Edwards LIES with EASE to IOWANS!

[Tellurian]

November 13, 2007

Edwards vows to take away congressional health insurance, but presidents can't do that.

Summary

"John Edwards' new ad says that when he's in the Oval Office, he'll tell Congress to act within six months to make sure all Americans have health insurance or "I'm going to use my power as president to take your health care away from you."

First he's going to have to throw out the Constitution, though. No president has the power to strip lawmakers and Cabinet members of their health coverage. Health insurance is a benefit granted to federal employees (including members of Congress) by law, not by executive fiat, as we've said before.

Analysis

Though Edwards is an attorney he could stand a little remedial reading on the separation of powers. His ad, which features him speaking at a campaign event, began running Nov. 13 in Iowa.

NEXT:

Presidential Dreaming

"In this ad, Edwards says that he's going to tell Congress to pass a universal health care measure within six months of his taking office. If it doesn't happen, he says, "I'm going to use my power as president to take your health care away from you ."

Well, that would take some doing. Presidents can't just negate federal laws at will, and it's under law that members of Congress, cabinet members, and other government employees get health insurance. They're all covered through the Federal Employees Health Benefits program, which is a good menu of plans, but not the gold-plated health coverage that some may believe Congress gets. As former Rep. Martin Frost, recently explained, "During the 26 years I served in Congress, I always signed up for one of the Blue Cross plans that had both deductibles and co-pays."

That doesn't sound like much of a threat, does it? Congress would have to pass a law in order to exempt itself, or the president, or the Cabinet, or any other federal employee, from health care coverage. Readers can judge for themselves how far such a bill would get.

It may make a tougher-sounding political ad for Edwards to threaten Congress outright "to take your health care away from you." But it's a threat that is misleading and empty. Edwards, who's a lawyer, should know better.

Edwards made the same threat during a Democratic debate in New Hampshire in September, and we jabbed him for it then. But he's been repeating it on the stump, and indeed this ad appears to have been filmed at a campaign appearance.

All Edwards could do as president is to push Congress to legislate away its own health-care coverage. And in fact, that's as far as he goes when stating his position on his Web site. According to a campaign press release from earlier this fall.

Wasn't it Edwards that in the last debate who called Sen Clinton's "honesty" into question?

Well well well, Edwards, the highly paid silver tongued lawyer seems to be nothing more than an obfuscating bomb thrower who LIES to his IOWA audience with ease!

http://www.factcheck.org/edwards_empty_threat.html

[MannyGoldstein]

1. How's That "I'm Named After Sir Edmund Hillary" Thing Going?

Not to mention "It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.", which was untainted by reading the NIE.

Pot... kettle...

[creeksneakers2]

106. I don't think the falsehoods equate

Edwards used his lie as a falsehood in an ad. Hillary just told a fib when she ran into Sir Edmund Hillary in Nepal. Hillary is not running ads about being named for Sir Edmund Hillary.

[Richardo]

2. Every negative post on this board backfires with me.

They persuade no one. They dissuade no one. I don't care what side it comes from. I'm sick of it.

[no name no slogan]

5. Every time somebody posts a negative post, God kills a beagle

Won't somebody think of the beagles?

[Richardo]

7. SOMEBODY'S got to think of the beagles

:hi:

[no name no slogan]

8. Thank Allah it is you

:rofl:


:hi:

[Tellurian]

78. My neighbor's beagle just had 6 puppies..

They are adorable and cute and in no danger of extinction..

[Viva_La_Revolution]

50. Especially something dredged up from 2 months ago

how lame. :eyes:

[Tellurian]

74. Would you feel more comfortable with something more current?

[Viva_La_Revolution]

81. yea. good luck with that... nt

[Tellurian]

98. A labor group's ad supporting Edwards misleads about plant closings.

Summary

December 19 2007

A new ad sponsored by a labor union PAC in support of Democratic presidential candidate Edwards implies that the closing of an Iowa Maytag factory and the loss of 1,800 jobs are due to "tax breaks to companies that move jobs offshore." And it says Edwards would end such breaks.

We found two problems:

* The jobs didn't move offshore. They were actually sent to Ohio.

* Eliminating the "tax breaks" in question probably wouldn't do much to keep jobs in the U.S.

Analysis

The ad began running in Iowa last week. It is sponsored by Working 4 Working Americans, which is a PAC registered to the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners, a union that has endorsed former Sen. John Edwards for president.

The ad begins by reminding Iowa voters of the recent closing of the Maytag plant in Newton, Iowa, then immediately shifts to denouncing the export of jobs from the U.S.

The first part of the ad talks about the closing of the Maytag plant:

Narrator: The American dream started in towns like Newton, Iowa, with companies like Maytag. This October, Maytag closed its doors forever. Eighteen hundred jobs lost, while our government gives tax breaks to companies that move jobs offshore.

It is true that the Maytag plant in Newton closed in October. In all, the closure resulted in the loss of about 1,800 jobs: Roughly 1,000 from shutting down the factory and another 800 from the closing of Maytag’s corporate headquarters. The closings were the result of a merger of Whirlpool and Maytag. Besides the Newton plant, Whirlpool also closed washer and dryer plants in Herrin, Illinois, and Searcy, Arkansas, (as well as administrative centers in Mexico and Canada).

But what the ad doesn’t mention is Maytag production was actually moved to Ohio. In other words, manufacturing moved from one part of the Midwest to a different part of the Midwest. When we spoke with Working 4 Working Americans, the group offered us no evidence to the contrary (although Whirlpool does have plants in Mexico and other countries), arguing instead that "the Maytag plant in Newton, which operated for generations, is symbolic of many of the issues facing working Americans." Maybe, but the ad strongly implies that workers in Newton lost their paychecks because their jobs were shipped abroad, which is not true.

There is a such thing as "Lying by Omission" and Edwards does this with ease, also. (the what they don't know- won't hurt them tactic)

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/not_working_4_edwards.html

[Viva_La_Revolution]

104. oh, I'm sorry. I was looking for something you could actually tie to Edwards

as opposed to something that someone who supports him did.

Please try again.

[Tellurian]

107. It is much worse than we originally thought for Edwards..

Thursday, December 20, 2007

New Edwards Ad Draws Ire in Iowa

There is an article in my hometown paper back in Iowa, the Quad City Times, about a new ad praising John Edwards by Working 4 Working Americans. This ad fails to show the role that Fortress Investment Group, where Edwards was an adviser, had in closing Maytag’s Newton Iowa plant. Fortress is a stock owner in Whirlpool, the company that acquired Maytag and eventually shut down the company. Interesting quotes that contradict that he cared about Maytag workers and that fact that Edward advised the hedge fund and was heavily invested in it but had no input as an Advisor:

From the Richardson Campaign:

“John Edwards was paid nearly half a million dollars by the same hedge fund at the time the Maytag plant was shuttered, and he had $16 million of his own fortune invested there,” Becker said in a statement. “Can John Edwards be a champion for jobs in Newton, Iowa, when he works for and invests in a hedge fund that helped eliminate those same jobs? If anything, Edwards probably owes those families an explanation.”


And from the Edwards Campaign

“No one has been stronger in standing up for Maytag workers than John Edwards, which is why so many of them are supporting him,” Leistikow said. “As president, he will never sign trade deals like NAFTA that put the profits of corporations ahead of the interests of workers like those who lost their jobs in Newton.”

http://thecontemporaryconservative.blogspot.com/2007/12/new-edwards-ad-draws-ire-in-iowa.html

[Viva_La_Revolution]

111. Well, at least a tiny bit of that applies...

Everything except the direct quote from the campaign can be ignored because, again, it's not directly linked to Edwards.

I prefered not to access your link, so I looked up the statement for myself. The paragraph not quoted before your snip says...

"Dan Leistikow, spokesman for Edwards’ Iowa campaign, said Edwards had no role in the stock purchases, most of which happened after he stopped working for Fortress and make up less than one-tenth of 1 percent of Whirlpool. And he pointed to Edwards’ support of Maytag employees who lost their jobs."

and the 2 paragraphs after...
Max Tipton is an Edwards supporter from Newton and retired United Auto Workers representative who negotiated with Maytag. He said he is surprised by the Richardson campaign’s claims.

“Everybody that has a dollar or two has some stock in some company,” Tipton said. “I do, you know, and so it’s really, I think, asinine for any candidate to suggest that John Edwards in any shape or form had anything to do with the closing of Maytag.”

http://www.qctimes.com/articles/2007/12/20/news/elections/doc476a00a9be43a149314874.txt

[Tellurian]

114. I decided to google looking to see if Edwards refuted the ad anywhere..

I didn't see anywhere Edwards disputed the ad. However, the new info from the Richardson Campaign popped up..

and that is fairly fresh. I guess someone will ask Edwards the question eventually. I would just as soon give him the benefit of the doubt and wait and see..

Happy New Year- Viva_La_Revolution!

[Viva_La_Revolution]

115. ...

[FormerDittoHead]

60. Well, the Edwards and Obama ones do - like this one...

Quite frankly, I find many (though not most) of the Hillary attacks to be VALID...

But this, specifically, has been done to death, and it's REALLY starting to sound DESPERATE...

Did Edwards say that he has the Constitutional power to do this?

No. Like he doesn't fucking know what the President can and can't do.

Has he been asked HOW he plans on doing this yet?

Yes, like a thousand times, 60 fucking minutes, Face the Fucking Nation, Meet the Fucking Press, etc - he'll do it in the same way that Bush is able to get a Democratic congress and Senate to do backflips and jump through flaming hoops for HIM - with his popularity in the TWENTIES....

For Pete's sake - this post is really SAD...

Doesn't Hillary have anything POSITIVE to say about herself?

[Richardo]

61. I exempt no one.

It's all tiresome, petty and reflects poorly on Democrats.

[yardwork]

72. I agree. The pettiness should be beneath Democrats.

[creeksneakers2]

110. Edwards lied more and dug himself in deeper

When confronted, Edwards made the amusing claim that he'd travel to congressional districts all over the US and shame congressmen into voting out their own health care. Besides being silly, Edwards explanation still doesn't cover how he'd overcome the 27th amendment.

Even worse, when Edwards was re-confronted by Hillary, rather than admitting he lied, Edwards tried to fool everybody with finger pointing at Hillary. He made the outrageous claim that Hillary was trying to protect the health care benefits of congressmen. In fact, she was pointing out an example of Edwards' dishonesty!

If Hillary was caught in a big bogus boast like Edwards made coverage would go wall to wall. If she dug herself in deeper like Edwards did, she would have been ruined. Edwards got some attention to his first bogus boast but almost completely escaped scrutiny for his follow up efforts to hide the truth.

Edwards better learn how to face scrutiny if he wants to be the Democratic nominee.

[AzDar]

3. Is this the best you can do? Seriously?

:eyes:

[Tellurian]

13. Acccording to FACT CHECK..Senator Clinton has been the MOST honest Dem candidate running for the Nom

The only mistake, and it was an "Honest" mistake, was a statistical error she made when quoting how many women die of Cervical Cancer each year! She said there are 500,000 deaths of women each year from Cervical Cancer when there are actually 250,000. However, there are 500,000 diagnosed cases of Cervical Cancer each year...so she is happily forgiven for the mix up.

"Fact Check" gives Senator Clinton high marks for her honesty and accuracy when giving her speeches throughout the country. Here is a direct quote from "FACT CHECK" giving her stellar compliments on the quality and integrity of her stump speeches:

"In past debates and forums, we have found Senator Clinton to be a human encyclopedia in her recitation of facts and figures. While other candidates from both parties occasionally have stumbled on statistics, using inflated or flat-out wrong numbers, Clinton has proven to be accurate even on some we initially thought were questionable."

And why I have complete confidence and faith in her as the Democratic Nominee and supporting her as the next President of the US..

[Donnachaidh]

54. and NO link to this fact check makes one wonder

But of course, flip-flopping as madly as she does the numbers would reflect well -- if you dropped the negative part. :rofl:

[eridani]

88. Yep. Vote for her and make sure that the Bushies are never held accountable n/t

[ruggerson]

4. This is ridiculous

n/t

[JustAnotherGen]

6. Um

Haven't Presidential powers been illegally increased under the President Numnuts Administration? Either we are all blowing smoke up our own asses and getting upset over nothing - i.e. Bush and Co's draconian approach to the Presidency . . .

Or he may be reading something in the so-called laws (edicts) courtesy of Bush and Co that we've all missed.

I'm playing devil's advocate here, okay? But maybe that power DOES exist - and Bush slipped it in while we were out shopping?

[Tellurian]

51. From what I've researched...

it may take years to restore the Constitution..if ever in our life time..

you can read it here:

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/sep/29/the_star_chamber

[JustAnotherGen]

58. Exactly

:think:So can we say beyond a shadow of a doubt that Edwards can't do this? :think:

Sorry - having just finished Naomi Wolf's latest book :scared: . . . there are no guarantees that anything ANY of the Presidential Candidates say - can't come true. Even if what they say is outside of the bounds of the process by which bills become laws.

That's why someone like the Ghoul or Romney or Paul scares the living shit out of me. At least a Democratic in the White House might use their unprecedented power for Socialist good. (Half joking here! ;-) )

[Tellurian]

67. I was just as astonished as you after reading "The Star Chamber"

but as you see, where we are right now Constitutionally, didn't happen overnight. The catch is...it has to be what is considered a "UNANIMOUS" declaration by Congress. First there was the 9/11 attack. That got us the Pats Act I + II..Then the drive to get Saddam Hussein via the WMDs and an immanent threat to our Nat'l Security and on and on..

Bush not only lied to get us where we are today with a shredded Constitution, but the assault on our Constitution was a premeditated attack by Federalists waiting for the day a president such as Bush be installed that would go along with their program. It should be obvious to everyone by now, why Bush fought so hard against Gore to gain the power to follow the NEOCONS plan known as PNAC, the plan Gingrich promoted for years throughout the Bush I term.

[creeksneakers2]

112. I can say without a shadow of a doubt that Edwards can't

do it unless he passes it in one term and enacts it in the next. Edwards boasted he could do the whole thing after 60 days. Also, its laughable to believe Congress would vote out its own health care, especially if they are the culture of corruption Edwards describes them as.

No legislation or executive act can overcome a constitutional prohibition. Here is the amendment:

Amendment XXVII
No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

[Vickers]

9. I swear, Clinton supporters have just about pushed me away for good.

Don't bother replying, I won't see it.

[rodeodance]

11. nasty post for sure.

[annie1]

19. just block users of people who constantly post smear threads and you won't have...

to deal with the bs. My DU site experience is so much better since i put a 3 or 4 people on ignore.

[mtnsnake]

34. That's against DU rules to tell other people to ignore someone

[annie1]

37. ok, edited.

[dionysus]

48. one toke over the line sweet mtnsnake, one toke over the line...

standing downtown at the DLC station, one toke over the lineeeee....

[mtnsnake]

49. Not that song again. I call a truce on bad songs!

...at least till the end of the year, anyhow :evilgrin:

[Clark2008]

124. If I posted it, would you listen (read)?

I don't support HRC, but the OP's post is valid. Mr. Sunshine has consistantly promised things he can't possibly deliver.

[rodeodance]

10. He would have the power of the bully pulpit--which he would use.

[Tellurian]

68. See posts #51 and #67

The bully pulpit isn't near enough to accomplish restoring the Constitution... you might as well equate it to wishful thinking because thats about all it's worth.

[Two Americas]

89. Lincoln would not have agreed

Nor would FDR, nor JFK.

We have not had a Democratic president who understood and effectively used the power of the bully pulpit in a long time. It may be the most important power a president has. "Take it to the people" was how Lincoln saw it.

I say we take it to the people. We have had enough domination by the so-called experts, telling us whom we should trust, whom we shouldn't, what we can't do and why, why we are all full of it and should just go away. We have had enough endless talk about what cannot be done. Let's talk about what can be done for a change.

[The Traveler]

12. Your claim above

translates to a claim of complete ignorance of political strategy or how an executive might bring pressure to bear on the Congress. As has been well, well covered on DU a few weeks back when this canard was last raised, the President can introduce legistlation (e.g. legistlation adjusting the Congressional compensation package) to that august body. Congress is of course pretty much free to throw it into the bit bucket ... but at that point, the President has definitely put the item on the national agenda.

It is indeed a bit of "show boating with teeth". Congress can kill the measure, but they will have to talk about it to their constituents, respond to Presidential commentary, etc. In chess, they call this kind of thing a "forcing move" because forces the opponents to select from a limited number of constrained options. It is a move that would slam the issue down hard on table, demanding some Congressional response to which they can be held accountable by the people.

[Tellurian]

16. But it's OK for Edwards to call Hillary's honesty into question..I see

double standard...much?

[The Traveler]

23. Now that is a tangential thought

In from left field ... another topic entirely!

It is quite acceptable to call Edwards' honesty into question ... but this particular subject is not a good vehicle for that. I can think of (forgive me if I do not suggest) some better avenues for such an exploration.

I am not sure that Edwards has specifically questioned her honesty ... I think he has suggested she has obfuscated her positions with nuance, a subtle difference but a difference nonetheless. A problem I have with Hillary is trying the describe to myself her core belief system ... I can't get a handle on it. This doesn't mean she doesn't have one, it merely means I cannot deduce it from the broad pattern of her statements and actions.

On the other hand, Edwards began years ago with a premise: "Poverty is bad and causes a lot of problems". Over the years, that core belief, that assumption has been developed into a coherent policy model. In that context, I can view his path as a consistent evolution based on a starting point he would not yield. Thus, even though certain of his votes in the Senate give me gas, I can forgive them somewhat because his position has gradually and consistently evolved since, and I believe I understand where he really stands.

[Tellurian]

47. Edwards should have used the word asking for "clarity" not honesty

as he did in the last debate..By using the word "honesty" carries a greater impact of ramifications rather than the use of a word like "clarity" and it becomes easily conceivable Edwards was deliberate in his use of a high powered word calling into question Hillary's honesty rather than asking for clarity which, I think was really what he meant.

As far as your dilemma here:

"A problem I have with Hillary is trying the describe to myself her core belief system ... I can't get a handle on it. This doesn't mean she doesn't have one, it merely means I cannot deduce it from the broad pattern of her statements and actions."

Hillary's stump speeches can be relied upon as 99.9% accurate except for the statistical error I made note of upthread. When you can trust what a candidate claims in a stump speech as something that is backed by a plan and is authentic in it's meaning, is a world of difference than having a moderator like Tim Russert trying to convolute and entrap you into doubting the candidate's motivation.

You have to agree, everything Hillary says on the stump is cast in stone....and not one other candidate has been able to refute her statements as accurate. Sure, they try to nuance her statements morphing them into something else but her words always are able to stand on their own as honest and doable.

[Two Americas]

92. two wrongs

Two wrongs do not make a right.

[creeksneakers2]

113. That's far from what Edwards said he'd do in the ad

And even if Edwards was able to get his legislation passed it would still be unconstitutional and void.

[HughBeaumont]

14. Desperation like this . . .

. . . literally smells worse than your candidate's very real Cato-institute position on free trade and job offshoring.

[Tellurian]

69. Huh? What is that all about?

[indimuse]

15. Thanks ..

by now you must realize..this is NOT DU...it is a SAFE HAVEN ( along with HP) for bho...poor lil' bho bho! :party: Happy New Year!

[Jim Sagle]

17. Chickenshit bullshit.

[annie1]

18. h44 members are so nasty. i doubt you are really hillary supporters.

[Tellurian]

20. We support Hillary Clinton..

Do you? Or are you a pretender?

[annie1]

22. you do an awful job of it, your overwhelming negativity turns people off.

[Tellurian]

24. Please don't consider yourself a Hillary supporter

your previous comments hardly bear out your loyalty:

"wow. she's got balls. and i bet if she had a less grating voice, people would like her better. "

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3909911#3911416

"lol. i love this comment the best....

POOR CHELSEA BEING DRAGGED AROUND BY A MOM THAT HAS TAKEN DRUG AND CRIMINAL MONEY, IS A KNOWN COMMUNIST WORSHIPPER,SUPPORTED BY HER THESIS, STOLE THE WHITEHOUSE FURNITURE,AND RUMORRED TO HAVE HAD NUMEROUS LESBIAN AFFAIRS. NO CHILD SHOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH WHAT HER SLEAZY PARENTS PUT HER THROUGH."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3910120#3910152

********

"unlike other bullshit, this seems like a fair argument for BO and against HRC...

Biden and Dodd. it's not the random hogwash that gets thrown around on this board."

(...) until another poster told you:

"Annie you should know that Hillary & Edwards have refused to sign the Anti-Torture Pledge from the

American Freedom Campaign as Obama, Buden and Dodd have."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3904412#3904483

[annie1]

27. and as you can see, i debunked whoever incorrectly said she didn't sign the pledge...

so anyone who thought otherwise, now knows hillary signed the pledge. unlike yourself, i tell the truth, and don't spread hogwash.

i don't to think she's godlike in order to support her, and i don't have to call other candidates liars either.

[Tellurian]

39. Your first response :"unlike other bullshit, this seems like a fair argument for BO and against HC"

[annie1]

44. that is correct, that's the fair way to do it. One voted yay on something...

and one voted nay, that is fair. there was no personal smear from the poster, there is a suggestion that she is worse on human rights, one voted yay, and one voted nay. so then i point out to others after researching it on my own, that yes she voted yay, but that both biden and dodd voted with hillary.

and then someone tried to say hillary wouldn't sign a peace pledge, so after researching that i proved them wrong and said yes she did.

if you deal in the facts, then she comes out ahead.

[mtnsnake]

28. Bullshit. Tellurian's enthusiasm & support for Hillary Clinton is a huge plus.

Are you jealous or something?

[annie1]

30. i can't tell if you're serious or not. and if you are, then maybe...

i'll take that into consideration b/c you strike me as pretty level headed. by i for one am getting real tired of her smear campaign toward other candidates.

[Tellurian]

41. Where is evidence of a smear?

We always post links and facts backing up statements...just like in this OP..

[annie1]

53. ok. i apologize for ...

calling you names. i just really didn't like you calling edwards a liar. i'm calm now. sry.

[Tellurian]

56. I appreciate that...

and hope you understand where I'm coming from...

[annie1]

59. i do. i'm sorry. : )

[mtnsnake]

43. Thank you.

Sometimes what you might perceive as a smear campaign by Hillary supporters against other candidates is just a response to all the smear campaigns that have been going on against Hillary Clinton for two years on this board by the majority of posters who have spun so much propaganda and innuendo about her that it makes one wonder where some of these posters' loyalties really originate from.

[annie1]

45. i hear you...

i've said on this board several times recently that the things that people say against hillary are similar to the bs spread by the gop. but 'edwards lies to iowans with ease' (which of course is not even about hillary), it's about something he said against the congressmen who would vote against the people. he's hardly a liar for it. and funnily enough, a video i've been posting about hillary lately, that i think is really cool, is her talking about the same thing in 1994, getting congress to give people the same health care they receive. i think they're both balls to walls for it, and there's no need to call edwards a liar for it.

[mtnsnake]

52. fair enough

annie, I don't see anything wrong with you objecting to the OP if that's the way you feel, but the other stuff, the generalizing and calling out of a poster and recommending that others ignore that poster is below what I would expect from you. From what I've seen you're an honest and intelligent poster, and I think you could've done better by refuting the original post, or the title of it at least, instead of pointing the finger at the OPer as if they were taboo because of the avatar under their name. Hey, I'm no angel by any means, so sorry if I got carried away with my sermon :)

[annie1]

55. you're right...

:)

[Forkboy]

65. It's a huge plus for the other campaigns.

[mtnsnake]

29. Stop generalizing with that kind of garbage. It only makes you look so narrow minded

[annie1]

33. the hill44 site has so much hate on it that it's sickening. and the smear ...

and negative links that people post here, how do they in any way support hillary? dragging people through the mud, calling edwards a liar, that doesn't help her at all. what does that have to do with hillary? support by default cuz everyone else is a liar or a this or a that?

[mtnsnake]

38. I don't got to other sites, so I wouldn't know. That has nothing to do with how anyone posts here

Tellurian overall is one of the best Hillary supporters on this forum, and for you to come with such ridiculous accusations against that poster is bizarre to say the least. Without posters like Tellurian, who refute the garbage and lies about the Clintons, this place would be completely overrun with the innuendo instead of just mostly overrun with it.

[annie1]

40. and what does that have to do with her smear against edwards?..

i don't see you smear people like that. do we like it when people pull that about hillary. so maybe i've just been missing out on the positive threads. i'll keep my eyes open.

[Tellurian]

42. Smears are unture accusations.. Facts are not smears!

capiche?

[Adelante]

57. Trust me, Tellurian is a Hillary supporter

The fiercest you will find on DU.

[FreeStateDemocrat]

21. Smear time means Hillary's in trouble, time to panic, heard tell an Edwards win was good for Hillary

Guess that's another big BS moment from the ethical Hill spin doctors.

[Tellurian]

35. Fact Check doesn't care who is ahead..

but does provide an insight into campaign rhetoric that is over the top geared to convince an audience of MORE than can be delivered. The only purpose being served is in the extreme of the oneupsmanship of a candidate delivering more votes to them under false pretenses! The public isn't going to benefit from overinflated promises.

I believe that is an important point to investigate..

Empty promises vs odds of factual delivery!

[Two Americas]

99. you would not have liked RFK

“Some men see things as they are and ask why. I dream things that never were and say, why not.”
- Robert F. Kennedy

There is a difference between expressing a vision and making "empty promises."

[HooptieWagon]

25. The desperation of the hillarybots is obvious

and reinforces my decision NOT to vote for her, even in the G.E.

[MaineDem]

26. This has been discussed and disected already

Why bring it up again? Oh, desperation maybe?

[Tejanocrat]

31. Bush also calls adverse facts "lies"

[MethuenProgressive]

32. PolitiFact debunked that Edwards nonsense a while back.

Edwards recieved the rare "pants on fire" ruling for his lie.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/190/
Edwards is nothing but poll-tested sloganeering, no substance.

[Trajan]

36. Your tortured and fallacious attack is disgusting ....

Posts like this are what slime the halls of DU in this, the ugly season ....

[madmunchie]

62. It is not "tortured and fallacious", your response may be though

Talk about trying to kill a fly with a hammer. Again, a poster states his opinion and has some facts thrown in for backup and they get attacked with a totally out of proportion response....not 1 fact disputing, just emotionally charged attacks - no logic - just emotional hatred. That is what makes up "the ugly season", not stating facts followed by opinion on a candidate, NOT the poster.

[Tellurian]

70. I wholeheartedly agree... and at first glace I thought the post was by Lucinda..

When I gave the thoughtless post a second look it was a relief, the poster was Trajan.

[Trajan]

121. The subject of the OP is a strawman fallacy.......

The logic that asserts: Because Edward's intent to restrict congressional health care would be thwarted by governmental structure, he has therefore "lied" ..... is 'twisted logic', and constitutes just another smear, by the thread author, of a good Democratic Party candidate, for the supposed purpose of 'elevating' his own choice of candidate through the fallacious denigration of one of the other candidates ...... Note that the poster doesnt disagree with that intent, but merely reports that to even state the intent is somehow a 'lie' ..... As others have posted here: Edwards wouldnt have the 'absolute power' to deny health care by executive fiat, but could muster the congressional forces necessary to change the law so that his intent to brought to fruition through normal legislation ....

So, therefore: Edwards is not 'lying' ....

Really: Why do I have to say anything about this ? .... It is rather clear to many on this thread that this is nothing but a smear job ..... I dont have to present an extensive refutation to take issue with such a weak smear ..... It is obvious to most here this doesnt pass the smell test ....

One fact about 'The Ugly Season' ..... Those who use the current campaign as a means to elevate their own level of 'emotional hatred', by attacking our own candidates using fallacious and misleading arguments, will not be forgotten when the campaign resolves and a nominee is eventually selected ....

Those who do so will carry that reputation beyond this single election ....

We all know who they are, because we read them everyday .... The 'ugliness' is real, and as far as I am concerned ... unnecessary .....

Those who would resort to such cheap smears deserve to be called out, even without a verbose and calculated refutation ....

Edwards AND Clinton are both good people and deserve better than this ....

Their supporters here deserve better than this .....

[madmunchie]

122. And your post is that you are rolling around in the "slime" right along

with many others. Your post was pure personal attack on the poster, which is totally unnecessary and telling of how others choose to defend their candidates of choice - by personally attacking other supporters.

It is wrong, you are wrong and way too many JE supporters seem to resort to this type of ugliness instead of just sticking to facts and logic.

So, you don't like or understand the other posters point of view, this is the United States of America and we are supposed to be able to express our opinions and to interpret actions and words of our candidates without being personally attacked.

[4_TN_TITANS]

46. Directly, he couldn't...

but he could damn sure fire up the American people to put extreme pressure on Congress to share the wealth or stop their own benefits. People have been pissed about congressional perks for decades.

[bvar22]

64. Agree!!!

And with Congress having a lower approval rating than Cheney, it is smart politics entirely consistent with his Populist Platform.


The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

[Tellurian]

73. How is Edwards rated a Populist..

The word "populist" indicates someone for the people. John Edwards Senate Record has been ANTI-Populist!

[bvar22]

90. His Senate record ....

...is no worse than Hillary's. At least he has admitted he was WRONG about some of his votes which is much better than Hillary.
He certainly can't touch Kucinich for consistency.

Still, I'm willing to cut him a little slack over his Freshman term in the Senate. I know it is easy to get overwhelmed by the Political Machine of the DC establishment, and he probably made a few promises to The Machine in exchange for help in his campaign. (Thats usually the way The Machine operates.)

It is encouraging to me that he is running from OUTSIDE The Machine, and AGAINST The Machine this time. He is not making promises to people like Rupert Murdoch, and won't be obligated to them when he wins.

His career as a lawyer was BASED on representing The Little People AGAINST The Machine, and I like that.
For your education, read Four Trials, or at least look at some of the reviews. (I know YOU won't....blind partisans aren't usually interested in education, but maybe someone else reading this thread won't be afraid to take the chance of expansion and growth).

Unlike HillBama, Edward's Platform IS Populist, and I believe it is better to take the chance on Edwards instead of the absolute certainty of a DLC (Republican Lite) presidency that is offered by your candidate. Promising to "work with the Republicans" and "Build Bi-Partisan coalitions" and invite Corporate Lobbyists "to the table" won't get my vote.....ever.

I am a Kucinich supporter, but am willing to compromise for Edwards as an electable Unity candidate. I won't compromise any further to the Right in search of Democratic Party Unity. You should consider moving to the Left for Party Unity and electability in 2008.

Cheers,
bvar22

[Tellurian]

101. Most people recognize John Edwards as a "Phony" due to his Senate Record

Here's Why:

John Edwards (“Mr. Healthcare”) says his plan is the best and HE’S the one who really cares about the average Joe?

You wouldn’t know that from his performance while in the senate. He has apologized for every significant vote he cast during his six years in the senate.

He apologized for voting for the bankruptcy bill, no child left behind, supporting NAFTA, the Iraq war, etc. John Edwards spent six years wasting the "taxpayers dime" only to now ask us to reward him with the presidency.

In both 2000 AND 2001 he voted FOR some of the worst bankruptcy legislation the senate has EVER produced – it was totally crafted to benefit the credit card companies and other creditors and to make it really hard for consumers to successfully file for bankruptcy. Given that Edwards knows that HALF of all bankruptcies in this country are due to astronomical HEALTHCARE costs, his votes tell you all you need to know about him.

This whole “fighter for the common man” message is just a strategy to win the nomination.

He talks a good game, but his actions do not match his words. He says he’s fought for the disadvantaged all his life. Right... :sarcasm:

He was an ambulance-chasing trial lawyer and he’s worth $30 million to $50 million. It’s not like he did a lot of pro-bono work or anything like that. He provided his services and was paid for his time.

When he had a chance to pass legislation in the senate that could actually help that everyday Joe that he loves talking about so much, HE DID NOT.

He voted for legislation to help corporations, not consumers.

Now he’s talking about being against 527s, yet one of his campaign managers leaves his campaign just this past spring to start of 527 which starts pumping out advertising dollars on his behalf?

Come on! Iowans are smarter than that. Also, when I heard about the back and forth between Obama and Edwards on the 527 issue, I did some digging online and it seems that this is not the first time that Edwards has pulled this 527 trick, where he has one of his top lieutenants leave his campaign right before the Iowa caucus to form a 527 that will spend money on his behalf in Iowa – he did it in 2004 as well.

I pulled the following from www.theatlantic.com :

“In 2004, Edwards aide Jonathan Prince resigned before the Iowa caucuses and established an independent 527 in Edwards’s benefit. He has said that he did not coordinate with the presidential campaign.” It seems that Edwards really does like to “talk the talk” but doesn’t truly “walk the walk”.

Here is the link:

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/12/wh os_behind_a_third_proedwards.php

John Edwards is the WEAKEST candidate in the field.

[Two Americas]

103. populist

I don't care about "populist" and I don't care about his Senate record.

There is nothing magical or automatically good about populism. Populism put into the service of advancing Democratic party principles is a good thing, and is worthy of support from all Democrats. That is much more important than playing personal attack politics. Populism ala the Huckabee or Paul campaigns is not a good thing, in my view.

There is hardly a person in Congress that has not bitterly disappointed me, and that includes Edwards. That is just the reality of things.

Do you support the things that Edwards is saying? That is what matters first and foremost. If you do not, then of course you would not like Edwards. If you do, then I would think that you would temper the ferocity of your attacks because you would be able to see that something greater is at stake here.

[Girlieman]

63. Have you lost your mind?

Or only your critical facilities.

Edwards said: "I'm going to use my power as president"

That doesn't mean by executive fiat. One of the powers of the presidency is to advance an agenda by bully puppet.

Edwards may be making a threat he cannot deliver on, but to call it "lying with ease" is pretty stupid. He's making a point and at least he's direct and straightforward about the point.

[Tellurian]

71. Edwards broached the subject of Honesty..

I didn't. A review of his statements show he is less than reliable in the honesty dept.

[William769]

66. K&R!

[MethuenProgressive]

75. He's a professional liar, with no conscience.

He'll say/do ANYTHING to sway the jury.

[Lex]

76. Wow. Look at you. You must be proud of yourself.

:puke:

[Tellurian]

77. I agree...here is Edwards latest CROCK to get the IOWA's VOTE!

"John Edwards predicts his financial disadvantage against Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama would be quickly overcome if he were to pull off a victory in the Iowa presidential caucuses Thursday."

"It's just reality that if you win the Iowa caucuses, the money pours in," Edwards said in an Associated Press interview Sunday. "It's almost like you cannot process it because it comes in so fast. There will be plenty of money to run the campaign."

After months of being seemingly stuck in third place in most polls, Edwards has climbed into a virtual tie in recent surveys and has drawn large, enthusiastic crowds on a well-trod route through the state since his second-place finish here in 2004.

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1699074,00.html?xid=rss-topstories

If Edwards were serious, he wouldn't entertain public funding risking public confidence in his ability to raise substantial support to be the nominee. When BIG Money isn't flocking to him or his message to begin with. He would have fundraisers like everyone else who is determined to be the nominee. I dare say, he hasn't the backing as a good financial risk to win the nomination by big money supporters. He would also volunteer putting his own money where his mouth is if he felt that sure of himself! Thats what most people do when they start a new venture and are looking for investors..

I just don't see that happening with Edwards seeing he raises a red flag in the issue of Trusting him at his word. He falls prey to delusions of grandeur guaranteeing more than he can deliver.. That is the mark of a dangerous man asking you to gamble on him with your own pocketbook.

[desi]

79. What a shame

He claims to have a "financial disadvantage" then goes on to say that winning in Iowa will open the flood gates to massive amounts of cash. So therefore the only reason he chose the disadvantage of public financing is obviously because he was sure of an Iowa win.

K&R

[TexasLawyer]

119. Lawyers who lie in court usually get punished by juries

and/or judges.

The most effective plaintiffs' attorneys use the truth as a weapon. The most effective defense atorneys use the truth as a shield.

[MethuenProgressive]

123. With all due respect,

in my experience lawyers will do what ever you pay them to do, and the more you can pay - the more they'll do.

[Beaverhausen]

80. Oh not this crap again. Edwards explained how he can do this

You have a short memory- or you just don't want to know the truth.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/15/ftn/main3510003.shtml

there is a link to the pdf transcript of this show- I apologize that I can't open it on my home computer- but Edwards explains how he will do this.

[creeksneakers2]

116. that's not an explanation

That's a bogus excuse that doesn't wash. Edwards still could not violate the 27th amendment.

[Two Americas]

82. the theme

A theme is emerging in the attacks against Edwards. He "can't be trusted" and "he is a phony." I think it should be obvious to all thoughtful and perceptive observers that this is a clever insinuation that is very difficult to counter. This theme is being promoted on the flimsiest of pretexts, and hammered on relentlessly. Under no circumstances could the evidence provided be used to effectively support a charge of "liar" being leveled against this particular candidate, but calling him a liar fits in with the theme of the ongoing smear campaign.

Rather than criticize the message, it is much easier to slyly sow doubts about the sincerity of the messenger.

I would object just as strongly if the same tactics were being used against any of the other candidates, including Senator Clinton, because we have so little to gain by this approach and so much to lose. No matter how good you think your candidate may be, and no matter how bad you may think another candidate to be, it can never justify this sort of vitriol and hostility. This reminds me of the infamous quote from an officer during the Viet Nam war - "we need to destroy the village to save it." It is not worth destroying the party for the sake of promoting a candidate.

I call on all Democrats: if you love your party, if you love the ideals and principles of the party, if you love your candidate, and if you love your fellow Democrats, stand firm against this slide downward into endless smears and sleaze, innuendos and insinuations. It is a serious threat to all of us.

We are better than this.

[tritsofme]

83. Its very simple, Edwards is one of the phoniest policians on the scene

In quite a long time.

Nothing he does surprises me anymore.

[Two Americas]

86. very bizarre

I would never repeat an unsubstantiated smear against any Democrat. What could possibly be the point of doing this?

Do you seriously want us to believe that Edwards is on the same level as Cheney or other Republicans? That much of a threat? That bad of a candidate? That is how you are talking about him. Why?

How does character assassination serve anyone?



on edit - a couple of typos corrected

[tritsofme]

87. Say what you will about BushCo, but they are not phonies.

They go out and do illegal and criminal activities and tell the world about it from the highest mountain top, they are proud of it.

But I am not bashful to call a spade a spade, and I do not like Edwards, and I will do what I can to stop him from being the Democratic nominee for President.

[Two Americas]

94. phonies

I can't imagine how any Democrat could think that the people in the Bush administration are not phonies. Perhaps the word "phony" has no real meaning, but is merely the anti-Edwards smear talking point of the day. Who could defend themselves from the charge? It is cleverly designed to prejudice people , to discourage people. I find it shameful.

What sort of use of the word "phony" would apply to Edwards, but not to Bush?

Is anyone who talks for the have-nots to be suspect and to be smeared with the charge of "phony" while those who pander, delude, mislead, lie, cheat and steal to advance the interests of the wealthy and powerful - through massive deception of the public - not to be seen as "phonies?"

As I said, very bizarre.

Let me ask you a question: aside from your "feeling" or whatever it is that Edwards is a "phony" - do you support his advocacy for the poor, for labor unions, for workers, or do you not?

[Two Americas]

84. the truth

Criticize Edwards if you choose, but criticize him for what he did say, not what he did not say. I think that the people here have the right to know the truth.

SCHIEFFER: Let me ask you this, senator, about one of your recent ads. One of your ads says that if you are president and Congress doesn't pass universal health care by July 2009, you are going to use your power as president to take Congress' health care plan away from them. How do you go about doing that?

Fmr. Sen. EDWARDS: There is another piece to that. I also say that I will take away--do--use my power, the power that I have available to take away the health care for members of my administration. And the basic idea is I don't think politicians in Washington should be protecting their health care when we have 47 million people in this country who don't have health care coverage.

But to answer your question, the most powerful tool that the president has is the bully pulpit. And that means making the case to America, submitting legislation to support exactly what I just said, and then making the case to America in any place--any congressional district or any state where a senator is opposing it--saying `your senator, your congressman is defending their health care at the same time that they're not providing health care for you.'

And I think that's the most powerful tool. But I would add to that, there are other tools. I mean, the president of the United States has veto power over budgets. So there are other tools available. But the most important thing is, Bob, wit--somebody's got to shake that place up.

SCHIEFFER: But what you're talking about here, you would actually propose legislation to force Congress to give up its own health care and force them to vote on that? Is that--is that what you're saying, if they don't come around to providing health care for the rest of the country?

Fmr. Sen. EDWARDS: That's exactly right. The whole point of this is not to take Congress' health care away. The point of this is to get health care for America. And I actually believe every Democratic member of Congress in the House and the Senate would vote for that, so it wouldn't be an issue for them. And I suspect a lot of Republicans would, too, because they don't want to have to go home and defend, in their congressional district, having supported their own health care and not having supported health care for their constituents.

[Tellurian]

93. Is NOT the Truth.. Fact Check is an indy agency noted for debunking political statements

In your last two paragraphs Edwards recants what he originally said..read it and weep...

[Two Americas]

97. I'm very inspired

Weep? Hardly.

I am very encouraged about two things, and I am glad that you brought this to our attention.

First, we finally have a candidate who understands the power of the bully pulpit.

Secondly, we have a candidate who says it is not about the politicians, it is about the people.

"The whole point of this is not to take Congress' health care away. The point of this is to get health care for America."

Music to my ears, and I would have to think music to the ears of all Democrats.

You may not be inspired by that. So be it. But there is no call for discouraging others, calling their judgment into question, and engaging in character assassination.

[Tellurian]

100. Why does Edwards Senate record rate him as an Anti-Populist?

[Two Americas]

105. who knows?

I am not even sure what you are talking about.

Are you "pro-populist" or something? How do you define "populist?" Are you supporting a real "populist" candidate? Why not talk about what positions and principles you support, rather than whom you are against?

If you are asking why have the people gotten screwed over the last 30 years, I would say that there is an awful lot of guilt and responsibility to go around. The problem is a little bigger than the Senate record of one member. I assume, based on this attack on Edwards, that you must be supporting Kucinich, then?

Edwards, at least, is talking a new game and recognizing all of the people who have been left behind. That is valuable and positive no matter what - and what a refreshing change.

[bvar22]

95. Thank You... The OP is desperately , flailingly dishonest!

"But to answer your question, the most powerful tool that the president has is the bully pulpit. And that means making the case to America, submitting legislation to support exactly what I just said, and then making the case to America in any place--any congressional district or any state where a senator is opposing it--saying `your senator, your congressman is defending their health care at the same time that they're not providing health care for you." John Edwards

The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

[IndianaGreen]

85. David Geffen: The problem with the Clintons is not that they lie, but that they do it with such ease

The DLC Clintonistas cannot even utter an original thought. The "lying with ease" is what former Clinton pal said about the Clintons. He also mentioned that Bill Clinton was still engaged in reckless personal behaviour, and we know what that means!

[Tellurian]

91. What? When did Geffen take his unbiased medicine?

Same time as Tweety and Timmy?

[AtomicKitten]

102. I was just going to post that quote because it really resonates.

There are plenty of substantive reasons to oppose Clinton, but her untenable willingness to throw in with the GOP schemes for war and more war have rendered her the least attractive candidate on the left. And the fact that she polls poorly (compared to the other two-front-runners) against the GOP is proof-positive her candidacy is a crapshot.

[Name removed]

96. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MalloyLiberal]

108. Actually he can, if you paid attention, with the budget, and by going to their districts

[Horse with no Name]

109. My New Years Resolution is to be more tolerant

However, that isn't until tomorrow.
SO, fuck off.

[TexasLawyer]

117. LOL!!!

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

[bvar22]

120. Word!

:toast:

[lisainmilo]

118. Can you please tell me where in the Constitution it says all Feds have granted health insurance?

I am serious.. I would like to know, because I can't seem to find it.
Appreciate any help on this.
Peace