Mr. Edwards as a running mate.

[Maat]

Fellow-DUers: I do not mean to be disrespectful. I am a Dean supporter, but would definitely support Kerrey wholeheartedly if he were selected as the nominee. I do not, however, want John Edwards to be his running mate. The most important issues in the campaign, in my opinion, in addition to the Iraq-quagmire, are constitutional and civil rights' preservation/restoration. You see, I'm about to complete law school. It is clear from our case law, Constitution, Bill of Rights, and pre-Constitution historical documents that our founding fathers did not intend for any but the most narrow exceptions to the requirements for a search warrant, if any. The Courts fashioned very narrow exceptions to the Knock-and-announce Rule, for example. It was pure urination on the Bill of Rights or the spirit of such to expand the warrantless search exceptions needlessly. Also, Mr. Edwards' support of civil rights for gays is very, very weak...he grudgingly stated he supported domestic partnership benefits. The Democratic Candidate must emphatically not support further desecration of our Constitution and Bill of Rights by using the Constitution to deny a fundamental right. I fear if Edwards is the running mate, my choices will be between Bush and Bush-lite, and I will have to explain to my seven-year-old daughter that the U.S. does not fight for the fundamental rights of its people, as it did when I came of age. This paragraph is not meant to be mean-spirited. I think I put this post in the right place...I'm new. Comments/explanations?

[AP]

1. Edwards and Kucinich are the two most progressive, liberal, anti-corporate

candidates running.

If you want to vote against him based on Patriot Act, which every Dem senator voted for except Feingold, and which every candidate agrees includes some important provisions which address changing technology (do you really think that it's a threat to our civil liberties to include VOICE MAIL under the same warrant requirements that apply to an answering machine?), then go ahead.

If you don't understand that Edwards is trying to fram the marriage issue as one where the government gets out of marriage business, but guarantees the rights married people get to all, regardless of gender, I'm sorry.

I fear America will not change for the better if Edwards isn't the president in 2004.

[Maat]

3. Thanks for the reply.

As I said, I didn't mean to be combative. I don't mind mind equating voicemail and answering machine messages, but that is not my reading of the act. One of the key protections in our previous jurisprudence is requiring notification before a search and requiring that there is probable cause that someone committed a crime before a search warrant is issued, by a judge who reads the case that has been made out by the officer. My understanding is that the Act interferes with those basic protections. In some cases, book purchase records are searched without the standard of probable cause being met, without notification. Some searches are conducted with the only review being that of a 'secret court' or there are situations in which a judge signs a warrant without all the facts being presented. Those are very dangerous concepts....being applied constantly....since the 'War on Terror' never ends.

[AP]

12. That's the sort of stuff they wall want out.

That's why Dems, including Edwards, fought for the sunset provision.

[Mass_Liberal]

2. hi

:hi: Welcome to DU!

[Maat]

4. Thanks.

I enjoy the input here so much...I'm thinking of donating financial support to DU. It will take me awhile to figure out how to keep the system administrator happy, however. I accidently put my post in the wrong category at first.

[BurtWorm]

5. I think you're right.

My additional objections to Edwards: He is a Senator, and I'm not crazy about the idea of two Senators running on the same ticket. He and Kerry both voted for IWR. It would be good for ideological balance to get someone on the ticket who did not vote for IWR. I would prefer to see Clark on the ticket, if a Southerner is needed for geographical balance. Clark fits the ideological balance as well, and, like Dean, he has a corps of supporters who would add energy and motivation to the ticket. It doesn't hurt that both he and Kerry actually went to war while neither Bush nor Cheney did.

[Maat]

6. I completely agree.

I would really prefer Clark as a running mate. I love his dynamic! He's very gutsey about expressing how he feels about issues...now. He would please the Southerners....but he is very pro-civil-rights and he has seen much in his life that leads him to value them.

[AP]

13. Do you care much about the creeping fascist corporatocracy?

Just wondering.

[loyalsister]

17. "inbreeding."

Two senators who have been a part of the process and legislation I've been complaining about for the last 4 years doesn't give me much confidence that they will bring anything new to the table.
I want someone from outside to come in and have some influence on this presidency. I want to feel certain that someone is going to offer fresh ideas!! Tax cuts don't do it for me. Kerry's brother spoke for him at an event here. He said if we want "fundamental change," we should vote for Kerry. What the hell is that? We asked and he ducked- probably didn't know. Let's get some new blood on the ticket.
DO NOT want Clark. The idea of two hard core military men running on heroism gives me the creeps. I'm open to Governors he looks at.

[HFishbine]

7. I agree

To your list of reasons, I would add Edward's unequivical support for attacking Iraq. Not acceptable.

[Maat]

8. Exactly.

[Bombtrack]

9. Edwards is the only one to propose an office of civil liberties and civil

rights, while simultaneously taking away spying powers from the FBI, and transferring them to a new agency which is under enormously more oversight from congress.

You've yet to explain why Edwards get's the axe from you because of his vote for the patriot act, which both Dean and Kerry support and would not repeal

[Maat]

10. Edwards didn't just vote for it...under duress...he

sponsored it. That an aggessive, affirmative act showing that he was not bamboozled....he was fully aware of what was in the thing. Am I wrong?

[AP]

14. I don't think he sponsored it. He was on the committee that was ...

...responsible for parts of it. He, along with other Democratic senators, fought to include the sunset provision and took out lots of things Ashcroft wanted.

At DU someone posted the transcript of the debate on the bill and even Feingold (the only person who voted against it, I believe) complemented the Dems on that committee for removing the worst stuff and including the sunset provision.

Feingold proposed four amendments which would have created 50 different interpretations of the bill -- one for each state -- rather than one federal interpretation. All the other Dems voted against that as being unworkable.

That's the kind of debate they were having on this issue in the Senate.

[spooky3]

16. I also did a search and found no evidence that he

co-sponsored it. Maybe you have a link?

Do you have any evidence that the other 98 Senators who voted for it did so under duress?

As AP has said, Edwards has been clear about what is wrong about the bill and what he would do to change it. Maybe it would make sense to review those proposals?

[question everything]

11. No if he wants to run on his own in 2012

Or, heavens forbid, in 2008.

The road to the Presidency does not go through the Vice Presidency. In recent history only one V.P. went directly to become a President - papa Bush. And he lasted only one term. The only other V.P. who eventually got elected was Nixon, after being away from Washington for several years and building himself as his own man.

When you are in the shadow of the President, when you are not supposed to be heard, only to smile and be quiet, you cannot, all of a sudden, present yourself as a leader with own bold ideas and innovation. Further, if the administration has been plagued by a scandal - and every one has one - it will stick to you no matter what.

This is why both Mondale and Gore failed.

In 2012 Edwards will be 58, younger than what Kerry is now. If he does not get the nomination this time, let him build on his national exposure some more. We will embrace him next time around.

[AP]

15. If he gets elected now, he stops the corporate/fascist overthrow of the US

If we wait until 2008 or 2012, we'll be looking to him to bring back democracy which is gone.

His time is so clearly now.

[SangamonTaylor]

18. As a Senator on the Judiciary Committee

John Edwards has been one to adamantly stand up against judicial nominees who fail to uphold our civil rights laws.

I can understand your concerns about the patriot act. JRE had those same concerns, and that is why when they wrote the bill he insisted that it contain a Sunset clause. At the time, 98 Senators believed that the Patriot Act was proper. Hindsight is 20/20. He now understands that there are certain elements of the Patriot Act which must be amended.

However, the Patriot Act is just a statute. It can be revoked at any time. All it takes is a vote by Congress. On the other hand, the Federal Judges that Bush is intent on pushing through are lifetime appointments. Senator Edwards was there, on the front-lines, protecting our civil liberties and preserving the judicial branch from the Bush influence.

[efront]

19. Ahhh, Law School. A time when you

have all the answers :) Seriously though, look at Edwards' record in the Senate taking on potential Bush apointees to the bench. Senator Edwards has a better understanding of the law, Constitution, and the destructive effect extremist jurists pose to our nation, than any other candidate. I think your fears regarding Edwards and civil rights are misguided. Focusing on one issue, gay marriage, is playing directly into the hands of Republicans.