I don't like Edwards. Help me!

[TheDonkey]

I have a major concern... it's Edwards.

I saw his speak once and he just did not wow me, just sort of seemed like a normal politician. His voting record is actually quite conservative (that I know of) and doesn't seem to have much liberal credentials.

Am I wrong (I hope). It seems that Edwards is definetly a figure to watch out for so does anyone know more about him... really.

I don't care that his voice will get him votes in the south or that he was once poor, I care about policy.

What will President Edwards do that's progressive?

Thanks!

[JI7]

1. can you be more specific

what issues are you concerned about ?

[KittyWampus]

2. He Will Not Cut The Pentagon Budget

because "he believes in a STRONG America"

[GreenArrow]

3. and what's more

he "won't take a back seat in that area to George W. Bush."

[AP]

27. And, as Clark says, Dems give mil budget to soldiers. Repubs give it to ..

... weapons programs.

Edwards doesn't give it to weapons programs and pork for private companies--thus hsi no vote on the 87 bil Iraq thing which Dean supported.

[TheDonkey]

4. Let me clarify

Affirmative Action

Enviroment

Renewable Energy

Welfare Reform

Thanks if you have anymore info on it. It seems to me that when Edwards talks... he doesn't really anser any of these questions.

[jjmalonejr]

6. Check out his website if you want to learn more about him.

www.johnedwards2004.com

[TheDonkey]

9. His website is down. (nt)

[goodhue]

15. works now

http://www.johnedwards2004.com/home.asp

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

7. he doesn't answer any questions

because he's an empty suit for the dlc

[KoKo]

11. That's true. I know ........I'm NC. He doesn't answer questions and he

didn't take care of his supporters. At least not the "little ones" if you get my drift. He's a total schmoozer. Sort of empty. Threw people out of his office who wanted to talk to him about Iraq War. Didn't answer his letters except with a standard form letter. Never addressed any issue that he was asked about from this supporter in my many letters and faxes. Once he got into the Senate he started running for President and didn't stop.

No, I don't think highly of him. He also missed crucial votes where he was needed because he was off campaigning. He wasn't very popular with many of those who supported him, in NC by the end of last year. :-(

On Edit: Way back over a year ago I posted a couple of his form letters here on DU.

[AP]

30. I always ask, you never answer:

which issues did he fail you on?

You know what he did to the protesters? He had the squatters removed and agreed to meet with the leader of the group, which he did.

He never missed ANY crucial votes. He hasn't missed a vote where his vote would have made a difference.

Polls have him doing really well in NC now. Isn't like 93% who approve of his run?

[Sparky McGruff]

33. That's not my experience...

I've written him twice; once was with a fairly boiler plate "please vote against the medicare bill", and I did get a pretty standard boiler-plate reply ("your opinion is noted"). I'm not surprised to recieve a boiler-plate response to a boiler plate letter.

However, I wrote him a second time with a very non-standard issue (suggesting that congress push for next generation emergency services to be included in any release of new radio spectrum -- basically replace the 1950's issue "emergency broadcast system" with something remotely modern). I received a very well thought out, and thorough response. Quite frankly, I was amazed that I got such a detailed and thorough reply.

Although I support Edwards, I didn't agree with his vote on the Iraq Resolution. I went to DC to protest, and tried to have my voice heard. But, I don't know if we can lay all the blame on our congresspeople for that vote for at least one reason: The decision they made was, to a great extent, influenced by the BALD FACED LIES that were put forward by the executive branch. I also remember feeling at the time that the nature of the Iraq resolution was misrepresented -- at least in the media, the bushies were saying that the resolution was not the end of international diplomacy, or even the final go-ahead for war. Of course, that's what it ended up being, but that's another story. Perhaps congress should have been more skeptical of Bush, but then again, they aren't normally lied to by the president in such a blatant way.

[dad]

38. !

He's not too popular with this former supporter for many of those same reasons. Nice post! And F all those politicians who voted for the war/patriot act combo.

[AP]

40. For what reasons???? People say he's a bad pen-pal, but never explain the

issues over which they've disagreed.

[HFishbine]

45. As a fellow Tar Heel (North Carolinian)

I concure.

[AP]

48. Why can't anyone state an actual ISSUE or POLICY? Not being good pen-pal

is not a legitimate reason to vote for a Dem less likely to beat Bush.

[sleipnir]

17. I hear you loud and clear

He's nothing more than a plant by the DLC to get back in power. I don't trust him one bit and it's a sad day today, but hopefully the rest of the country won't be hookwinked.

He's on my "Don't vote for list", which is shrinking every day as candidates on the list continue to drop out.

[Ficus]

61. John is not

DLC. Get your facts straight.

[dusty64]

14. Environmental scorecards.

Edwards:
107th Congress (2001-2002) 68%
107th, 2nd Session (2002) 59%
107th, 1st Session (2001) 88%
106th Congress (1999-2000) 88%
105th Congress (1997-1998) 0


Kerry:
107th Congress (2001-2002) 92%
107th, 2nd Session (2002) 94%
107th, 1st Session (2001) 88%
106th Congress (1999-2000) 94%
105th Congress (1997-1998) 100

Gephardt:
107th Congress (2001-2002) 91%
107th, 2nd Session (2002) 88%
107th, 1st Session (2001) 93%
106th Congress (1999-2000) 93%
105th Congress (1997-1998) 83%

Kucinich:
107th Congress (2001-2002) 95%
107th, 2nd Session (2002) 100%
107th, 1st Session (2001) 93%
106th Congress (1999-2000) 90%
105th Congress (1997-1998) 86%

Lieberman:107th Congress (2001-2002) 88%
107th, 2nd Session (2002) 82%
107th, 1st Session (2001) 100%
106th Congress (1999-2000) 94%
105th Congress (1997-1998) 100%


http://www.lcv.org/scorecard/scorecardmain.cfm

[jjmalonejr]

5. Edwards voting record is NOT conservative!!!!

Congressional Quarterly recently reported stats that showed that John Edwards voted against the Bush agenda more than any other Senator.

Does that sound conservative to you?

[KoKo]

12. Raleigh News and Observer said he voted with Bush most of the time.

I don't have the link to the article but it was like 65%. N&O isn't a liberal paper....although Jesse Helms thought it was.

[bearfartinthewoods]

23. gee tthat's odd since the congressional quarterly says the

exact opposite. he voted against bush more than any other senator.

and...he has a 97 percent rating from both the AFL-CIO AND NAACP.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

49. 97 percent rating from both the AFL-CIO AND NAACP?

That get Edwards about 97% of my support then.

[NewJerseyDem]

36. He actually voted against Bush most of the time

He opposed Bush the most of any democratic senator.

http://desmoinesregister.com/opinion/stories/c5917686/23227122.html

The result overall in Congress in 2003 was one of the most partisan years ever, according to a roundup by Congressional Quarterly. Congress was more polarized than it has been in the five decades of its vote studies, CQ said.

Leading the way were Iowans. Harkin, for example, ranked fourth in the Senate when it came to party unity among Democrats, with a score of almost 98 percent.

He also ranked ninth in votes in opposition to President Bush, disagreeing with the president 54 percent of the time. Sen. John Edwards, a candidate for president, held first place in Bush opposition in 2003.

As for Iowa Sen. Charles Grassley, a Republican, he ranked No. 2 in the Senate when it came to presidential support, agreeing with the White House 99 percent of the time.

[DaisyUCSB]

8. His platform is very populist

And he has more ideas in sheer quantity and seemingly more new and innovative ideas than most candidates

[cryofan]

41. tell me how his platform is so populist? -eom

[kevinam]

10. This might help.

Here is a link:

http://www.issues2000.org/2004/John_Edwards_War_+_Peace.htm

At the end of the page, it lists Edwards' view on various topics. It is done in a manner that you can find out fairly quickly where he stands. It also has a listing for other candidates.


In a secondary post, you had some specific issues you were curious. Here is a brief run down, and you can go to the link for more specifics.

Affirmative Action: "Needed 40 years ago, and still needed today." South Carolina should remove confederate flag.

Enviroment: Best I can do: "Voted NO on more funding for forest roads and fish habitat.
The Bryan Amdt (D-NV) offered an amendment to raise funding levels for Forest Service road maintenance and wildlife and fisheries habitat management programs. Senator Craig (R-ID) motioned to table this amendment. .
Status: Table Motion Agreed to Y)54; N)43; NV)3 "

Renewable Energy: NO to ANWAR drilling. "Voted YES on keeping CAFE fuel efficiency standards." "Voted YES on defunding renewable and solar energy."

Welfare Reform: "Increase the Earned Income Tax Credit." "Q: What is your urban agenda?
EDWARDS: I have a plan called Cities Rising. The idea is to bring jobs to urban America. Let's create incentives for new businesses, incentives for existing businesses. Second, to do something about public school systems. First, pay teachers better. Second, give bonus pay to teachers who will teach in schools in less-advantaged areas. And create wealth for things like homeownership."

Hope this was helpful. Took a few minutes to compile. Again, you can check his record on other issues using that link...Kevin.

[TheDonkey]

13. Thanks so much! DU is great! (nt)

[markus]

20. We don't need more tax breaks for business

We need a program to create jobs.

We need real economic populism. My beef with Edwards is he talks big in a Man from Hope sort of way, but his platform is standard boilerplate DLC centrism.

I tend to like trial lawyers and think they make wonderful candidates, but that has as much to do with their star quality and access to money. In an insider sort of way, they're about perfect.

I'll grant him he voted against he $87 Billion.

But anybody who would sign-off on the Patriot Act after being one fo the few Democrats to be allowed to read it, and thought tht AshKKKroft et al would not abuse it, is not fully in touch with reality.

[spooky3]

22. can you back this up?

specifically, what tax breaks for business does he propose, other than to encourage those who do NOT move jobs offshore?

which Democrats did NOT vote for the Patriot Act?

Does Edwards now have specific proposals on how the Patriot Act should be amended?

why does Dennis Kucinich feel he has so much in common with Edwards?

[AP]

32. DLC does not like Edwards. He ran in 98 as anti-Nafta candidate.

dan schorr on NPR said DLC doesn't like him very much.

EVERYONE except Feingold signed off on PA, right? And what makes you think they didn't know what was in it?

[question everything]

16. I did not like Clinton, either

Remember, he "suspended" his N.H campaign to go back home to send a man with a limited mental capacity to be executed.

But... that was the only way that we had control of the White House for eight years. That was the only way to get from the Reagan-Bush deficit to a surplus (that baby Bush has been wasted)

What is important is to have a candidate who can win the 10 percent who are neither Democrats nor Republicans. Who will not scare voters away with his anger, like Dean, even though such an anger resonantes with us.

A few hours ago I called a friend in Des Moines. Who are you going to choose, I asked? Kerry, she replied. Oh, vote for Edwards, I said. I may do so, she replied, but definitely not Dean.

She then added that last year, when Edwards first announced his candidacy, her son was at Harvard and he said that many there were excited about him, ready to work for him.

So, go to Edwards page - there is a link from the homw page here - and start reading his positions. You will be impressed. Also read the endorsement by the Des Moines Register.

[jbm]

18. I don't know if this counts as 'policy'

but I have heard him say several times that he plans to introduce regulations that will restrict some of the ridiculous interest rates and late charges that the 'loan shark' type credit card companies and payday loans places utilize to prey on the poor. I don't know all the details,but if I understood correctly there used to be usery laws that kept businesses from unfairly profiting and those laws have been weakened or removed. He would replace those rules,and I think that's all good.

[spooky3]

19. take this test

to get one perspective on how closely your views match those of Edwards and the other candidates.

2004 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE SELECTOR:
http://www.SelectSmart.com/president

[dusty64]

24. Great, now

I'm really confused. Who the hell is my ideal theoretical candidate, they will definitely get my vote.


1. Your ideal theoretical candidate. (100%) Click here for info
2. Sharpton, Reverend Al - Democrat (76%) Click here for info
3. Kucinich, Rep. Dennis, OH - Democrat (74%) Click here for info
4. Dean, Gov. Howard, VT - Democrat (68%) Click here for info
5. Edwards, Senator John, NC - Democrat (68%) Click here for info
6. Clark, Retired General Wesley K., AR - Democrat (65%) Click here for info
7. Kerry, Senator John, MA - Democrat (64%) Click here for info
8. Gephardt, Rep. Dick, MO - Democrat (63%) Click here for info
9. Lieberman, Senator Joe, CT - Democrat (50%) Click here for info
10. Libertarian Candidate (32%) Click here for info
11. Phillips, Howard - Constitution (17%) Click here for info
12. Bush, President George W. - Republican (16%)

[spooky3]

25. I think the site is just telling you that no one matched perfectly

It's a frame of reference so that you'll know how to interpret the 76%. For example, some people might get a 90% for their #2 candidate, suggesting that there is a high degree of agreement with a real candidate's positions. It's basically saying Sharpton and Kucinich match you most closely, and Dean/Edwards/Clark/Kerry/Gep are not far behind, but none of them will completely agree with you.

[dusty64]

29. Thanks, so

I guess there isn't a great deal of difference between the candidates to me, but unfortunately there are.

[MoonRiver]

21. He's one million times one million better than *, and he's my 3rd choice

Let US get some perspective here.

[Touchdown]

26. He's just too schmaltzy for me.

He's got endless stories about growing up poor, and how his family was good, salt of the Earth people, yada, yada.:eyes:

That might seem like good campaigning in the south, but out here in the west, that kind of down home, Old Yeller narrative is so cloying.

[AP]

31. Those are important stories for American to hear, especially today.

[Touchdown]

42. Southerners might think so. But the rest of us?

[AP]

43. Anywhere any American feels like he/she's on the downside of opportunity

they're going to respond to those stories.

It's not just in the south where people are hurting.

This is what Bush is doing in America. He's stealing people's opportunities so he can be rich. The want to see someone whose life story is about winning against the odds.

[Touchdown]

53. No, they're not...at least not me.

I want solutions, not bonfire stories. Everytime I hear him speak, I picture the Duke boys fleeing the Sherrif in their Dodge, with Edwards narrating about that lazy dog Flash.

Yes, people are hurting, Bush* is destroying lives by the day, but the last thing I need to hear is a syrupy fable about sharecroppers and textile mills. I am not a Southerner, and really don't understand why this type of sugary sentimentality appeals to them, but to me, it's as phony as Jerry Fatwell claiming he "loves" gay people. Those stories are cliche, and groan inducing. Just give me the facts, your plans for improvement and I'll be inspired.

[AP]

56. policy + conviction = change. You need to sit down with Real Solutions.

Edwards has the most extensive policy statement of any candidate. He has given you his SOTU already. http://www.johnedwards2004.com/real-solutions.asp

Dean, I believe I read here, has only seven real policy statements. He won't say what he's going to do about taxes. The ONLY policy statement I really know is his education policy statement, which isn't a solution. It's a plan for more more student debt finaniced by taxpayers. Dean's driving the monkey to the airport with that plan.

[milkyway]

37. "I was born in a log cabin that I built with my own hands"...

It gets tiresome after a while. Schmaltzy is the perfect word about how I feel about Edwards (also syrupy). I think he's the least likely major candidate to beat Bush. He'd get defined as a young, slick-talking trial lawyer that's a naive nice guy whose main concern is helping poor people. Unfortunately, in the Faux News America of 2004, that won't be a winner. A lot of people only care about their own ass, and Rove will convince them that the day after Edward's inauguration, al Queda will be crawling through their backyards.

[AP]

39. Not to the tons of Americans who know where he's coming from and

aren't trying to defend candidates with biographies similar to Bush's.

[oasis]

28. Edwards becoming VP will lock Hillary out of the presidency. A good

selling point for those who hate the Clintons.

[flaminbats]

34. My only response is thank the voters for primaries!

If you don't like Edwards, continue to follow the contest and vote for the candidate most likely to defeat him.

Basically you're not alone...I think most people see Edwards as more show than substance, and I believe that this is why Kerry ultimately did better. Kerry and Edwards had equal organizations, but Kerry had the more attractive message. Edwards is a grand Senator, but not the person promoting the principles of our party...like universal health-care, bringing home the troops to protect our vulnerable nation, repealing the tax-cuts, or making basic democratic reforms such as abolishing the Selectoral College and introducing IRV into our elections. All of these are issues that we must focus on to keep our party competitive..if we duck those issues like the Whigs avoided the slavery question, we too shall ultimately be replaced by a party which does address them.

A candidate who makes winning his central message is nothing more than a vessel for the special interest groups and corporations. Just as Dukakis ran on pragmatism and competence, and Humphrey focused on his record and experience...running on elect-ability is another bogus method to avoid the top issues on voters' minds. Voters see through this, and if such a candidacy doesn't get defeated in the primaries..they shall in the fall. IMHO..if Bill Clinton had made character and elect-ability his central themes in 1992, most of us wouldn't be thinking about him today!

[spooky3]

47. Much of what you say is simply not true.

Please go to his website, and you will see he

--favors universal health care
--voted against the $87B in the hope of forcing an exit plan and multilateral, UN takeover of the transition
--opposes Halliburton et al. profiteering over Iraq contracts as outrageous, and would review all contracts once President
--proposes repeal of tax cuts to the wealthy and imposing the same rate on unearned income (e.g., capital gains) as earned income for people in the same category

etc.

As for your assertion

"A candidate who makes winning his central message is nothing more than a vessel for the special interest groups and corporations."

I do not know to whom you refer, but if it's JE, please explain who these "special interest groups" are. Then, please explain how someone who, on behalf of injured workers and children, spent 20 years fighting corporate interests and medical malpractice can possibly be called a "vessel for corporations."

[flaminbats]

55. You only prove the truth of my arguments.

--favors universal health care...but only for children of course
--voted against the $87B in the hope of forcing an exit plan and multilateral, UN takeover of the transition which would not be an issue had the Democrats united against the IWR to start with!
--opposes Halliburton et al. profiteering over Iraq contracts as outrageous, and would review all contracts once President..as do all the other candidates, not an agenda..but merely a token effort to make this an issue.
--proposes repeal of tax cuts to the wealthy and imposing the same rate on unearned income (e.g., capital gains) as earned income for people in the same category. also proposes another great round of budget busting tax-cuts!

Edwards needs an agenda, without one his convictions and priorities are clearly for sale to the highest bidder. And believe me, I have visited his site many times...searching for anything that might make me vote for him. However, I have found more to interest me on the websites of Clark, Dean, and Kerry.

[AP]

57. The genius of Edwards's health care STRATEGY:

http://www.commonwealthclub.org/archive/03/03-12edwards-audio.html

This link above disproves everything you say.

This qute below is from a post about Hugo Chavez:

Venezuela's Defense Council of the Nation secretary, General Melvin Lopez Hidalgo has stated that the process of change sweeping through Venezuela will continue ... "as many point out with or without President Chavez Frias."

The General says he is referring to the latest political discussions doing the rounds in opposition circles and swears that there can be no return to the past because the People (Pueblo) is not prepared to lose what it has gained in the process that has made citizen participation a fundamental issue, along with co-responsibility in Venezuela's defense and security.

That stuff in bold explains what the hell Edwards is doing with his health care plan. If you start tomorrow and give people insurance to age 25, those people who turn 26 are going to start thinking of affordable health insurance as something that society should be providing people. When there's a critical mass of these people who are gaining political, economic and cultural power under a Democratic administration which is giving them good jobs at high wages too, those people are going to start petitioning their government for the rights they enjoyed until age 25. By that time, Edwards will have taken money out of politics to a degree that will break the health care lobby's hold on the government. Then we will have real UHC. If you listen to the Q&A in my first link, this is what Edwards says he's doing.

It's actually one of the most brilliant things I've heard during this campaign.

[flaminbats]

62. Most workers, Democrat and Republican...think about nothing else!

We don't need any lessons from a Senator about what our fucking needs are..

If Edwards is really for universal health-care he should lay such a plan on the table. Kerry provides health care for kids, Clark does, and so does Dean. Even Lieberman has such a proposal! The difference is that all of the listed candidates provide some specifics for how to make health insurance available to the uninsured parents..many of whom are discriminated against because of pre-existing conditions. 9/11 became an issue when less than 4,000 died, and Edwards responded by backing the creation of a new federal department..and by Backing two very costly wars. But 18,000 annually die in our nation just because of no health insurance. Isn't this issue just as important? What good does health-care for kids have, if their uninsured parents still die?

One would think that banning such corporate practices would have been part of the Health-care Bill of rights. What good do better benefits have, when those who need them the most are unable to buy them due to immoral underwriting practices? I saw Edwards bill as a token attempt to address health care, just as Edwards is making token attempts to be a Democrat!

Dodging such questions isn't about being moderate, it's about being evasive...

[AP]

58. 87 billion:

I know this is obvious, however, let's look at Iowa: voters WANT a pres who will keep them safe. They said that. THAT'S what IWR vote was about. Also, no real Dem voter is going to punish ad DEM for what BUSH did.

No real Dem Voter is going to vote for a candidate who wants to give away their tax money to Halliburton and Bechtel. That's what the 87 bil vote was about.

[flaminbats]

63. Our job is to give them clear examples of how shrub has endangered us.

This will not be done by agreeing with every war resolution that has us policing the world, hence reducing our security at home.

"Also, no real Dem voter is going to punish ad DEM for what BUSH did."

I have a real problem with this statement. Democrats were clearly punished in 2002 for shrub's tax-cuts and his failure during 9/11. If we have learned anything, it must be that these rabid rats are masters of deception.

[DjTj]

35. So I wrote this essay...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/04/01/19_edwards.html

And if you need to know more, it's all right here:

http://www.johnedwards2004.com/issues.asp

[BurtWorm]

44. I read it and still don't get it.

We should vote for Edwards because he's running on the story of his life? If I were going to vote for someone purely on the basis of biography it would be for Sharpton or Kucinich. Their lives are much more compelling to me. But I need something more substantial than that. I need an actual vision to vote for.

[AP]

50. In AZ, Sharpton said Edwards's biography was a GREAT reason to vote for

him.

Burt, we're down to the point where you're going to have to chose from the people who are running. It's too late to get an ideal candidate if you don't think one of these guys is ideal.

So we're in compare and contrast mode.

Who do you like? Who do you think is better than Edwards?

[BurtWorm]

52. Obviously, I think Dean is better than Edwards.

Dean moves me. I see something in his campaign that may be too ahead of its time, despite the fact that when you get right down to it, Dean is a "centrist." I think of this movement that has grown around Dean as the future of the Democratic Party, if it wants to survive as a progressive force. First off, it doesn't suffer Republicanism gladly. We've had enough of that. Second, it is pragmatic, setting goals that are reachable given the state of the budget and the makeup of the Congress, and it keeps advancing after the goals are reached. Third, it doesn't cede an inch of ground to Republicans anywhere.

If Dean's campaign implodes--and I think it is way to early to think it will--I will have to assess who is the candidate most likely to pick up where Dean leaves off. I can think of two candidates I'd rather support than Edwards, if that's the case. Edwards does not move me.

[AP]

59. I think big part of Dean's appeal: people wanted to be with a winner

They thought he was going to win, so that jumped on board so they could say the were with a winner. When it's clear that he isn't a winner, they're going to jump off as quickly. Those dynamics don't make for a movement.

Remember '92: nobody thought Clinton was a winner until they heard him and compared him to and contrasted him with other candidates. Dean started helping people on the bandwagon before anyone did that with the canidates, yet the compare & contrast is the most important part of the campaign, and voters are willing to compare candidates on their merits, bandwagon or no bandwagon.

Like I said, many of the people who picked Dean ONLY because they wanted to be with a winner (which was the justification for many of his endorsements) will be compelled by that same logic to leave him soon, especially if he doesn't win NH.

[adamrsilva]

46. I find Edwards to be totally uninspiring

And I don't like how he gave up his Senate seat. We needed that.

[AP]

51. If it's Senate seats you value. Vote for Edwards (psst, coattails).

[SoCalDem]

54. I have not paid much attention to him, but that thing on his lip

creeps me out.. He needs to see a dr and get that thing off :) Jey.. Maybe Dr. Dean could remove it for him..:)

[AP]

60. so you wouldn't have voted for Lincoln? (psst, lawyer, best wartime pres)