Not to be yet another debate blogger but something John Edwards (who I wished was the Presidential candidate, and also who I wish I could carry children for) said about Cheney's record floored me.
buy flagyl online buy flagyl no prescription
I mean floored me, and it should floor you too:
The vice president, I‘m surprised to hear him talk about records. When he was one of 435 members of the United States House, he was one of 10 to vote against Head Start, one of four to vote against banning plastic weapons that can pass through metal detectors.
He voted against the Department of Education.
online pharmacy prednisone no prescriptionHe voted against funding for Meals on Wheels for seniors. He voted against a holiday for Martin Luther King. He voted against a resolution calling for the release of Nelson Mandela in South Africa.
buy prednisone online buy prednisone no prescription
Seriously. I'll re-write this if it turns out to be incorrect (Cheney did not comment on these comments), but can you think of a better set of policy items people just don't disagree with? This seriously sounds like the political platform of Skeletor than someone who should be a heartbeat away.
Also kudos to Edwards for mentioning Valerie Lake, the poor girl he represented who had 80% of her intenstial tract ripped out of her body by a defective pool drain. This was the case many Republicans have been using for years now to credit Edward's trial lawyer experience to "jacuzzi cases" (if you every wanted to hate on Tucker Carlson read the two part discussion, by better people than us, about him trying to repaint that case as if the girl had split hot coffee on herself).
mimi smartypants says:
I heart John Edwards too. And I would heart him even if Dick (Fucking) Cheney were not a murderous cyborg. Which he is.
(Everyone hates on Bush, me included, but AT LEAST HE'S HUMAN. Cheney, not so much.)
Ed says:
You people must be on crack. The fact that you look at John Edwards as some sort of savior or representative of what is right in politics is a pretty scathing indictment of the depths to which the system have degenerated.
John Edwards, like any other participant in this game, would shit on his own mother for 2 votes and dances for money in the exact same way that Cheney or anyone else does.
He has taken no real "progressive" stands on anything, mainly because he is in office on the laurels of the same money from the same sources that Bush/Cheney are running on. The Democrats just get a little less of it.
Don't get me wrong, the man is vastly preferable to Dick Cheney. I'm never going to make a "there is no difference" argument regarding this election, but John Edwards? Come on. He's a blow-dried used car salesman who wears bad suits and says whatever happens to be expedient towards the cause he is supporting. That's what lawyers do.
"We believe in discriminating against gays slightly less than the Republicans" and "We realize, like the Republicans, that Israel is the shining light of peace in the middle east" are not exactly the policies that leave one refreshed and under the impression that the spirit of Bob LaFollette is being channeled.
Kerry and Edwards have one asset: they are not Bush and Cheney. Don't take it any further than that. John Edwards' record as a campaigner and representative are one of unbridled hubris and equivocation. Bear his children? Why? His progressive "We may sorta cut taxes a little less" economic policies? His "We will exercise American hegemony in a slightly more intelligent way" policy?
Bizarre.
erik says:
Shit Ed, you want it all don't you? I am far from bowing down at the feet of John Edwards, but I think the man has at least a shred of charisma- which is lacking in 99 percent of politicians.
I would be somewhat reassured if I thought that he had a great plan or you know, anything, but for now I am just thrilled there is at least one man in politics that can string two sentences together without it sounding like he has practised it 20 times in the mirror.
mike says:
We should really figure out what a "Muderous Cyborg Party" platform would look like.
I could see them being against Project Head Start and Meals on Wheels (unless said meals included nuts and bolts and old screws). But I see them being against plastic weapons (the whole idea must seem offensive to Cyborgs); they may also want to see Nelson Mandella free if only to capture him themselves and hold him in their evil Cyborg fortress.
Ed says:
Most politicians are charisma. Did Reagan get the entire nation behind him because he was a genius?
John Edwards can, in fact, string two sentences together. And he does, in fact, seem halfway intelligent. Therefore, he deserves our vote. Other than that, I'm not sure how much more you can justifiably say about him.
mike says:
Ed: Sorry about the delay for this. I can't tell if you want me to say why I like Edwards or not from your response (perhaps it's the crack). In paragraph 6 you say "Why?" but it seems largely rhetorical. I'll pretend it's not and answer anyway.
1) I think we should distinguish between Edwards Presidential candidate and Edwards Running Mate. As running mate, it's his job to get John Kerry's platform across – not his own. If you were to come away from the VP debate saying "boy Edward's sure has a great vision for…" he hasn't done his job. That's one of the reasons why being VP is such a shitty job – you have to promote policy you make not actually like all that much.
Which is to say that I believe the Kerry team is the problem with the wishy-washy policy proposals mentioned (gay marriage, tax cuts), not Edwards himself. As to say I really liked Edwards the candidate; and feel about Edwards the running mate much how I feel about Kerry.
2) I find it suprising that you would take such a hard line against Edwards ("blow-dried used car salesmen") as he has made his fortune and career fighting large and negligent corporations, HMOs and drug companies rather than pandering to them. Whether or not he has done this because he has a heart of gold or a desire for gold means little to me – almost certainly should he have taken a smaller % of the settlements, but in no way should he have not taken the cases he has fought.
Take the word of Ralph Nader, another lawyer prone to wearing bad suits: "let us hope that the Senator from North Carolina will not shy away [as vice-president] from the opportunity to make tort deform a substantive, national, election-year issue. The facts are on his side, and the public deserves to hear them."
mike says:
3) Google search| site:www.ginandtacos.com mike progressive. No instances – i never called Edwards a progressive (which you put into quotes), or implied that he was in the tradition of LaFollette or any such thing.
I do know that his Two Americas speech was not at all "whatever happens to be expedient" to the crowd at hand, as it's the only thing he ever said on the campaign trail. People who covered him always complained about having to hear the same few points over and over again. And I am surprised – his Two Americas platform seemed up your alley. Especially on NAFTA.
Edwards: "America should never enter into a trade agreement that allows an American corporation to pick up, leave America, go to another country and hire children to make their product. It's wrong."
Strip it of it's smiling nature and it's the same as Pat Buchanan saying "There are lots of reasons I
Ed says:
If he's so interested in public advocacy, why didn't he go do pro bono work? Ahh, the joys of being the modern Democrat and having it both ways. "I am a fearless defender of the downtrodden and I happen to have figured out how to make a shitload of money doing it".
Regarding money, the point is that Edwards the candidate and Edwards the Kerry-Edwards VP have both taken obscene amounts of money from these corporations he has allegedly crusaded against his entire life. Go take a look through the FEC public contributions. I find it hard to believe he has an anti-corporate bone in his body. That's bullshit. He sued them because he had clients for whom it was appropriate to do so. He did it because he got paid to do it. It's entirely inappropriate to paint a man who took massive contributions from corporations in every industry as some sort of populist crusader just because his very well-paying former profession involved lawsuits against corporations. Take a look at what he and the Kerry/Edwards combo have gotten from the prescription drug industry that your point #2 claims he is a crusader against.
Yes, Edwards has talked tough on NAFTA. In his Senate tenure, he has not moved to do anything substantive about it. And the fact that I agree with some of his positions does not lead to the fact that I like him. Hell, if i sat down with Pat Robertson and we talked long enough we'd probably find some things to agree on.
Regarding point #1, doing this backwards I guess. So basically you're saying Edwards is a real legitimate guy and the problem with the wishy-washyness is the Kerry campaign? What the fuck kind of person would that make Edwards to sign on to that and be an advocate for it? As you point out, this is the VP's real job – be a voice in support of the candidate. So if Bush had plucked him out of the senate 4 years ago and said "I want to be bipartisan, be my running mate" and Edwards went around doing his job – pushing the candidate's platform – you'd say "Oh that's not Edwards' fault, that's the Bush campaign?? Basically your argument on this point boils down to – edwards has a responsibility to advocate for Kerry, even though he doesn't really agree with a lot of what Kerry says. Hmm. I thought we called that "being a tool" or "selling out". I didn't think going around advocating things one doesn't personally believe is the solution to what ails us as a nation right now.
Getting attacked from the right for his economic positions….is that supposed to be a badge of honor? Congratulations John, you're to the left of Calvin Coolidge. To Jack Kemp, supporting child labor restrictions probably qualifies someone as a pinko. To have Republicans slam Edwards on free trade – a topic on which he is _mildly_ aggressive at best – doesn't really prove anything.
As for "progressive", yes, I said that, and you didn't. But you're talking about the guy like he's some sort of godsend, when in reality he's just another person on the field playing the game. You might like the way he plays it a little better than all the rest, but the last time I checked that wasn't sufficient for wanting to bear someone's children. I guess that's the kind of praise I'd expect would be reserved for a real reformer. I didn't really think you, or the many other people praising Edwards, would get so excited about someone who has signed on as the pitch man for a ticket whose platform is basically "republican lite". Part of me thinks the fawning over Edwards is just a function of how awful things have gotten in the last four years. Taken on his own, absent of the current context, Edwards is basically Al Gore. Well, except that Gore was far more liberal.
mike says:
I like Edwards because I agree with his "Two Americas" platform and with his ways to approach it. It is stuff I have said in the past and continue to say now. His policy is not that of "real reformer" in the sense that I think you mean it, but stuff designed to strengthen working class families. And he conveys it in a way that makes me believe that he really believes it.
How does his brief time the Senate relate? I'll look harder later, but I've found "According to the AFL-CIO, the nation's largest confederation of labor unions, in 2002 Edward's compiled a 96 percent AFL-CIO voting record — casting "44 out of 46 votes for working-family issues."" He did vote for the China trade agreement, but no on the Singapore and Chile. CATO gave him a "pro-fair trade" assessement, which is a policy title I like (though it's with a sneer no doubt from them).
I brought up that he is being attacked by the right not because of the fact that he is (who isn't these days?) but for being isolationist – and that the attack isn't saying whatever needs to be said, which is what you accused him of.
I brought up the running mate angle because I want to emphasis that I liked him as a candidate running by himself. Does he agree with everything Kerry is saying? I don't know. Probably he does, but it's not the platform I cast my primary vote for. Is he accountable for everything he says in favor of Kerry's platform? Yes of course he is. Which is why I'm a bit disappointed that he's VP in a way, because it put him in that awful situation of playing mop-up to Kerry.
"I am a fearless defender of the downtrodden and I happen to have figured out how to make a shitload of money doing it". I really find nothing wrong with that statement. Nader, who doesn't disclose his personal income, is valued (as of 2000 anyway) at at least $4mil. If edwards (valued $9-40mil) decided to become a man of leisure with his wealth I could see this but he dumped a huge chunk of it right away into a Senate run.
mike says:
and yes, I agree there is a derth of qualified candidates on the field – but I would agree with Edwards' Two Americas regardless.
And I think it's fair and unfair (how Kerry is that!) to call Kerry Republican lite. It's fair on foreign policy – in fact it's Republican Hard with Kerry wondering why we haven't taken on Fallujah or gotten enough troops theree. It's unfair on domestic issues, where Bush is really for pro-life and Kerry really for pro-choice. Bush will move to prioritize HSA and gradually move for a flat tax; Kerry will not. Kerry (says he) will pull the tax on those making over $200,000.
That is a very different approach to tax policy than the Bush team, and it's not a matter of degrees but of philosophy.
Ed says:
Their tax proposal for those making over $200,000 involves rolling back the new bracket (35%) back to the old bracket (39%). How aggressive. No word about breaking the 10% barrier on corporate taxation, either.
I think that the reason people make abortion such a god-forsaken unavoidable political issue these days is that it's the one clear difference between the candidates in most races. "Kerry's pro-choice! He's different on domestic policies!" Well, guess what. Abortion is about 15th on the priority list on domestic policy, just slightly behind the "invading other countries" and "leaving the debt to lie around until the dollar turns into a green Peso".
I, for one, don't give a flying fuck about abortion, and I resent its status as a political issue. It's nothing but a red flag people wave to start nice, emotionally-charged arguments and emphasize the "difference in character" among candidates. Sure beats dealing with the real issues.
Bush can push for a flat tax all he wants. It is never going to happen. Period. Unless the Republicans somehow end up with 61 senate seats (not going to happen), it doesn't really matter to me that Bush sits around at night jerking off thinking about flat taxes and national sales taxes.
I'm surprised and puzzled by this entire line of argument. I hate to break it to anyone, but the Democratic Party is not the answer to what ails this country. "Free trade with everyone" vs "Free trade with China and Mexico but not some other places" doesn't seem like kind of argument that's going to produce the right answers. The Democratic party is passing itself off as the populist one on the merits of the fact that it is to the left of the Republicans. Which is saying a lot, I know.
Our "liberal" party is slightly to the right of the british Tory party. And that is, if you take the Kerry/Edwards platform (good luck defining it), a fact.
The country is so god damned "Gimme my money, that's MY money, MINE MINE MINE and you can't take it and give it to the welfare negroes!" that the Democratic party has completely lost its bearings. Being the mushy center doesn't accomplish anything, and going to the left will result in 532 to 3 electoral college losses in presidential elections. I refuse to pat these people on the back for going "all the way" to the center on some of their positions, as if that is a noteworthy accomplishment. John Edwards: He Isn't Completely Indistinguishable from Republicans.
Not a very good rallying cry.
Sam says:
Ed, I'd be interested to read your thoughts on Russ Feingold. Since you're kinda talking about "progressives" and the Democratic Party, and what direction this country needs.
Ed says:
My ex-girlfriend works for Feingold. He is an honest man in fat-ass hillbilly country, and as a result he will probably be lucky to win re-election. He only really won in 1998 because of massive student support in Dane County and the fact that his opponent, Mark Neumann, was a borderline fascist that even many Republicans couldn't condone.
Nidia Anerton says:
Everybody has their interests in everyday life and also we all have our talents. All your information have indeed provided me some interesting tips. Thanks so much.