John Edwards "Transformational Change Agenda"

[Infinite Hope]

Dear ----,

Yesterday, I delivered a speech in New Hampshire where I laid out a transformational change agenda to guarantee universal health care, stop global warming, close the education gap, end poverty at home, and make America more secure through an historic effort to reduce poverty across the globe.

Today, I'm turning to you to help make that happen.

If you support this call for transformational change, I need your help to spread the word. I'm asking you to contribute whatever you can to help our campaign bring this message to voters in every corner of this nation and build a movement strong enough to get the job done:

http://johnedwards.com/r/7788/776654/

Everything we do at home ripples around the world. And everything we do around the world affects us here at home. There is no such thing as just foreign policy anymore. In this new world the old incremental approach just doesn't cut it—we need to bold, daring, boundary-pushing change.

We need transformational change because there are still two Americas —one for the powerful and one for everybody else. Millions of middle class families are struggling and 37 million Americans are left in poverty. Yesterday, my call for change began with my plan to end poverty in America and secure the middle class by creating what I call the Working Society.

In the Working Society, we will reward work with a higher minimum wage, stronger labor laws, and tax credits for working families. We will offer affordable housing near good jobs and good schools, and create a million stepping-stone jobs for people who cannot find work on their own. We will help workers save for the future with new work bonds and affordable savings accounts. And we will end the scourge of poverty in America within 30 years.

We need transformational change to address the health care crisis that leaves 47 million Americans without any health insurance, and millions more with spiraling costs and dwindling coverage. So my plan guarantees truly universal health insurance to every American, while making it cheaper and easier for businesses to cover their employees and establishing the basic responsibility of every individual to get the coverage they need.

We need transformational change to address the education crisis that half a century after Brown v. Board of Education still yields an intolerable gap between the races and the rich and the poor. So I proposed a real investment to recruit, train, and support our national teacher corps. And I outlined a plan I call "College for Everyone" that will pay for the first year of college for any student in America who needs it and is willing to work part-time.

We need transformational change to stop global warming and create a new energy economy that helps fuel the growth of a secure middle class in the 21st century. By changing our energy infrastructure and investing in research, development and deployment of alternative energy technologies, we can create more than a million new jobs in America. We must set an example for the world by implementing a cap on carbon emissions and through dramatically increasing our national and individual energy efficiency.

This week, I announced our campaign will take the first step toward reducing our impact on global warming by going carbon neutral.

There's one other subject I talked about yesterday that is very important to me personally—and to the security of America. And that's global poverty.

Tackling global poverty is the right and moral thing to do. And it's also the smart thing to do for our security.

A great portion of a generation is being educated in madrassas run by militant extremists rather than in public schools. And as a result, thousands and thousands of young people who might once have aspired to be educated in America are being taught to hate America.

When you understand that, it suddenly becomes clear: Global poverty is not only a moral issue for the United States—it is a national security issue for the United States. If we solve it, we begin to create a world in which the ideologies of radical terrorism are overwhelmed by the values of education, democracy, and opportunity. Now that's transformational.

So yesterday I outlined my plan to tackle global poverty head on. We will launch a worldwide effort to bring primary education to every corner of the globe. We will invest in preventive health care through clean water and sanitation systems to give poor families a chance at healthy lives. We will provide the tools of local entrepreneurship and active citizenry that are the cornerstones of stable prosperity. And we will create a cabinet level position in the White House to elevate all our national efforts at eradicating poverty worldwide.

These plans may sound very big—and that's because they are. But we are a country built on our commitment to the biggest of ideas. We have never turned our back on progress, no matter how daunting. And we're not about to start.

Transformational change of this magnitude can happen, but it cannot come from one candidate or one president adopting a big vision. It only happens when an entire generation decides they are ready to fully realize their potential for greatness. It happened at our nation's founding. It happened when our parents and grandparents overcame the Great Depression and defeated the fascist-totalitarian juggernaut. And if you are willing to step forward, it can happen today.

http://johnedwards.com/r/7790/776654/

Thank you,

John Edwards
Friday, March 16th, 2006

[TheConstantGardener]

1. This time around he has a global agenda

Let's see how he can back it up (maybe not leaving the senate would've helped!).

[saltpoint]

2. A lost opportunity.

This was a campaign address.

But I didn't hear a thing about any pledge to manipulate the Department of Justice for cheap political ends in Edwards' remarks. The Bush model has worked beautifully, but Edwards doesn't seem interested in replicating it.

I didn't hear ONE SYLLABLE about abandoning Gulf Coast residents generally and New Orleans residents especially in the wake of calamitous hurricanes.

And, pray tell, where oh where is Edwards' commitment to hiring bullies, incompetents, thugs, thieves, theocrats, and assholes to high positions in his Cabinet?

And this guy wants to be PRESIDENT?

_____________
The address is terrific. It hints of a focus George W. Bush is completely incapable of envisioning, let alone realizing.

And it asks for more of us as citizens than any call Bush has ever made to us as a nation.

[zeemike]

3. i love the transformational change

And am glad he is behind it. To me it makes Edwards a good choice
But I hope he will come out with specific programs to make it happen.
Like an Apollo program that will transform transportation and energy.

[Inspired]

4. He is going for BOLD.

The question will be if WE are ready.

Very inspiring.

[bluehighways911]

5. You Had Your Chance

And you bowed to Bush. So sorry, if I don't care what you say now.

Why should anyone trust you. Hundreds of thousands are dead and billions upon billions have been thrown away.

John Edwards was a member of that Senate Select Intelligence Committee, and he voted for the war. Who were the other Democratic senators? They were Senators Bayh, Edwards, DURBIN, Feinstein, LEVIN, MIKULSKI, Rockefeller and WYDEN as well as Tom Daschle, then majority leader, an ex officio member. I have capitalized those who voted against the war resolution and who should be hailed as senators of integrity. But Bayh, Daschle, Edwards, Feinstein and Rockefeller, all of whom with the exception of Feinstein, have presidential ambitions, voted for the war despite the fact that they had good reason to know the administration was Bushies were lying. (And let's not forget the Republicans on the committee: Dewine, Hatch, Inhoffe, Kyle, Lugar, Roberts, Richard Shelby, Fred Thompson and ex officio, Trent Lott.)

There were 19 members of that committee, all of whom had to know that Bush was lying. Only the four in caps above voted against the war. But if 19, out of what is often called a small and intimate club of 100 Senators, knew that the war was based on a lie, can one believe that the rest did not know? And given the bloodletting that was about to be unleashed, why did none of these 19, including Graham, release the "confidential" NIE report? What sort of men and women are these?

Let us carry this one step further. There were 23 Senate votes against the war, only 4 of whom were on the Senate Select Intelligence Committee. If we add to that 23, the five Democrats (Bayh, Daschle, Edwards, Feinstein and Rockefeller), we have 28. It would have taken only 5 more to sustain a veto against the war. Let's see who was available among the pro-war votes. There were Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Max Cleland (Yes, he voted for the war!), Christopher Dodd, Tom Harkin (Yes, he voted for the war!), Ernst Hollings, Harry Reid (now minority leader) and Charles Schumer. (That's 8, bringing the total to 36.) So those Dems cannot say their votes did not matter. They cannot claim we would have gone to war anyway. If they had been willing to filibuster against the war or filibuster to allow the inspectors to complete their work, there would have been no war. These are Dems on whom progressives rely. They betrayed us, and they have blood on their hands since it was in their power to stop the war. But their ambitions came first. (Chuck Hagel who now professes to be anti-war and John McCain who wears his "integrity" on his sleeve would have made two excellent additions among the Republicans.)

Finally it is worth recalling that the Democrats were in the majority in the Senate at the time the war vote was taken on October, 11, 2002. So this is every bit as much a Democratic war as a Republican one.

And that brings us full circle. Why did Graham write his column which, if read carefully, so implicates Edwards and so many others? Actually Graham set out to do the opposite, to excuse his colleagues. He was trying to explain how he could vote against the war while 99 other Dems voted for it. He was trying to excuse them with his insiders knowledge. As he says in the opening to his op-ed:

"In the past week President Bush has twice attacked Democrats for being hypocrites on the Iraq war. 'M]ore than 100 Democrats in the House and Senate, who had access to the same intelligence, voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power,' he said."

"The president's attacks are outrageous. Yes, more than 100 Democrats voted to authorize him to take the nation to war. Most of them, though, like their Republican colleagues, did so in the legitimate belief that the president and his administration were truthful in their statements that Saddam Hussein was a gathering menace -- that if Hussein was not disarmed, the smoking gun would become a mushroom cloud."

Bush is telling a lie, of course, when he says the Dems had "the same intelligence" as he had. But it contains a kernel of truth, which must be scaring the hell out of the Dems as they feel pressure to abandon the war. (Bush and Cheney finally say something with an element of truth!!!) The kernel is that enough Democrats had enough knowledge to know that we were being lied into war in October, 2002. And except for a courageous 21 Senators, along with 2 Republicans, they went along for the ride - with their careers in mind. So in attempting to excuse his colleagues, Graham's op-ed leaves his fellow members of the Select Intelligence Committee hanging out to dry. (It couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of folks. And just perhaps, that very thought occurred to Graham as he penned his piece. ) And he raises suspicions about the rest of the Senate, with the exception of the 23. (And of course how is he to explain the votes of the 23; are they to be labeled traitors to save the reputations of Hillary, Kerry et al? That is a tough sell.)

[venable]

7. the Senate Intel Comittee had the same intel, but didn't know it was cooked.

i think that is a key difference between bush and those who voted for the IWR.

also, even though I was against it, I was never told by Tenet - to my face - that there was a mushroom cloud in the near future. what would I have done had I been told that?

I hope I would have continued to believe Scott Ritter, but who knows?

[loyalsister]

6. I keep wishing I could like him

But he leaves me cold. He comes across as condescending and more self congratulatory than as someone who is advocating for a cause.

[smalll]

8. "Transformational Change Agenda"??? Is that redundant and a half lol

Not just "transformation" or "change" but "transformational change" and of course, as an "agenda." It's not like it's particularly catchy or makes a nice acronym or anything even. :shrug:

[Adelante]

9. You need my avatar

:D

[smalll]

10. lol it's that time of the evening -

Now if Edwards can just get Sheryl Crow to record his campaign theme song - "A Transformational Change Agenda Will Do You Good." Or perhaps David Bowie could do "Tr-tr-transformational Change Agendas."

[1932]

11. Change is not, by definition, transformational.

The US changes the tax code every year and the result is that the rich still get richer and the poor get poorer and the middle class slip closer to poverty.

And I'm not sure the point of this is for it be a catchy acronym. Embrace the idea.

[GreenArrow]

12. embrace the idea?

There's nothing new in the idea. It's a trite list of bromides.

[1932]

13. rather than the slogans...

Why don't we DISCUSS the ideas (rather than the slogans)?