 117, HR1268, 5/10/05; 2005 Vote # 326, S1042, 11/15/05; 2006 Vote # 112, HR4939, 5/4/06; 2006 Vote # 239; 2006 Vote # 186, S2766, 6/22/06, HR5631, 9/7/06>

Sen. Obama waited 18 months to give his first speech on the Senate floor devoted to Iraq, in which he opposed a timeline for withdrawal. Obama said "I'm also acutely aware that a precipitous withdrawal of our troops, driven by Congressional edict rather than the realities on the ground, will not undo the mistakes made by this Administration. It could compound them."

Sen. Obama didn't introduce legislation to end the Iraq war until he started running for president.

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=5161

[redqueen]

87. Holy crap.

I hadn't seen the list of questionable votes all strung together like that.

[AlertLurker]

104. I wasn't playing any games - that's how Edwards voted.

Like it or not. I readily admit to cherrypicking...

I looked for his SALIENT votes supporting corporations, neverending war and the establishment of a Police State.

They weren't difficult to find.

If you want to deflect criticism by attacking Obama's voting record, by all means - have at 'er.

It does nothing to change Edwards' pro-Corporation, pro-War and pro-Police State votes in the Senate, however.

[slipslidingaway]

99. This needs to be condensed with the more important votes IMO,

the votes that have affected millions of people here and abroad. I'm not saying there is nothing good about Edwards, but if you want to make the point it is best to do it in a more succinct manner.

Arguing for the Iraq invasion without up to date intelligence, see first link below, is something that cannot be dismissed lightly. And then the comment about his children will not be getting toys made in China when he voted for a bill that others said would not give us the proper checks.

:shrug:

I scrolled down and picked this out at random, this would not be something that I personally would use in determining who to vote for president.

"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."

Imagine posting Biden's votes?


This affected millions of people...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4071912&mesg_id=4072703

and has this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2687915&mesg_id=2689588


And then this...

"...yes, I omitted the Patriot Act and IWR; much has already been said about them) and bears a quick skimming...

A quick skimming! Four million people displaced and so many others killed or injured. It would have been nice if he had argued for up to date intelligence, read the report and highlighted the discrepancies. Or argued as others did that Congress was ceding it's power to declare war to Bush and giving him a blank check.

Personally I find it dangerous that we have begun to travel down the "I made a mistake" road so quickly.

[jackson_dem]

103. Flyspecking again

The China bill was pushed by a Democratic president. It had bipartisan support. Only about a dozen folks voted against it. Edwards does not have a crystal ball. The purpose of the bill was to normalize trade relations with China. The idea was to bring China into the international trading regime so it would play by the rules. It was not as cut and dry as people make it out to be eight years later.

If you really care about his trade record you will note this:

"Edwards voted against trade pacts with Chile, Singapore and Africa, which Kerry supported." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15414-2004Feb28_2.html

Kerry is a progressive saint now isn't he?

Patriot Act: It passed 98-1 a month after 9/11. Edwards fought for sunset provisions in it.

IWR: no defense. He was wrong and has admitted it.

Votes that affect millions of people? Like the Kennedy-Edwards-McCain Patients Bill of Rights? The Kennedy-Edwards minimum wage increase bills? The Edwards bill to allow people to import prescription drugs from Canada?

[slipslidingaway]

113. The High Cost of the China-WTO Deal

This was published before the vote took place and more Republicans in the House and Senate voted for the bill than did Democrats. It was mainly supported by big business and opposed by labor, environmental and human rights groups...the little guys.

Agree it was not a cut and dry issue, I believe there were over 40 amendments (going on memory here) but the Senate did not want to alter the bill as the opposition in the House was much greater, so they voted down some checks that were offered. As for the other trade deals, they can hardly compare IMO.

Never mentioned the Patriot Act and never said Kerry was a saint. Edwards never apologized for arguing for the Iraq invasion without up to date intelligence, very poor judgment IMO.

As for the other items you mentioned I would have to research further.


http://www.contraryinvestor.com/2007archives/momay07.htm

"The 800 Pound Gorilla(s)...

Outside of crude and China, it almost seems trade with the rest of the planet is an afterthought in terms of the overall US deficit specifically..."


China Trade bill
-- PNTR (Permanent Normal Trade Relations) for China bill

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h106-4444


Administration's own analysis suggests spiraling deficits, job losses

http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/issuebriefs_ib137

February 16, 2000 Issue Brief #137

by Robert E. Scott

"...These claims are misleading. The Administration has proposed to facilitate China's entry into the WTO at a time when the U.S. already has a massive trade deficit with China. In 1999, the U.S. imported approximately $81 billion in goods from China and exported $13 billion - a six-to-one ratio of imports to exports that represents the most unbalanced relationship in the history of U.S. trade. 2 While exports generated about 170,000 jobs in the United States in 1999, imports eliminated almost 1.1 million domestic job opportunities, for a net loss of 880,000 high-wage manufacturing jobs. 3

China's entry into the WTO, under PNTR with the U.S., will lock this relationship into place, setting the stage for rapidly rising trade deficits in the future that would severely depress employment in manufacturing, the sector most directly affected by trade. China's accession to the WTO would also increase income inequality in the U.S. 4

Despite the Administration's rhetoric, its own analysis suggests that, after China enters the WTO, the U.S. trade deficit with China will expand, not contract. The contradiction between the Administration's claims and its own economic analysis makes it impossible to take seriously its economic argument for giving China permanent trade concessions...

[jillan]

7. Was it just me - or last nite

did Obama and Hillary give specifics as to how they are going to handle the different problems that might come up if they are Prez, but Edwards just talked in circles?

After Biden dropping out, I am really trying to be open minded to all of the candidates - because I don't have a favorite.
I am having a hard time understanding Edwards.

[redqueen]

17. That was just you.

Oh, and I see that you actually DID watch... so what gives? Did you not even try to listen to what Edwards said, or were you dishonest in your OP?

[redqueen]

2. You didn't watch the debate I guess...

new science, forgery in old documents.

He changed his stance years ago... not that it seems to matter to some.

[cali]

5. on, c'mon

there were plenty of reasons not to vote for it and plenty of controversy at the time.

[redqueen]

6. Yes, that's true.

Just as with the Energy Act of 2005. :)

[cali]

13. indeed, but Obama hasn't changed

in the really startling way that Edwards has on so many vital issues.

[redqueen]

18. Has he explained his vote for the Mexican border wall?

Has he changed in a startling way from that position? Cause I'd like him more if he did change in a startling way, if he did that.

[jillan]

21. These are the Dems that voted no

NAYs ---39
Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Boxer (D-CA)
Breaux (D-LA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Campbell (R-CO)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Chafee (R-RI)
Clinton (D-NY)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Daschle (D-SD)
Dayton (D-MN)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Ensign (R-NV)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Torricelli (D-NJ)
Wellstone (D-MN)
Wyden (D-OR)
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00167

Edwards was one of the few Dems that voted for it.

[redqueen]

46. Do you have the list of how many Dems voted for the Mexican Border Wall?

How about the Energy Act of 2005?

[Ian David]

3. I'm all in favor of storing nuclear waste as close to Harry Reid as possible.

Unfortunately, that means transporting the stuff from all over the country across America's spectacularly well-maintained Republican Infrastructure.

[jillan]

23. I never thought I'd see the day where you could make me laugh -

that was pretty funny :)

[Ian David]

32. Honestly, do I REALLY piss you off THAT much? On a consistent basis? n/t

[DCKit]

29. Series!! You can be against newquelur power...

and still be for sequestering the waste we've already created.

So, what's your beef?

[Occam Bandage]

8. Don't forget the Patriot Act. Or NCLB. Or "bringing lobbyists to the table" on healthcare. Or

whether corporations are to blame when they abuse the law. But really, John Edwards has always been a tireless advocate.

For John Edwards.

http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2007/12/28/john_edwards_shifting_rhetoric.php

[redqueen]

11. That would be the Patriot Act which Obama voted to extend? Did he or not?

And please with the healthcare... Edwards has the best healthcare plan of all the top tier candidates.

[Occam Bandage]

15. After gutting some of its most-offensive aspects, yes, and with caveats.

http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060216-floor_statement_2/

And Edwards does have the best health-care plan now. I'm more referring to his shifting stances.

[redqueen]

19. Oh so the Patriot Act is good now?

[Occam Bandage]

84. That is pretty clearly my point, yes. Also good? Fascism.

[redqueen]

88. Hey I'm just askin!

I thought that even with "the worst" stuff tidied up a bit, it still stank like a week old fish in an engine compartment.

But what do I know!

[jackson_dem]

48. And Edwards fought for sunset provisions in the bill that passed 98-1 a month after 9/11

[jackson_dem]

45. Edwards wrote sunset provisions into the Patriot Act which passed 98-1

Obama's swiftboating of Edwards is pathetic. Politics of hope? Yeah right.

Edwards said the truth. Corporations have a legal responsibility to maximize their shareholder's interests. They have to take advantage of any available loopholes. Constitutional scholar Barack Obama knows this. What Edwards attacked was the government for not closing those loopholes.

NCLB was a bipartisan bill that passed by a big margin, was written by Sen. Kennedy, and was viewed as a good bill by most at the time. Edwards does not have a crystal ball.

[TomClash]

10. One question no one seemed to raise is

If you don't store nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain, where do you put it?

In that context opposing nuclear power seems quite sensible.

Actually, both Obama and Edwards had it right. We don't need new nuclear power plants because conservation is, as Barack said, "the low hanging fruit" - it's an easy tool with a significant and immediate impact.

[beachmom]

16. I think Yucca Mountain is a presidential litmus test. Are all the Republicans

opposed as well? Isn't it kind of like ethanol for Iowa? I'm just wondering ...

[TomClash]

101. Probably

I'm not really up on that issue.

[jackson_dem]

51. No one will answer. They will atack Edwards for it but not list an alternative site

Just "hope" the waste goes away.

[redqueen]

57. "Hopefully" they find a new way to deal with waste... since 30 new reactors are on the way.

[TomClash]

102. You're right

It makes their indignation dubious.

[NJSecularist]

12. It's why he doesn't have a chance of being nominated

People look past his pie in the sky rheotoric and actually look at his Senate record which contradicts all his talking points.

[redqueen]

20. That's an interesting take, considering he's trending upward nationally.

[NJSecularist]

24. When you start out that low nationally

All you can do is go up, especially when all of the other fringe candidates have left the race.

He isn't going to win North Carolina, he didn't win Iowa, the state that he spent the last 3 years in, the state he put all of his resources in, to have a chance at the nomination.... where is he going to win, exactly?

[Tellurian]

43. "But this is MY whole LIFE"...

"the people need to hear the TRUTH"... "I come from working class Mill Workers"... "I'm the first one in my family that's gone to college"... "I want to secure the future for my children, my grandchildren and their children"... "This is something "personal" for me. Something I take very "personally" and something I intend to do for our families, your family and mine because I take this seriously and "personally"...

So, John, we're all from Missouri. Tell us about the 6 yrs you were in the Senate and your accomplishments. Oh, don't tell us "you're sorry" for your vote. Just tell us "why" you voted the way you did on critical issues. And without blinking an eye, threw the American People under the bus before you ran for the Vice Presidency?

[redqueen]

47. It's all right here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4087454&mesg_id=4087706

[jackson_dem]

53. The truth about his Senate record

Note that no one has went into this thread and defended the swiftboating of Edwards' record, which is done primarily by Obamites. Anyone really interested in his record what have read it. If they still honestly believed the Big Lie about his record they would have stated so in the thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

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.

[redqueen]

22. So which candidate are you now supporting?

I'm just wondering if your standards change depending which candidate is being discussed...

[jillan]

26. I'm not - I am completely undecided - and I have questions about all of the candidates.

[redqueen]

28. Good luck picking one.

[NJSecularist]

27. I have not chosen a candidate

I live in New Jersey. I get to vote on Super Tuesday. You'll know by then. It will either be Hillary or Obama. I like them both, and I'm split 50/50 about who I will choose. Both of them have a lot to offer, and have actions to back up their rheotoric. Unlike Edwards.

[redqueen]

31. Wasn't asking you, but ok.

:hi:

[dugggy]

25. What is wrong with Edwards? Nuclear power is the best solution

for the next 50 years before we can perfect wind & solar.
Nuclear has may advantages, the biggest being ZERO CARBON EMISSIONS!
It is not 100% safe but it is safer than coal and oil. Thousands of
coal miners have died. More have developed lung problems.

Oil refinery accidents happen every year. Oil comes from countries
hostile to us.

Nuclear accidents in US has killed less people than any one serial killer.
France & Japan get majority of their electric power from nuclear.

Edwards is wrong on nuclear energy.

[redqueen]

33. "Nuclear Costs Explode"

http://www2.tbo.com/content/2008/jan/15/bz-nuclear-costs-explode/

"Moody's is closer to the reality we're seeing," said Michael Mariotte, executive director of the Nuclear Information and Resource Service, a nonprofit group opposed to nuclear power. "Even before they start building, the costs are going up. Meanwhile, the cost for solar, wind and energy efficiency are on a downward trend."

[dugggy]

63. Costs are going up mainly for one reason--->

OVER REGULATION!

Like I said coal & oil have killed 10,000 times more people in US than
all the people killed by nuclear if you exclude Soviet Union.

We don't need over-regulating nuclear power plants. Nothing in life is
100% safe. Even space crafts occasionally explode. Airplanes occasionally
fall out of the sky. Nuclear is safer than anything I can think of. Just
not 100% safe and nothing is.

[redqueen]

66. Disagree.

The explanation is in the article, actually... and it's nothing to do with regulations.

Over-regulating... wow... a Dem arguing that regulations are hurting the nuclear power industry.

I never thought I'd see the day! :crazy:

[dugggy]

107. I worked at the Lab where first nuclear reaction in the world

was activated and sustained, Argonne Labs at U of Chicago. Argonne is
still the leader in nuclear power research.

I can assure you, based on what I know, nuclear power is over-regulated
COMPARED to coal power and gas power and oil power plants.

We had an active reactor at the Lab and others which were decommissioned.
Believe me, our reactor would not cost a lot to replicate. Because it was
designed and constructed BEFORE the age of over-regulation. And it is still
running safely after many decades.

The reason new nuclear power plants cost more today is because they are
required to build redundant safety features.

As for the cost of concrete and steel, that affects not just nuclear plants,
but almost every type of construction. That is just inflation due to demand
from China which is building one coal power plant EVERY WEEK.

[Milo_Bloom]

34. Why do you think his campaign never caught on?

It wasn't the message it was the messenger.

[redqueen]

37. Never caught on?

I can't stand how after two primaries people are declaring things over and done with...

[Milo_Bloom]

49. Yes, never caught on.

Edwards has been campaigning pretty much non-stop for 6 years and despite that AND having extremely high name recognition after previously being on the ticket...


He has found the LEAST number of donors by more than 1/2 and even has less donators to his campaign than McCain.
His fundraising was so pathetic, he was forced to opt for public financing.
He has never placed higher than a distant third in any national poll.


When you look at 2004, you find that when people liked the message AND the messenger (Howard Dean) he was able to rise to the top of the polls and attract the largest number of donators WITHOUT media attention.

Edwards, despite much higher name recognition, has been unable to accomplish this and thus, his campaign has never caught on.

[redqueen]

52. Sorry, but it's still early...

no matter how you spin it.

[Milo_Bloom]

59. The phrase still fits... His campaign never caught on...

If it does somehow catch on in the future, which I would safely bet 1,000,000 it won't, the phrase would still be valid for the day I stated it.

[redqueen]

62. Never caught on = past tense. The primares have only just started.

Nice try though!

[Milo_Bloom]

65. Yes, exactly... it never caught on.

From the day he started campaigning until today, his campaign never caught on.

[redqueen]

68. His campaign isn't over...

:rofl:

The correct way to say it would be "hasn't caught on yet".

But hey... go with what works for you. :hi:

[Milo_Bloom]

71. It's still never caught on.

And won't catch on in the future.

[redqueen]

74. Ah, another prognosticator!

Got the lotto numbers handy?

[Milo_Bloom]

76. Yes, I do.

I can tell you all the lotto numbers in ever state for 2007 and up to January 15 2008

[NJSecularist]

50. I asked this in another thread

People are saying that Edwards is done because he pinned his entire campaign on winning Iowa. He didn't. So I ask you, which state is he going to win in the near future? Will he win any state?

[redqueen]

55. I'm not a wanna-be prognosticator. I leave that horse manure to others.

:)

[NJSecularist]

61. Fair enough

It's good to have optimism about your candidate, but you also need to be realisitic. Edwards' support in places other than North Carolina and Iowa is dismal. You don't have to be a prognosticator to see his chances at the nomination are small at best. It's just not realistic to expect him to win states where he doesn't have a comparable ground game or comparable finances to Obama and Clinton.

[redqueen]

64. You do know you're just saying the same crap

that others have been for weeks now, right?

And yet still... trending upward. :)

[Milo_Bloom]

67. Actually, he is in the same distant 3rd he has been forever.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/daily_presidential_tracking_polling_history

[redqueen]

70. Trends, they're what's happenin!

:hi:

[Milo_Bloom]

73. Yes, he is trending down right now.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national-primary.html

[redqueen]

79. Depending on which polls you look at, maybe.

:D

[Milo_Bloom]

89. All Polls he is trending down after a brief bump.

[NJSecularist]

69. Prove to me

That he is trending upward. Which states is he trending upwards? Where?

[redqueen]

72. Enjoy!

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/daily_presidential_tracking_polling_history

[Milo_Bloom]

75. You do realize that shows no upward trend, right?

[redqueen]

78. Past four days' numbers?

Uh... okay!

[Milo_Bloom]

90. Yes.

In any tracking poll like this you look at the trends.


http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/daily_presidential_tracking_polling_history


During this brief period he was trending up

Between 1/3 and 1/9 he had a small trend upwards, but that reversed on 1/10 and his trend is now downward.

For him to actually be "trending up" he would have to get a number HIGHER than 23%, which is the highest number he ever hit.

Outside of his small dead cat bounce, he stays in the same range of 12-17%.

[redqueen]

92. So... which of these numbers is wrong?

Clinton Obama Edwards
37% 29% 16% 01/16/08

37% 30% 15% 01/15/08

38% 34% 13% 01/14/08

40% 36% 12% 01/13/08

[Milo_Bloom]

95. None of them....

But to get a "trend" you have to look at those 4 days as compared to the 4 days before them (3-4 days is the generally accepted level of polling to get a "result")

The 4 days prior were

14
14
15
19

His average support during the 4 days you mentioned is 14%

His average support during the 4 previous days was 15.5%

His average support during the 4 previous days was 20.5%


No matter how you slice it, that is a downward trend.

[redqueen]

96. Okay fine, I'm tired of arguing with you. Your definition of "Trend" is the only valid one.

You are right. He's over. His campaign is done. There's no reason for anyone to support him, none at all.

Happy now?

Have a good one.

[Milo_Bloom]

100. It is the definition of trend. This is why I called what you are doing, SPINNING.

Because you are using data that isn't meant to be used the way you are trying to use it.

[NJSecularist]

85. Depends on how we define an upward trend

He has been on a quick slippery slope downhill ever since his second place in Iowa

[redqueen]

86. I define it as however I have to to drum up support for my candidate.

Hehehe... sorry, but at least I'm honest!

I really do think he's the best candidate, and won't stop with the optimism till I absolutely must. :)

[Milo_Bloom]

93. But spinning things doesn't help your candidate.

Taking things and twisting them to try and make it into a positive, when it isn't, isn't drumming up support, it is spin and it drives people away.

The problem with Edwards is that rather than admiting who he was in the past and who he is now, he tries to spin it.

He claims he isn't taking money from corporations, but it doesn't take long to look up that info and find it false

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00002283&cycle=2008

Fortress Investment Group $187,850
Goldman Sachs $77,100
Citigroup Inc $49,200


In fact, he has taken MORE from corporate interests now than he did in 2004

http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/contrib.asp?ID=N00002283&Cycle=2004

[redqueen]

94. I'm not spinning anything.

I was talking about poll numbers, and as you see from the past four days' numbers which I have posted, he's trending upward.

And your characterization is completely wrong. He doesn't spin, he states plainly why his past actions were wrong, WHEN they were (which wasn't nearly as often as his detractors like to pretend it was)... which is something that other candidates won't do.

I'd like to see Clinton admit she was wrong about the IWR.

I'd like to see Obama admit he was wrong about... well, a whole lot of things.

[Milo_Bloom]

98. These are TRACKING POLLS... not used on a per day basis.

They look at these polls in 4 day blocks. Taking 4 days of data and trying to determine a "trend" from it is not valid. They use the 4 days of data to determine a placement, based on the average over 4 days.

[lyonn]

106. That is a good site, it shows Hillary received $301,350

from Goldman Sachs. She and Obama's contributions from big business makes Edwards' total contributions of 30 million look pitiful. Money talks - along with our reliable media coverage (sarcasm).

[Two Americas]

112. why?

Why do we need to be realistic? We aren't betting on a sports team.

I think I will be idealistic, thank you. "You need to be realistic" means two things - be discouraged; and accepot the relentless drift to the right as inevitable. I have been hearing "be realistic for 40 years, and I think we can now with great confidence say exactly where that has taken us. Under the guise of "be realistic" - supposedly about about the way things are - it is really an attempt to enforce a reality for the future. The calls for "being realistic" always start long before we have any idea as to what is realistic and what is not.

Here is what is realistic - rebuilding the FDR Democratic party coalition around traditional Democratic principles and ideals - if "realistic" means electoral success, and if "realistic" means success for the social justice causes we believe in. That is something we have to fight for, and if we tell everyone who fights for those that they are being "unrealistic" we lose both our idealism and our practicality. It is a trap. It is time to break out of that trap the right wingers set for us, and to have the courage to fight for what we believe in and make a new reality instead of merely reacting to the reality the right wingers have created for us.

The Republicans don't care about "reality." They make their own reality, and it is time we did that as well.

Fight for what is right even if it seems "unrealistic." That is the path to moral integrity and clarity, and it is also the path to practical success.

[jackson_dem]

35. Building new nuke plants and where to dispose of nuke waste are two separate issues

[jillan]

44. That's just it - that's the problem with nuclear power.

How do you dispose of it?

[redqueen]

80. You hope someone comes up with a solution...

and in the meantime, build more reactors.

[Ian David]

40. There is only ONE long-term solution to the storage of radioactive waste from fission reactors.

That solution is to build nuclear FUSION reactors.

You can take the waste from the FISSION reactors and feed it into the FUSION reactors, reducing it to simple plasma.

Eventually, someday, we will probably be able to use fusion reactors to produce more energy than it takes to run them.

But in the meantime, fusion reactors are the most efficient trash-incinerators within 93 million miles of Earth.

And they produce ALMOST no radioactive waste.

The only radioactive waste fusion reactors produce is when the shielding around them becomes too old and brittle to function, and must eventually be destroyed. And guess what? THAT can be put right into the reactor, too!

[whatchamacallit]

54. I got excited for a second, figured he must be surging in the polls to deserve this

But alas, it appears it's just as much fun to kick 'em when they're down.

[jillan]

56. I'm just asking a question - trying to pick a candidate - just looking for answers.

[redqueen]

58. That was a very loaded question.

The way you "asked" it... very odd.

"I am beginning to wonder if there is anything he hasn't changed his mind about.

And what does he really feel? What does he really believe in? I honestly don't know because he
changes his mind all of the time.

The IWR
Yucca mountain
bankruptcy laws
offshore investments
sub-prime mortgages

I could go on, but it's making me really dizzy just trying to keep up with where he stands today."


Can you direct me to any of your threads asking for information about the other top tier candidates which are equally derisive of their records / positions?

[whatchamacallit]

81. Nothing wrong with that

Most Edwards supporters know he's not perfect. He's human and will make mistakes, and hopefully, change his position when he realizes he's made one. The details of his record are important and there may be legitimate questions there, but the totality of his work points to a philosophy of fairness and empowerment. I think this guy really does have our collective-best-interest at heart.

[OzarkDem]

60. Did you watch the debate last night?

If you did, you would have heard Edwards explain that the first two votes on Yucca Mtn. were based on Dept of Energy & Sandia Labs studies that falsely or wrongly reported that the design would be safe. The scientists left out or fudged a lot of details.

Later the reports have been corrected, somewhat, but based on the new studies, Edwards is opposed to it.

Here's a reality check for all of you with regard to any Dems votes in Congress during the Bush years - Dems have been lied to and kept in the dark on quite a few things. Its not all their fault.

http://www.npr.org/programs/atc/features/2002/july/yucca/

[jillan]

77. Biden, Dodd, Clinton all voted NO on Yucca mountain.

Edwards was the only Dem candidate that voted for it.

Obama was still living at home at the time, so we don't know how he would have voted.

[jackson_dem]

83. Where do you propose we store the waste? We can't just "hope" it will go away

Where do Biden, Dodd, and Clinton propose we send it?

[jillan]

91. All I can do is answer for Biden - and he is against nuclear power - all of it

for that very reason.

[jackson_dem]

97. Biden supports shutting down every nuke plant?

[Two Americas]

105. I don't believe you

Sorry.

Politicians changing their minds is a good thing. Any of the Democrats could be similarly torn down the way you are tearing down Edwards. Where does that get us?

You are not being honest. You are trying to smear a Democratic party candidate by insinuation and implication, and pretending to be innocently "dizzy" or something.

Why not promote the message of your candidate - I support that 100% and will not tear your candidate down - rather than using character assassination against fellow Democrats? That way we all win. With your approach, we all lose.

[jackson_dem]

110. No one has named an alternative site for the waste

We can't just "hope" it disappears. It has to be disposed of somewhere.

[CyberPieHole]

108. WOW!!! An anti~Edwards thread? He do something to merit some news~time?

He does seem like a major flip~flopper, but he would still be a hell of a lot better President than Obama. Any day of the week.

[Bluebear]

109. Uh, Yucca Mountain is not a nuclear power plant.

[struggle4progress]

111. His constituents lobbied Sen. Edwards to change his position on Yucca Mountain & won! Good on em all

[slipslidingaway]

114. The Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Dump Vote in Congress

is Imminent!!!

Questions about scientific studies prior to the vote

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

"BACKGROUND

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


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

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