My concerns with John Edwards

[jmaier]

Let me preface my comments by saying that 1) I'd readily vote for Edwards in the GE and 2) I do find him likeable.

He's an intelligent, engaging candidate with loads of Southern charm and affability. He has well thought out positions on economic and health care issues. His "two Americas" message seems to be resonating strongly in both IA and NH and that is a good sign.

My concern is that I can discern no issues on which he has shown a strong sense of leadership: he voted for IWR and the Patriot Act. Yes he voted against the $87b appropriations bill but I find it hard to believe that this vote wasn't heavily influenced by his Presidential run. On GLBT rights he simply has the wrong position. Civil rights is NOT fundamentally an issue to be left to the states.

I'd feel much better about him if he had shown some strong positions in the Senate and if he had some more credibility on foreign policy and national security.

Aside from being smart, charming and Southern, I'm concerned that he isn't a seasoned leader who is able to stand up favorably, with the general electorate, against Bush. Then again, having little to no record might be a good thing. Who knows?

He looks best to me as someone's VP candidate in '04.

on edit: removed co-authored Patriot Act to voted for. :-)

[deminflorida]

1. Your correct...

"Civil rights is NOT fundamentally an issue to be left to the states."

If he loses S.C. it will be because of the African American vote and this very stance....


Don't worry, Somebody will make an issue of it as well, you can count on that...

[DjTj]

7. He NEVER said Civil Rights should be left to the states.

On Gay Marriage:

http://www.votebyissue.org/primary/candidate.asp?cID=22

I support partnership benefits for gays and lesbians in committed relationships. While I personally do not support gay marriage, I recognize that different states will address this in different ways. I will oppose any effort to pass an amendment to the United States Constitution in response to the recent Massachusetts state Supreme Court decision.


I believe in equal rights for all, including the rights of gays and lesbians. Gays and lesbians should have the same freedoms and the same responsibilities as all Americans, and deserve to be treated with the equal respect.

I support legislation to end discrimination in employment against gays and lesbians and to punish hate crimes based on sexual orientation.

I also support partnership benefits for gays and lesbians in committed, long-term relationships.

While I personally do not support gay marriage, different states will address this in different ways, and I oppose an amendment to the United States Constitution in response to the recent Massachusetts state Supreme Court decision.


He says gay marriage should be left up to the states but supports civil rights on a federal level for all Americans.

[tishaLA]

18. Here's what he said in the debate

when he seems not to have known what DoMA says. A couple comments (I still haven't figured out how to make things bold/italic here yet): a lawyer and a legislator who cares about LGBT rights should know what DoMA says (i.e., it doesn't limit states power; it instead undermines the constitution's full faith and credit clause, etc.). He also supports, he says, the belief that "each state should be able to make its own decision about what they embrace" vis-a-vis the recognition of civil unions/marriage. Suffice it to say, this is not an extension of federal protections for LGBT folks. He actually never takes a federal position at all about LGBT rights (even chimpy has said all gays and lesbians deserve to be treated with respect) and instead believes states should hold the cards.

JENNINGS: OK, thank you, sir.

Senator Edwards, President Bush, as you know, is worried. He said it again in the State of the Union address the other night that the Defense of Marriage Act is not strong enough, as he says, to protect the institution of marriage.

You were not in the Senate in 1996 when it passed overwhelmingly.

Senator Kerry was one of only 14 senators who voted against it. I'd like to know from you whether or not you think he was right or wrong, and why?

EDWARDS: I think he was right. I think he was right because what happened with the Defense of Marriage Act is it took away the power of states, like Vermont, to be able to do what they chose to do about civil unions, about these kinds of marriage issues. These are issues that should be left -- Massachusetts, for example, has just made a decision, the supreme court at least has made a decision, that embraces the notion of gay marriage.

I think these are decisions that the states should have the power to make. And the Defense of Marriage Act, as I understand it — you're right, I wasn't there when it was passed — but as I understand it, it would have taken away that power. And I think that's wrong. That power should not be taken away from the states.

JENNINGS: Do you believe that other states, for example, should be obliged to honor and recognize the civil union which Governor Dean signed? Should other states be obliged to recognize what happens in another state?

EDWARDS: I think it's a decision that should be made on a state- by-state basis. I think each state should be able to make its own decision about what they embrace.

Now, if I can take just a minute — since you've asked me a lot of process questions, can I talk about what I believe...

JENNINGS: Let's talk to our moderator.

EDWARDS: ... for just a moment, if you don't mind?

Here's what I believe: I believe it is the responsibility of the President of the United States to move this country forward on this important issue.

And there is so much work to be done to treat gays and lesbians and gay and lesbian couples with the respect that they're entitled to. They deserve, in my judgment, partnership benefits. They deserve to be treater fairly when it comes to adoption and immigration. We should examine -- whoever the President of the United States is; I believe it will be me -- should examine with our military leadership the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy that resulted in a number of linguists who we desperately needed being dismissed from the military.

HUME: Senator?

EDWARDS: There are clearly steps that should be taken by the President, in some cases in conjunction with the Congress... (CROSSTALK)

HUME: I just want to follow up with on the Defense of Marriage Act, which of course is the law of the land.

EDWARDS: Yes.

HUME: Does not the Defense of Marriage Act specifically say that the court rulings in one state, which might, for example, recognize a gay marriage, may not be imposed on anther state? In other words, doesn't the Defense of Marriage go to the very position which you yourself take?

EDWARDS: No, the Defense of Marriage — first of all, I wasn't in the Congress, I don't claim to be an expert on this. But as I understand the Defense of Marriage Act, it would take away the power of some states to choose whether they would recognize or not recognize gay marriages. That's my understanding of it.

http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_showa.html?article=32156

[jmaier]

20. That's helpful, thanks.

I could have sworn during a Q&A that I heard him say that he was against gay civil unions. This is useful information.

[tryanhas]

17. If Edwards loses anything

it will be because of ignorant misinformation like you just agreed with.

I mean, this stuff isn't rocket science.

Edwards DID NOT WRITE THE FREAKING PATRIOT ACT! When will people get that through their thick skulls??? I'm still sick and tired of encountering that rumor online.

HE DIDN'T CO-AUTHOR THE PATRIOT ACT AND HE DIDN'T EVEN CO-SPONSOR IT!!!!!!!!!

As for civil rights. To even bring up a rumor that he is against civil rights just proves that you don't know jacksquat about the guy.

I don't understand how people can see a quote about LEAVING GAY MARRIAGE UP TO THE STATES take out gay marriage and insert "CIVIL UNIONS" and then interpret civil unions as "CIVIL RIGHTS" in the sense of being focused on MINORITIES.

That's just foolishness. How can anyone's interpretation of a quote be that far off? :rolleyes

[tishaLA]

19. If you don't think of civil unions as "civil rights"

for LGBT people, that is instructive.

[AP]

23. Not only does Edwards frame this issue as CIVIL RIGHTS, I believe he's

the only candidate suggesting that same-sex couples should be a protected category, like gender, and race, and nationality, and guaranteed constitutional rights of equal protection under the laws of the country REGARDLESS of whether you call them married, or whatever.

He has said that he thinks that it would be unconstitutional discrimination to deny same-sex couples the rights laws give to married couples. And we're not talking just the "right to get married" -- we're talking about real rights that influence how people materially experience life in America in the workplace and in terms of how you interact with people as mediated by the goverment.

[DjTj]

2. He DID NOT co-author the Patriot Act.

I don't know where everyone keeps getting this from.

[gWbush is Mabus]

3. he co-authored the PA

ouch!

[AP]

12. It is amazing how people keep repeating this like it's a fact. It isn't.

[SadEagle]

4. On the flip side, this means there isn't much to attack him on.

Look at all the threads about Kerry's record, and earlier similar ones about Dean's, and try to think up of anything like that for Edwards. Yes, I know that's quite cynical.

(My personal concern w/Edwards has nothing to do w/GE, BTW --- it's just that he is such a good speaker, I have no clue on whether he really means anything he says, even though he really sounds like he does)

[Darranar]

5. Edwards is standing up for economic justice...

and is willing to take on the corporate establishment.

Edwards would be a great president.

His votes for the IWR and PATRIOT are troubling, though.

[jmaier]

8. His rhetoric here is great

but can you show anything in his record that indicates he's willing to stand up and fight hard for what might not be a majority point of view?

This is what I mean by questions on the strong leadership issue.

[Darranar]

10. The very fact that he uses the rhetoric is evidence that he has courage.

[AP]

14. He's been standing up for the little guy his whole life. That's the point

of that Dec 2002 GQ article.

[beaconess]

21. He's been standing up to Bush on judges even though it's getting him

slammed in North Carolina, for one thing.

[peaches2003]

6. Maybe having no record

is a plus. Look at Bush 4 years ago. No record except driving his businesses to bankruptcy and being governor of a state where the governorship is weak. Granted he had the Bush name, but that was not all a positive. People saw in him what they wanted to see. Edwards certainly exudes an appearance of success and he certainly can string more than 4 words together. Only the Repugs can make Bush's illiteracy into an asset.

[AP]

16. It's not that he has 'no record' -- is that he has a record of making a

real difference in peoples lives.

He's gone from 0 to 200 mph in 50 years, on nothing buy hard work and intelligence, without having any advantages conferred on him.

He didn't get there without having a record. In fact, that might be a record.

[Dark Star]

9. I agree with everything you write.

When I hear "states rights" again, I just want to run screaming!

[DjTj]

11. He has led the Senate in fighting the health insurance industry

He co-authored the Patient's Bill of Rights and got that passed in the Senate. I believe Bush didn't like it and the House couldn't agree so he is now pushing the Patient Protection Act.

More from his Senate site:

http://www.edwards.senate.gov/issues/health.html

[jmaier]

13. thanks

I'll look into the Patients Bill of Rights. I'm not knocking Edwards just looking for some reassurance that he has some stones. :-)

[mmonk]

15. I think your assessment is right

and I'm from NC.

[cthrumatrix]

22. the experience factor is scrutiny that all candidates face ...

We do have a very limited record with JE.