Edwards: Proved he's not been co-opted by Bush

[DemDogs]

QUOTED FROM THE EDWARDS BLOG - citing Congressional Quarterly report of Congressional votes

"Former Governor Dean this weekend proclaimed in the Des Moines debate; "What has happened to so many Democrats in Congress is that they've been co-opted by the agenda of George Bush, who came into office with 500,000 fewer votes than Al Gore. And what we need is a Democrat who's going to stand up to George Bush."

Gephardt in the same debate tried to lump all of his congressional colleagues into one large group when he said they had voted for NAFTA and other trade agreements when he didn't. Edwards did the right thing at that debate and with his "truth-o-meter", he set the record straight. In fact, Senator Edwards wasn't even in Congress to vote for NAFTA and has voted against numerous other trade agreements that have come before the Senate.

Well, today I have found the best factual evidence against Dean's statement that those Democrats in Congress have been "co-opted" and don't "stand up to Bush". The well-respected Congressional Quarterly publication company did a study for this week's CQ Weekly - their "Presidential Support Vote Study". One very outstanding part of that study proves that Senator John Edwards does indeed stand up to Bush and hasn't been co-opted by his agenda. CQ proved that Edwards has the highest rating of senators in opposition to Bush's agenda, with a score of 58.7%. In the study, opposition stood for those who voted most often against his position. Here is the list of the top 11 democratic senators opposed to President Bush's legislative agenda:

Democrats
Edwards, N.C. 58.7%
Graham, Fla. 58.3
Corzine, N.J. 56.8
Lautenberg, N.J. 56.3
Mikulski, Md. 56.0
Boxer, Calif. 55.6
Reed, R.I. 55.2
Durbin, Ill. 54.5
Biden, Del. 54.1
Harkin, Iowa 54.1
Sarbanes, Md. 53.9

Please note that Lieberman and Kerry don't even fall into the top ten in the Senate and in the House, Gephardt and Kucinich don't make the top ten either. That's not to say that they are not good Democrats - THEY ARE! What I am trying to convey is that only one candidate stands out head and shoulders above all the rest - John Edwards - and Howard Dean is wrong when he says the things he says about the good men and women who WE elected to the United States Congress to fight on our behalf. He makes me think we should be ashamed of Democrats for not balancing 11 budgets or not providing universal health care - but I am not ashamed, I am proud of them. They have done a wonderful job, and continue to do a wonderful job. He - Dean - should not attack them relentlessly, but recognize that Democrats in Congress helped balance the budget for the first time in decades under President Clinton, helped eliminate the deficit under Clinton, and continually lead the fight against the special interests that keep us from getting better health care legislation passed in Congress.

I've been long winded here, but I hope my point is clear. Howard Dean is WRONG and John Edwards has PROVEN that he is right - right for you, right for me, and right for America!"

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OrAnarch]

2. Howard's right...

Standing up to Bush takes more than objection 58.7% of the time. Besides, he didn't make a reference directly to Edwards to be refuted about, but rather, made it in general about all democrats in the Senate. In my opinion, this survey easily shows the majority of Dems in the Senate have been co-opted into supporting Bush's policies. I want to see 90%+ opposition damnit!


Kudos to Edwards for having the best record.


Standing up to Bush isn't saying, you can attack those 4 countries but not those 6!

[DemDogs]

7. Howard's wrong

Some of these votes are nearly 100 percent votes, so the number gets skewed down, things everyone votes for.

EDWARDS HAS THE BEST RECORD in the Senate. So if has been been co-opted by Bush according to never-cast-a-vote Howard, does Howard also think Harkin has been co-opted? Will he tell Harkin that? I mean, he is supposed to be Mr. Straight Talk, so I am sure you want to make sure he tells Harkin that he thinks Harkin has been a toady for Bush. And Kennedy? And Corzine? And Boxer?
Again, Howard is wrong.

[OrAnarch]

9. If anyone's been co-opted he right...

Look at the quote in context. Check out the 2001-2002 voting records, which are quite a bit different than 2003. He did not say all senate members, or even most. But we can see there are enough to push the Bush agenda easily. There is nothing factually wrong about such a quote. Not a damn thing. You can perhaps prove that there are people that are not, but that in itself doesn't prove no one is. Are you stating not one democrat in the senate is co-opted into bush's agenda? If, and only if, you are saying that, is Howard wrong.

"so many" is not equal to "all", "most", or even "John Edwards"

This is ridiculous. you are reaching here, asserting he said more than he did, asserting that all dems are perfect, and asserting that 76% voting record of Edwards in 2002 for bush's agenda is opposition.


Do you have to go that far just to criticize HD? There are a million other articles you could pick that are recent, as well as more to support Edwards. This one is just convoluted and ludicrous.

[spooky3]

3. Thanks, DemDogs, but please note that Dr. Dean did not

say "all" nor mention Sen. Edwards specifically, so I don't know that he was referring to Sen. Edwards and don't agree he was necessarily wrong.

But the factual info is helpful in any case. Thanks again.

[DemDogs]

8. Dean has consistently attacked all the Washington Democrats

Come on, now. Starting with his speech at the winter DNC last year he attacked all the Washington Democrats. You mean he meant everyone but Edwards? I don't think so. He just didn't care whether what he was saying was true or not.

[spooky3]

12. Sorry, I do not put words in other people's mouths. If he meant all

he's direct enough that he would say "all." Neither you nor I know whether he meant each and every one of them versus most of them. Stop quibbling over minor stuff and focus on the major stuff. What matters is what Sen. Edwards' record shows.

[anti-bush]

14. This is another case of nuance

Dean implied that the other senators on stage had been co-opted by Bush's agenda. This is a bit of verbal trickery.

This is the same as when John Kerry proclaims he is the only Senator who has four terms in the Senate without taking any PAC money. He implies others have taken PAC money, when this is one of Edwards' biggest issues, and he has taken not one cent of PAC or lobby money.

This post seeks to inform people of Edwards voting record, which is different than that which was implied by Dean in the debate, whether spoken specifically or not.

[anti-bush]

15. And one more thing

If you don't think he implied it, there are many articles that say that Dean accused his rivals of being co-opted. Try these for starters:

Democratic presidential frontrunner Howard Dean, countering attacks in a crucial debate here Sunday, accused his top rivals of having been "co-opted by the agenda of George Bush."


Dean in response accused his rivals of being "co-opted" by President George W. Bush


Howard Dean drew fire from fellow Democrats on Sunday over trade, terror and taxes, then calmly dismissed his rivals as "co-opted by the agenda of George Bush."


So if he is going to "accuse" his rivals, then I apply John Edwards' Truth Meter to this statement and say that he has not been co-opted by Bush's agenda.

[spooky3]

17. You're missing the point once again, so I will draw my own

conclusions as to why that's the case.

[spooky3]

16. I'm sorry, we disagree on at least one point.

The original post had more than one intention; it was to set the record straight on Edwards, with which I have repeatedly expressed support and thanks, but also to proclaim Dean "wrong" by going beyond his actual words. Please re-read the post.

Certainly you and everyone else are entitled to your inferences on what Dean and Kerry meant and what constitutes trickery versus attempts to differentiate oneself from other candidates in general, particularly where others are present and can clarify whatever they think is misleading. But if I or another don't draw the same inferences, my or another's interpretation should be equally respected where it is not contrary to facts. Let's take Kerry's case as well. If Kerry's statement is true, then it is true. It is legitimate to point out, not trickery, that he has been in the Senate a longer time than Edwards, because over a long period of time there may be many more times that a Senator needs the funding and saying "no" many more times could be significant to some voters.

I prefer to get riled over what is actually said rather than quibble over "what s/he REALLY meant" and proclaim Democrats are "wrong", when multiple interpretations are clearly legitimate. When Dean or Kerry or Edwards or anyone else actually says something clearly inaccurate that is important, that is the time to get angry.

Most importantly, we HAVE to stop beating up on fellow Democrats, particularly when your evidence of bad behavior is WEAK. If they lie or cheat or steal or clearly behave badly toward each other, call them on it. But otherwise, we should not be doing Rove's work for him by interpreting comments in the most negative way and bashing them.

[anti-bush]

18. Agreed

I completely agree.

And I think it's important to note that this post is clearly stating that John Edwards has not been co-opted by Bush.

I don't think this was meant to be an indictment on Dean. My intention was just to state that it is necessary to bring up Dean's statement to make sure others know that Edwards was not among those Dean has stated were co-opted.

[AP]

20. Exactly. He paints them all with broad Brush. Yet he's on stage with the

most independent Senator, and most independant congressperson running.

Furthermore, Edwards never ever, unlike Dean, would or had made a speech to the Cato Institute saying "you guy's should like me" because I do what you want.

[seventhson]

4. Well Then. Again I say Dean/Edwards

or Edwards/Dean. I don't care at this point really.

I would vote for potato chips over Bush

[rukidn]

5. I like Edwards/Dean too.

John Edwards is sensible and can win vs Bush or potato chips. Or is it "potatoe" chips?

[HFishbine]

6. What a difference an election year makes.

In 2002, Edwards' support of the Bush agenda was 76%.

http://www.vote-smart.org/bio.php?can_id=CNC68243

[DemDogs]

10. Really misleading - Harkin at 69, Kerry at 72

And Edwards voted with the party 84% of the time. How is that possible? It is possible because there are a lot of votes where the party and the administration do not disagree -- as is often the case on issues we ought to agree on. And Edwards was much lower the year before, so it is clearly not an election year thing.

[HFishbine]

19. Nail on the head

"there are a lot of votes where the party and the administration do not disagree"

That pretty much sums up a lot of the current dissatisfaction with the democratic party.

[mmonk]

11. He was coopted

on matters of the Iraq war unapologetically (no matter that he later decided to be against the funding after it was so unpopular among rank and file dems).

[arewethereyet]

13. anyone paying attention already knows this but thanks

because not everyone pays attention.

Did Dr Dean include himself ? NAFTA and all ?