COMMENTS: 186
Iowa: Edwards Takes on Corporate Greed
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest headlines via email.
Dubuque, Iowa -- Amid a heavy snow storm Friday afternoon, an overflow crowd of several hundred supporters bundled into a meeting hall in this economically battered town to hear candidate John Edwards escalate his closing campaign message of opposing "corporate greed" and denounce what he called a "small group of profiteers" dominating American life.
"Everything about America is threatened today ... this is an epic struggle for the future of America," Edwards told the cheering crowd. "Corporate greed and the very powerful use their money to control Washington and this corrupting influence is destroying the middle class."
While all of the presidential campaigns have refocused to some degree on foreign policy in the wake of the murder of Pakistani leader Benazir Bhutto, Edwards is keeping his message of economic fairness front and center during the final week of campaigning here. "We will defeat greed and fear -- and strike a blow for working people, for those with no voice, for those Washington has ignored too long." Edwards made no mention of the Pakistani crisis in his newly re-tooled stump speech.
While Edwards has consistently campaigned on an economically populist program, his speech today in Dubuque was marked by a noticeable ratcheting up and radicalization of his critique of corporate wealth and power.
"Why on earth would we expect the corporate powers and their lobbyists, who make billions by selling out the middle-class, to just give up their power because we ask them nicely?" Edwards asked. He made no mention of rivals Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton in today's speech; in the past, he has slammed Clinton for being too indebted to powerful Washington lobbies.
Edwards is in the midst of a final 38-county push to win next Thursday's Iowa caucuses. Even his own supporters will concede that taking Iowa is a do-or-die must for a campaign running third in national polls, but in a virtual dead heat in the Hawkeye State with rivals Clinton and Obama.
Nestled on the gritty Illinois border, Dubuque has been hit hard by the collapse in American manufacturing jobs and offers itself as a perfect venue for Edwards' message of economic fairness. The local Flexsteel plant has lost about two-thirds of its 800 jobs over the past decade. Paper maker Georgia Pacific, another big employer in town, has also been hit hard by job exports.
"Iowa has lost twice as many jobs to unfair trade deals than it's won in the so-called technological revolution," Edwards adviser Dave "Mudcat" Saunders told the HuffPost before today's event started. "What kind of revolution is that?" Saunders said Edwards would stay on his message of opposing "unchecked greed" and that it was a theme that resonated deeply throughout the state.
******
Friday Afternoon
Clinton, Iowa
I'm sitting in the gym at the Washington Middle School here in the eastern Iowa town of Clinton waiting for Barack Obama, who's running an hour late, to show up for one of his half-dozen events he's scheduled for today. I've been in Iowa less than 18 hours and have already logged more than 350 miles and driven through two snowstorms to catch three separate campaign events -- and I'm not complaining.
Say what you will about the undemocratic, unrepresentative nature of the Hawkeye State caucuses, but they beat the hell out of just about every other undemocratic, unrepresentative aspect of American electoral politics.
Here's the bottom line: Spend any amount of time in this extraordinary form of retail politicking and you can't help but conclude that every cliché about the collective wisdom of the American electorate is actually true. If we could agree on one basic takeaway from this whole process, it should be that we outright ban all TV political advertising and insist that the Iowa model be followed in every state of the union--no matter its size.
Take, for example, the Joe Biden event I attended last night in Council Bluffs, about ten minutes after I drove out of the Omaha airport. At least 150, maybe 200 people gathered in an Elks Lodge, during the dinner hour, on a week night with the thermometer reading 18 degrees to hear ... Joe Biden! And it was vintage Biden. He talked and talked and talked some more, often taking 10 minutes to answer one question. His brother, Jim, three times threatened to literally cut the microphone cord. And three times Biden said, wait, wait, just a few more questions.
An ego trip? For sure. But much more than that. Yes, there was the predictable question about ethanol from the rural crowd. But there was a cascade of queries about foreign policy, Biden's forte. Russia and Putin? The Israelis and the Palestinians? Should we talk to Syria? Explain that Biden Plan for Iraq, will'ya?
This from guys in jeans with John Deere caps and from their wives clutching plastic bags from Target. Biden, of course, was only too happy to accommodate. And on several occasions he prefaced his remarks by apologizing for the long-winded and complicated answer he was about to give.
This went on for two hours and came to an end only when Brother Jim had to literally drag the candidate to a waiting car. At no point did the audience grow restless or bored. After each answer, five or six more hands shot up. The interest was avid and, in fact, Biden's biggest applause line of the night had nothing to do with the usual sort of pandering, bur rather when he vowed that in a Biden administration he would outlaw all forms of torture.
The whole thing was rather restorative -- a word you usually don't find in any sentence with the word Biden in it. But it was. And it was a stark reminder how the process, and almost everyone in it, from the candidates to the consultants to the media managers insult and underestimate the intelligence of the American voter. Good for Biden.
Obama's bus just arrived. So more later.
Stay up to date with the latest AlterNet headlines via email
Comments are closed-
Posted by: meetmeineleusis on Dec 29, 2007 1:08 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Seriously though, if Edwards gains momentum he just might swipe my vote from RP.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Just keep in mind he is a member of the CFR and voted for a....
Posted by: Prophit
» RP is a bad choice
Posted by: benzene
» Ron Paul is pro military and supports prayers and religion in schools supported by tax credits
Posted by: Rune
» You're not enlightening me to anything
Posted by: meetmeineleusis
» Here's an enlightening thought ....
Posted by: newmoonnaturals
» Do you have a link to those quotes that I can verify??? Thanks
Posted by: Prophit
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Shenonymous on Dec 29, 2007 3:36 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Hey, great combination.... never thought of that.
Posted by: Prophit
» RE: Hey, great combination.... never thought of that.
Posted by: anna132
» RE: Hey, great combination...Can't think of a better way
Posted by: UnEasyOne
» Here we go with prophit/pepper and the conspiracy theories.
Posted by: johngary66
» RE: Biden
Posted by: Lauren
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Suzon on Dec 29, 2007 3:53 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm glad that Edwards is staying focused on the impact of corporate power and hope that he's continuing to emphasize the fact that insurance companies and Big Pharma put huge profits above the health and well-being of American citizens.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: excuse me, but isn't torture already illegal thanks to the prohibition of cruel
Posted by: Lauren
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Tom Degan on Dec 29, 2007 5:27 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hillary Clinton is a Democrat in name only. Why do you think Rupert Murdoch has been holding fundraisers for her? Either she's in his pocket or he wants her nominated because he knows that she is destined to lose. Why have the big drug companies been doing the same? Why has the corporate-controlled media all but christened her as the 2008 standard bearer? You don't have to be a political scientist to figure any of this stuff out, folks!
And don't forget this: Hillary's nomination is all-but-certain to unleash a Nader style/third party uprising at the polls next year. That is a chance we can not afford to take again.
Every poll has John Edwards winning handily against any and all Republican challengers next year. Every poll has Hillary Clinton losing. Those are the facts, ma'am. Edwards energizes the base. Clinton does not.
Hey, Democrats! Do you want to know why I left your party almost a decade ago? You people are just dumb enough to give the nomination to Hillary Clinton! Prove me wrong, Dems. Prove me wrong.
Tom Degan
Goshen, NY
"The Rant" by Tom Degan
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: EDWARDS
Posted by: ProgressiveManiac
» RE: DWARDS
Posted by: Tom Degan
» RE: DWARDS - Ah, finally found the PROGRESSIVE part of the thread!
Posted by: UnEasyOne
» RE: DWARDS - Ah, finally found the PROGRESSIVE part of the thread!
Posted by: EdinIowa
» RE: I wouldn't be surprised by any of the rethug dirty tricks to make it a close election.
Posted by: johngary66
» 3rd party paranoia
Posted by: benzene
» RE: EDWARDS
Posted by: Chloe2005
» FDR Worship Misplaced
Posted by: 2dogarage
» The truth hurts
Posted by: 2dogarage
» RE: You ain't gonna get a lot of traction trashing the greatest president of the last century
Posted by: UnEasyOne
» RE: You ain't gonna get a lot of traction trashing the greatest president of the last century
Posted by: 2dogarage
» RE: The truth hurts
Posted by: EdinIowa
» RE: The truth hurts
Posted by: 2dogarage
» RE: DWARDS
Posted by: Sissy
» RE: DWARDS
Posted by: Tom Degan
» RE: DWARDS
Posted by: cherylholmes
» RE: DWARDS
Posted by: Tom Degan
» RE: EDWARDS
Posted by: Glennk1949
Comments are closed-
Posted by: otto on Dec 29, 2007 5:29 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: dustinblythe on Dec 29, 2007 6:27 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am going to Iowa on New Year's Eve to do my part on behalf of the Edwards campaign and this latest round of stories about Edwards' surge of momentum the week before the caucus has me more energized than ever!
Dustin Blythe
Mishawaka, IN
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: If I'm Dreaming, Don't Wake Me!
Posted by: Tom Degan
» You ain't Dreaming Brother!
Posted by: single-serving poster
» RE: You ain't Dreaming Brother!
Posted by: lisaisalefty
» Bet you ten bucks.
Posted by: single-serving poster
» RE: Bet you ten bucks AlterNet is
Posted by: Lauren
Comments are closed-
Posted by: old prof on Dec 29, 2007 6:47 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» "Go to blazes"
Posted by: Tom Degan
» RE: "Go to blazes"
Posted by: lisaisalefty
» RE: "Go to blazes"
Posted by: Lauren
Comments are closed-
Posted by: single-serving poster on Dec 29, 2007 7:22 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Edwards deserves support, not because HE will right anything, or how perfect and unassailable HE is.
But because in a scenario where Edwards can bash some unfortunate G.O.P. candidate saddled with Bush II's legacy, dragging momentum for populist congressional candidates with him, all the while railing eloquently against Corporate Greed, and Corruption:
We might just have a congenial atmosphere for important change in this country for the first time since Franklin Roosevelt died!
Can you get over your -understandable- quesyness at Huckabee's kooky religious convictions to see that even the MASSIVELY SURGING REPUBLICAN candidate is appealing to POPLULIST, WORKING-CLASS values?
I dream of a Edwards/Obama vs. Huckabee/Whoever race---- imagine it!
The Populist Plain-Talk Lawyer-for-the-People, and the Youthful, Charismatic "Beyond-Race" Mid-West Senator,
-against-
The Witty, Down-Home, Working-man's Baptist Preacher, and Whoever has the stones to stand with him against the MoneyBoys (Ron Paul?)
Ha, effin- HA!
What will the Oligarchs do then?
Cook up some big "fear" action to justify suspending the elections as so many of the "made themselves experts" on the InterWebs predict?
You tell me, where's the money in facing down the combined might of 50 million armed-to-the-teeth Rednecks and 100 million "that's the final straw!" ex-middle-class Workers?
NOT GONNA HAPPEN KIDS
Everybody on the "left" needs to start opening their eyes and face it:
THE BIG CHANGE IS COMIN' BABY!
Not the way we foresaw perhaps, but it's coming.
With the collapse of the Credit Finance system, with the It's-gotten-to-damn-obvious state of the environment, and with the continued, mind-numbingly stupid squeezing of the Majority by the Oligarchical Minority, it's coming.
Commodity and food prices going "north" because of the inevitable, and should have been predicted and accomodated for effects on price of Peak Oil, is gonna be the "straw that broke the American-willing-to-stand-bullshit's back".
Mark my words.
All this is why for the first time in my several decades of eligibility I might actually register and Vote for the damned President of the U-dot, S-dot.
As long as the Dems put up Edwards that is.
Hell, I might even go so far as to register DEM and vote in the primary if I thought it would help (though it would break my Commie Grandpa's Heart).
We don't NEED John Edwards as President, but we sure could USE him!.
Remember kids,
No King is a Good King.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: The King will not Save Us. The Earth won't either.
Posted by: greentime
Comments are closed-
Posted by: HANGTRAITORS on Dec 29, 2007 8:04 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://www.whale.to/a/allopathy_h.html
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» How to prevent most cancer
Posted by: PaulK
Comments are closed-
Posted by: g50 on Dec 29, 2007 8:35 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
you want to know what would happen if huckabee & edwards some how bear their party's standard? president bloomberg - and i am voting for him.
i know there are economic frustrations, but what are these clowns going to do with their anti-corporate rhetoric? are they going to "take down the power of corporations"? sounds like a recipe for economic disaster. and if they aren't going to actually do anything they are just going to let you down by promising you the moon & giving you a photo of kraft cheese.
i can live with hillary, as long as she teams up with obama. and i can live with obama center-stage. clinton gets a bit carried away with her rhetoric some times, but is nowhere near as blatantly irresponsible with her promises as edwards. obama is honest - notice no real anti-corporate rhetoric. that's because like them or not corporations are the framework of the american economy & it has been that way since this land was colonized...they have to have a seat on the table, and yes, corporations can have a productive part in the process. they won't give away the farm, if that is what you want, but the recent ascendence of the left-liberal agenda is in no small part because the business class has simply turned away from the republicans due to their inability to govern effectively. corporate people are in fact informed & ready to accept both universal healthcare & global warming policies. even if what they want doesn't perfectly align with what you want, i bet you can get something out of the deal that is superior to the status quo, going forward without also taking steps back.
anyway, i'm not saying turn the keys over to corporate america. but people who work at corporations, who are employed by the corporate model, number in the dozens of millions and are part of our national family as well. the maturity to understand that we have to negotiate our mutual self-interest with good faith is vastly superior to the phoney edwardsian sibling rivalry.
one last thing - there can be such a thing as a good king. i mean, kings can be good or bad leaders, just as with democratically elected leaders. and if the national mood of discontent gives the GOP & DNC huckabee & edwards, i'd say bring on king bloomberg.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» You win the prize!
Posted by: single-serving poster
» RE: You win the prize!
Posted by: g50
» Another English tip: "Assertive" sentences never begin with the word "If".
Posted by: single-serving poster
» This is Distracting from real discussion, so we should drop it.
Posted by: single-serving poster
» And If your going to "quote" someone...
Posted by: single-serving poster
» RE: And If your going to "quote" someone...
Posted by: g50
» I was goin to let you go, but you're starting to scare me now.
Posted by: single-serving poster
» Is there someting "COOLIO" about not writing properly?
Posted by: Prairie Waif
» RE: Is there someting "COOLIO" about not writing properly?
Posted by: g50
» RE: You win the prize! Nobody wants to "end corporations"
Posted by: UnEasyOne
» RE: You win the prize! Nobody wants to "end corporations"
Posted by: Joe
» RE: You win the prize! Nobody wants to "end corporations" - What hate?
Posted by: UnEasyOne
» I HATE Corporate Welfare
Posted by: Prairie Waif
» RE: I HATE Corporate Welfare - good points
Posted by: UnEasyOne
» RE: You win the prize!
Posted by: Lauren
» RE: You win the prize!
Posted by: g50
» RE: oh my lovely loonie friends :)
Posted by: Glennk1949
» go to the head of the class g50
Posted by: reevolve
» Pity the rich? I don't think so.
Posted by: whatzaname
Comments are closed-
Posted by: thekidde on Dec 29, 2007 8:46 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: g50 - Corporate America, multi-nationals, the Fed and
Posted by: g50
» If you knew what you were talking about, you might...
Posted by: single-serving poster
» RE: If you knew what you were talking about, you might...
Posted by: g50
» Please show an example of my "hate", 'cause ya lost me there kid.
Posted by: single-serving poster
» Believe it or not, I'm trying to drop this, but...
Posted by: single-serving poster
» RE: Believe it or not, I'm trying to drop this, but...
Posted by: g50
» You should've given up 4 posts ago.
Posted by: single-serving poster
» RE: You should've given up 4 posts ago.
Posted by: g50
» RE: If you knew what you were talking about, you might...
Posted by: Lauren
» RE: g50 - Wonder if you are still going to be saying that
Posted by: UnEasyOne
» RE: g50 - Corporate America, multi-nationals, the Fed and
Posted by: anna132
» RE: g50 - Corporate America, multi-nationals, the Fed and
Posted by: g50
Comments are closed-
Posted by: herbal on Dec 29, 2007 10:52 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Rune on Dec 29, 2007 11:18 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Edwards is right about the need to fight for economic opportunity, of course, but to attract widespread support, he needs to emphasize opportunity instead of finger pointing and fighting. Even people burned by the pillaging of economies far and wide, including right here in the U.S., still lap up takes of the land of opportunity. In fact, the main reason most voters are upset is that the three biggest myths about America have been busted by Bush:
(1) The U.S. is the biggest, bestest do-gooder nation on the planet;
(2) The U.S. can and should run the world through economic and military might that ultimately brings peace and justice to all who deserve it; and,
(3) The U.S. is the land of opportunity and prosperity for the hard working, common person.
Pointing fingers at the multinational, robber-baron corporations that are vacuuming up the wealth and health of the nation faster than Ross Perot can say "sucking sound" may play well to party loyalists who are mad as hell and highly motivated to participate in primaries and caucuses, but it is not going to be an attractive message to the barely conscious that give the GOP hope for another four years despite the ruin they have already wrought for the last seven. Most people are just too afraid and traumatized to let go of their hope that they will have a job and just enough pay to live a descent life to risk anything that sounds like an attack on the powerful providers of jobs--until they hear that there is some sort of safety net and new promise awaiting them if they let go of their reliance on mega-corporations and whatever trifle they allow to trickle down to the mere mortals that work for them.
Edwards would do well to let go of the pain and fear rhetoric and put considerable focus on rewarding businesses for delivering on the promise of the greatest good for the greatest number (not the biggest billionaires) that was the original selling point of the theories of free trade and capitalism. Where business cannot deliver on that promise when left to its own devices, government has a legitimate role in regulating and facilitating economic activity so that such outcomes are more likely than the looting and laying waste that has become the devastating new norm of globalization.
Edwards has some good points. He just needs to put more attention on the good and less on being pointed.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: dwards needs to turn his negative attacks into positive leadership
Posted by: anna132
» RE: dwards needs to turn his negative attacks into positive leadership
Posted by: Lauren
» Edwards/Obama - that's the ticket
Posted by: whatzaname
» RE: dwards needs to turn his negative attacks into positive leadership
Posted by: Glennk1949
Comments are closed-
Posted by: starvinmarvy on Dec 29, 2007 2:22 PM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
were guest at a Bilderberg gathering! Now...
I`m not Mr.Know It All by any means...but I`m thinking anyone even remotely connected with these Globalist are not good for us...the middle class
slaves of the state! Are we all still so ignorant
of what they let us see and read? Do we really think ANY...of these clowns will make a difference
in our lives? Do we think that the choices of the so called "presidency" of the "United States of America"....will bring peace and prosperity to we the people? To peace on the planet? To a better life for our children? Do you really think one of these "chosen few" will give us affordable healthcare?Ect????
They`re cut from the same mold folks.
The "election process" of this country is a joke.
The election process is a convenient diversion of whats really going on.
The presidency of this this country has become a "voicebox" for the global elitists!
I`m not saying anything here that we don`t already know.......right?
THEN....whats with this story on another
puppet?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Here we go with the conspiracy theories again. It's just an attempt to change the subject
Posted by: johngary66
» RE: Here we go with the conspiracy theories again. It's just an attempt to change the subject
Posted by: starvinmarvy
Comments are closed-
Posted by: cherylholmes on Dec 29, 2007 2:48 PM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Your children, your grandchildren will all die in middle eastern wars that are perpetuated by either party because the government likes it, they love killing, torture, power, money and wealth. We let our government sell us out and destroy us. It's gone on for too long now to throw the plan in reverse and no candidate or elected official is about to do that anyway. These people don't represent us, so why bother to vote or get all excited about another phoney election? Nothing has or will change.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Doesn't matter...
Posted by: dustinblythe
» RE: Doesn't matter...Are you gonna actually claim
Posted by: UnEasyOne
» Congratulations.....
Posted by: carbon-based
Comments are closed-
Posted by: diof09 on Dec 29, 2007 6:20 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Trying to correct a mistake from nearly 28 years ago...Me too
Posted by: UnEasyOne
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Clockwise Cat on Dec 29, 2007 7:49 PM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'll take Edwards over Pillory and O-dumba, of course, but Edwards doesn't have the progressive credentials and the record that DK has.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Do you think for one minute AIPAC will let Dennis go anywhere???
Posted by: sofla100
» RE: Do you think for one minute AIPAC will let Dennis go anywhere???
Posted by: Lauren
» RE: Kucinich, you dolts!
Posted by: EdinIowa
» I was all for Kucinich too, but I had started wondering about his judgement.
Posted by: johngary66
» Agreed - if Kucinich things Ron Paul is a good runningmate...
Posted by: whatzaname
» Kucinich, you dolt, indeed.
Posted by: Philip Newton
Comments are closed-
Posted by: richardbelldc on Dec 29, 2007 9:12 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Even if Iowa's population is not representative of the country as a whole, I would rather have Iowans who pay attention doing the deciding than people whose only contact with the candidates is through the distorting lenses of the mainstream media and paid campaign commercials.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Let's Hear it for Iowans
Posted by: Lauren
» Iowans? Give me a Break (please)
Posted by: LookOut
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sofla100 on Dec 29, 2007 9:33 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Let's Give Edwards a Chance
Posted by: g50
» RE: Let's Give Edwards a Chance
Posted by: Glennk1949
» RE: Let's Give Edwards a Chance - Not only that
Posted by: UnEasyOne
» RE: Why the 1 rating?
Posted by: UnEasyOne
Comments are closed-
Posted by: CharliePatton on Dec 30, 2007 12:44 PM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Edwards voted for the reviled Bankruptcy Bill--not once, but twice in 2002 and 2005.
Obviously, Edwards chose financial interests over working families.
How does Edward's records square with "takes on corporate greed"? Clearly, Edwards is an enabler of "corporate greed".
The only venue where Edwards "takes on corporate greed" is in his empty promises, which too many gullible Democratic Party voters buy--hook, line and sinker--to their detriment, again and again.
Forget about what Edwards says--and the same goes for Shillery Clinton and Obama--and examine his voting record.
In addition, Edwards--or should I say, Judas--also sided with the entire GOP caucus to vote against the Wellstone amendment to the 2001 Bankruptcy "Reform" bill.
Moreover, Edwards rejected a means test amendment that would have protected debtors from sudden financial misfortune. On the same Bankruptcy "Reform" bill, Edwards again voted with the entire GOP caucus to reject an amendment that would have included a more consumer friendly means test than that included in the original bill.
And, last but not least, Edwards supported the final version of the Bankruptcy bill that "punishes the vulnerable." Months later, Edwards again voted for the similar version of the Bankruptcy bill that emerged from negotiations with the House of Representatives. He also voted to limit debate twice on the bill, stifling further amendments or arguments. This version was not substantively different from the earlier versions, as it still made it significantly harder for working Americans to discharge their debts through the bankruptcy system. Chris Dodd rejected this bill, along with Senators Durbin, Feingold, Harkin, Kennedy, Kerry and Wellstone. 14 Democrats and 2 Republicans voted against the final measure. (That is, HR 333, Vote 234, 7/17/01; HR 333, Vote 236, 7/17/01; HR 333, Vote 230, 7/12/01).
The late Senator Paul Wellstone, D-Minn, said the Bankruptcy "Reform" Bill--and I quote--"punishes the vulnerable and it rewards the big banks and credit card companies for their poor practices."
Edwards, Clinton and Obama's treachery extends to other policy debates, as well.
Where have they voted against a clearly illegal war?
Where have they stopped funding?
Where have they voted for re-deployment of the troops?
How about impeachment of the war criminal, George W. Bush?
The truth is that Edwards, Clinton and Obama have done nothing.
All you have, at the end of the day, when dealing with Republicans who masquerade as "Democrats"--like Edwards, Clinton and Obama--is a handful of empty promises, which they have no intention of fulfilling.
The reality is that Edwards, Clinton and Obama are funded by the same Americans and foreign entities who support and fund Bush and the Republican Party. The fact is that all three of them--Edward, Clinton and Obama--have tripped over themselves to give Bush everything he wants--from illegal war to corporate friendly legislation. None of them has fought Bush--none, not one of them.
And, finally, I must take issue with the author of this grotesque puff piece. The author misleads the reader when claiming that Edwards is anti-corporate, when examination of Edward's voting record proves that Edwards--like Clinton and Obama--is nothing more than Republican who masquerades as a "Democrat".
Forget about Edwards and his empty promises, and instead, examine his deeds.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Didn't Jack Bruce write a song about Edwards, Clinton and Obama?
Posted by: CharliePatton
» RE: You made some very good points, so let's do that - Examine his words AND deeds.
Posted by: UnEasyOne
» RE: You made some very good points, so let's do that - Examine his words AND deeds.
Posted by: CharliePatton
» RE: Excuse me, but everybody works SOMEWHERE!
Posted by: UnEasyOne
» RE: Excuse me, but everybody works SOMEWHERE!
Posted by: CharliePatton
» RE: More on Edwards hedge fund connections and corporate contributions
Posted by: CharliePatton
Comments are closed-
Posted by: truthteller on Dec 30, 2007 1:46 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I couldn't help fearing that at the end of this speech, or some speech, some day, we're going to hear the dreaded news report start out, "Earlier today, shots rang out at the end of John Edwards' rally...". It always seems to happen to those on the side of the people who fly too close to the Sun. I hope not this time. Maybe I've just seen the replay of RFK's last speech too often. Things like that that happen when you're young and impressionable have a way of haunting you for life.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Saw his rally today on C-SPAN
Posted by: CharliePatton
» RE: Again, Charlie, what is your alternative?
Posted by: UnEasyOne
» RE: Again, Charlie, what is your alternative?
Posted by: CharliePatton
» RE: Of course, but maybe I should have said "Who is your alternative?"
Posted by: UnEasyOne
» RE: Of course, but maybe I should have said "Who is your alternative?"
Posted by: CharliePatton
» RE: Oh, please
Posted by: UnEasyOne
» RE: Parrot the corrupt corporate media--Is that all you can do?
Posted by: CharliePatton
» RE: And what do you mean by "non-response"?
Posted by: CharliePatton
» RE: And what do you mean by "non-response"?
Posted by: UnEasyOne
» RE: God, please send me smarter detractors
Posted by: CharliePatton
» RE: God, please send me smarter detractors - LMAO!
Posted by: UnEasyOne
» RE: Keep trashing Edwards
Posted by: UnEasyOne
» RE: Keep trashing Edwards
Posted by: CharliePatton
» RE: Unbelievable
Posted by: CharliePatton
» RE: Unbelievable - you are the liar
Posted by: UnEasyOne
» RE: Unbelievable
Posted by: CharliePatton
» RE: And when will you reply to the substance of my argument?
Posted by: CharliePatton
» RE: Shame you have no reading comprehension
Posted by: UnEasyOne
» RE: You're a sophist, and a poor one at that
Posted by: CharliePatton
» RE: One last time - because you really bore me.
Posted by: UnEasyOne
» RE: Wrong, You only read half the sentence and cherry picked it
Posted by: CharliePatton
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Shenonymous on Dec 30, 2007 5:57 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
and check out all the other candidates while you are there too.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Edwards down on cannabis
Posted by: aonghus36
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Philip Newton on Dec 30, 2007 10:14 PM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let's elect him and see if he holds up.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Edwards = Democrat that PRETENDS to pick up the populist mantle...
Posted by: LookOut
» RE: dwards = Democrat that PRETENDS to pick up the populist mantle...
Posted by: Philip Newton
» RE: Edwards = Democrat that PRETENDS to pick up the populist mantle...
Posted by: LookOut
» RE: dwards = Democrat that PRETENDS to pick up the populist mantle...
Posted by: Philip Newton
Comments are closed-
Posted by: whatzaname on Dec 31, 2007 9:31 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: LookOut on Dec 31, 2007 9:30 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Anyone who believes this act merely projects their own fantasy onto another hollow ad campaign for the corporatists running the show.
On what pretends to be the "left" Kucinich may not be perfect but at least he's a reasonable facsimile of what he presents himself to be.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Edwards = Phony Populist & Phony anti-Fascist
Posted by: CharliePatton
» I am confused by your Edwards' voting history
Posted by: purplewarrior
» RE: You're right. I cut and paste the wrong info
Posted by: CharliePatton
Comments are closed-
Posted by: CharliePatton on Jan 1, 2008 7:30 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
09/29/2006 Military Commissions Act of 2006 Y
09/27/2006 Military Commissions Act of 2006 Y
10/24/2001 USA Patriot Act of 2001 Y
10/12/2001 Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001 Y
06/21/2000 WTO Withdrawal resolution N
04/14/2005 Bankruptcy Reform Bill Y
09/14/2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force Y
04/18/1996 Comprehensive Terrorism Prevention Act Y
07/31/1996 Welfare Reform Act of 1996 Y
07/18/1996 Welfare Reform Act of 1996 Y
03/14/1996 Anti-terrorism bill Y
12/13/2001 No Child Left Behind Act Y
05/23/2001 No Child Left Behind Act Y
06/13/2000 Higher Education Funding Amendment N
02/06/1995 Line Item Veto Act Y
12/12/2007 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 Y
03/06/1996 Cuba Sanctions bill Y
10/30/1995 Bosnia Troop Deployment Resolution Y
10/20/2005 Firearms Manufacturers Protection bill Y
08/02/2007 Prescription Drug Imports N
10/31/2007 Trade and Globalization Act of 2007 Y
07/11/2007 Extension of Funding for Transitional Medical Assistance and Abstinence Education Y
06/15/2007 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Y
09/14/2006 Secure Fence Act of 2006 Y
02/10/2005 Real ID Act of 2005 Y
1/07/2007 Sexual Orientation Employment Nondiscrimination Act (ENDA) N
07/30/1996 Working Families Flexibility Act of 1996 N
12/13/2007 Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 Y
03/07/2006 PATRIOT Act Reauthorization bill Y
09/28/2006 Electronic Surveillance Modernization Act Y
06/27/2003 U.S.-Chile Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act Y
06/27/2003 U.S.-Singapore Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act Y
08/04/2007 Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2007 N
11/05/2003 Military Construction Appropriations Act, 2004 Y
07/24/1996 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) Funding Amendment N
12/21/1995 Welfare Reform Bill NV
11/08/2007 United States-Peru Trade Agreement Y
07/20/2006 U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement Y
05/04/2000 Africa Free Trade bill Y
How, after examining Edwards' voting record, can anyone conclude that he is "populist" or "anti-corporate" advocate?
This is not the voting record of a "populist" or "anti-fascist"; this is the voting record of a Republican who masquerades as a "Democrat".
Obviously, Edwards thinks that we, the voters, are a bunch of cretins. And it appears that in the case of gullible Edwards' supporters that he may be right.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: John Edwards--was not in the Senate after 2005.
Posted by: greentime
» RE: You're correct
Posted by: CharliePatton
» I am confused by your Edwards' voting history
Posted by: purplewarrior
» RE: You're right, see corrected voting record, below
Posted by: CharliePatton
» RE: John Edwards--The triumph of rhetoric over reality. (corrected)
Posted by: CharliePatton
» FYI--Here are my voting record sources
Posted by: CharliePatton
Comments are closed-
Posted by: CharliePatton on Jan 1, 2008 11:02 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
02/02/2000 Bankruptcy Reform bill Y
03/23/1999 Kosovo Resolution Y
10/25/2001 USA Patriot Act of 2001 Y
09/14/2001 Military Force Authorization resolution Y
11/19/2002 Homeland Security Act of 2002 Y
05/21/2004 Condemning Iraq Abuse of Prisoners resolution NV
10/11/2002 Use of Military Force Against Iraq Y
05/18/1999 Religious Memorials at Schools Amendment Y
2/18/2001 No Child Left Behind Act Y
06/24/2004 Defense Department FY2005 Appropriations bill Y
09/25/2003 Terrorism Information Awareness bill NV
07/17/2003 Terrorism Information Awareness bill Y
04/03/2003 Appropriations for Operations in Iraq Y
10/16/2002 Department of Defense Appropriations, FY2003 bill Y
08/01/2002 Department of Defense Appropriations, FY2003 bill Y
07/18/2002 Military Construction Appropriations Act FY2003 Y
0/18/2001 Military Construction FY2002 Appropriations bill Y
09/26/2001 Military Construction FY2002 Appropriations bill Y
10/14/1999 Defense Department Appropriations bill, FY2000 Y
06/30/1999 Cuba Travel Ban Amendment Y
06/30/1999 Foreign Operations FY2000 Appropriations bill Y
04/29/2004 Internet Access Tax bill Y
03/19/2003 ANWR Oil Drilling Amendment Y
07/13/2000 Death/Estate Tax Amendment Y
06/20/2000 Hate Crimes Amendment Y
05/20/1999 Juvenile Crime bill Y
10/28/2003 Michael Leavitt, Adiminstrator of the EPA NV
02/03/2000 Alan Greenspan for Chairman of the Federal Reserve Y
01/24/2001 Norman Y. Mineta for Secretary of Transportation Y
01/24/2001 Thompson for Secretary of Health and Human Services Y
01/23/2001 Martinez for Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Y
01/23/2001 Anthony Principi for Secretary of Veterans Affairs Y
03/02/2004 Firearms Manufacturers Protection bill NV
10/03/2000 American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act, 2000 Y
11/09/1999 Two Year Minimum Wage Increase Amendment N
11/09/1999 Three Year Minimum Wage Increase Amendment N
6/11/2002 Hate Crimes Bill Y
10/22/2003 Reduction of SPAM bill NV
09/25/2003 Do-Not-Call Registry bill NV
09/16/2003 FCC Media Ownership bill NV
09/19/2000 U.S.-China Relations Act of 2000 Y
How, after examining Edwards' voting record, can anyone conclude that he is "populist" or "anti-corporate" advocate?
This is not the voting record of a "populist" or "anti-fascist"; this is the voting record of a Republican who masquerades as a "Democrat".
Obviously, Edwards thinks that we, the voters, are a bunch of cretins. And it appears that in the case of gullible Edwards' supporters that he may be right.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Several of your lies have already been exposed, Troll
Posted by: UnEasyOne
» RE: Several of your lies have already been exposed, Troll
Posted by: CharliePatton
» RE: Hey, UnEasyOne,
Posted by: CharliePatton
» RE: I collect all my info from Congressional records and VoteSmart
Posted by: CharliePatton
» RE: "unsourced smear"? Here's your source, troll.
Posted by: CharliePatton
» RE: So, tell us. How does your nice, hot bowl of crow taste, UnEasyOne?
Posted by: CharliePatton
» RE: To the person who gave this comment a score of 1
Posted by: CharliePatton
Comments are closed-
Posted by: CharliePatton on Jan 1, 2008 2:40 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
07/26/2005 Small Employer Health Benefits Plan Amendment Y
04/14/2005 Bankruptcy Reform Bill N
07/26/2002 Homeland Security Act of 2002 N
12/13/2007 Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 N
10/16/2003 Iraqi Debt Forgiveness Y
06/27/2003 Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 N
06/15/2007 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations N
06/22/2006 Death/Estate Tax Amendment N
12/12/2007 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 N
11/14/2007 Head Start Act of 2007 Y
11/08/2007 Homeowners’ Catastrophic Insurance Act of 2007 Y
06/22/2006 Line Item Veto bill N
04/13/2005 Death/Estate Tax Repeal Permanency Act of 2005 N
03/17/2005 Budget FY2006 Appropriations Resolution N
05/05/1999 Bankruptcy Reform bill N
10/09/1998 Bankruptcy Reform bill N
11/07/2007 Sexual Orientation Employment Nondiscrimination Act (ENDA) Y
08/02/2007 Prescription Drug Imports N
07/31/2007 Lobbying and Donation Regulations Y
07/13/2006 Voting Rights Act Reauthorization Y
04/05/2006 527 Reform Act of 2005 N
05/17/2007 Guantanamo Transfer Plan Y
06/22/2005 Flag Desecration Resolution N
09/26/2006 Public Expression of Religion Act of 2006 N
07/31/2007 Lobbying and Donation Regulations Y
12/11/2007 Recognizing the Importance of Christmas and the Christian Faith Y
02/12/1997 Term Limits resolution N
07/25/2007 Ban on Permanent Bases in Iraq Y
12/19/2005 Defense Department FY2006 Authorization bill N
05/20/2004 Defense Department FY2005 Authorization bill N
06/10/1999 FY2000-2001 Defense Authorization bill N
03/18/1999 National Missile Defense bill N
11/08/2007 United States-Peru Trade Agreement N
6/16/2006 Global War on Terror N
04/28/1999 Military Operations in Yugoslavia Limitation Act Y
04/28/1999 Withdrawal of U.S. Troops from the Balkans resolution Y
10/05/1998 Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998 Y
06/18/1999 72 Hour Gun Background Check Amendment Y
05/01/2003 AIDS Assistance bill Y
06/08/2000 OSHA Ergonomic Protection Amendment Y
03/09/2000 Minimum Wage Increase-Two Year Raise Y
03/09/2000 Minimum Wage Increase bill Y
09/29/2006 Military Commissions Act of 2006 N
09/27/2006 Military Commissions Act of 2006 N
10/10/2002 Use of Military Force Against Iraq N
08/04/2007 Foreign Intelligence Acquisition N
09/28/2006 Electronic Surveillance Modernization Act N
06/29/2006 Intelligence and Law Enforcement Resolution N
03/07/2006 PATRIOT Act Reauthorization bill N
10/24/2001 USA Patriot Act of 2001 N
10/12/2001 Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001 N
06/27/2007 Andean Trade Preference Act Extension N
07/20/2006 U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement N
07/28/2005 CAFTA Implementation Bill N
06/09/2005 Withdrawing Approval from the WTO Agreement Y
06/27/2003 U.S.-Chile Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act N
06/27/2003 U.S.-Singapore Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act N
07/27/2002 Trade Act of 2002 N
12/06/2001 Fast Track Trade Authority bill N
06/21/2000 WTO Withdrawal resolution Y
11/14/2007 Head Start Act of 2007 Y
10/18/2007 State Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) Reauthorization Y
10/10/2007 National Affordable Housing Trust Fund Act of 2007 Y
10/04/2007 Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act of 2007 Y
Source: Dennis Kucinich's voting record.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: UnEasyOne on Jan 1, 2008 3:14 PM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
MUSCATINE, Iowa — Ralph Nader unleashed on Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton Monday — criticizing her for being soft on defense spending and a chum of big business — and expressed his strong support for John Edwards.
In an eleventh hour effort to encourage liberal Iowans to "recognize" the former North Carolina senator by "giving him a victory," the activist and former presidential contender said in an interview that Clinton will "pander to corporate interest groups" if elected.
Alternet has a piece and a link to the entire article.
Ralph doesn't like corporations either.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Nader endorses Edwards!!!
Posted by: CharliePatton
» RE: Nader endorses Edwards!!! Ralph won a huge lawsuit against GM
Posted by: UnEasyOne
» RE: Oh and by the way
Posted by: UnEasyOne
» RE: Oh and by the way
Posted by: CharliePatton
» No, that's not how Nader made his fortune
Posted by: CharliePatton
» RE: I don't read the "National Enquirer" either
Posted by: UnEasyOne
» Non-responses aren't answers, idiot.
Posted by: CharliePatton
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kwms on Jan 6, 2008 2:20 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://www.dennis4president.com/
An Edwards/Kucinich ticket is pretty impossible!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: meetmeineleusis on Dec 29, 2007 1:08 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Seriously though, if Edwards gains momentum he just might swipe my vote from RP.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Just keep in mind he is a member of the CFR and voted for a....
Posted by: Prophit
» RP is a bad choice
Posted by: benzene
» Ron Paul is pro military and supports prayers and religion in schools supported by tax credits
Posted by: Rune
» You're not enlightening me to anything
Posted by: meetmeineleusis
» Here's an enlightening thought ....
Posted by: newmoonnaturals
» Do you have a link to those quotes that I can verify??? Thanks
Posted by: Prophit
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Shenonymous on Dec 29, 2007 3:36 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Hey, great combination.... never thought of that.
Posted by: Prophit
» RE: Hey, great combination.... never thought of that.
Posted by: anna132
» RE: Hey, great combination...Can't think of a better way
Posted by: UnEasyOne
» Here we go with prophit/pepper and the conspiracy theories.
Posted by: johngary66
» RE: Biden
Posted by: Lauren
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Suzon on Dec 29, 2007 3:53 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm glad that Edwards is staying focused on the impact of corporate power and hope that he's continuing to emphasize the fact that insurance companies and Big Pharma put huge profits above the health and well-being of American citizens.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: excuse me, but isn't torture already illegal thanks to the prohibition of cruel
Posted by: Lauren
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Tom Degan on Dec 29, 2007 5:27 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hillary Clinton is a Democrat in name only. Why do you think Rupert Murdoch has been holding fundraisers for her? Either she's in his pocket or he wants her nominated because he knows that she is destined to lose. Why have the big drug companies been doing the same? Why has the corporate-controlled media all but christened her as the 2008 standard bearer? You don't have to be a political scientist to figure any of this stuff out, folks!
And don't forget this: Hillary's nomination is all-but-certain to unleash a Nader style/third party uprising at the polls next year. That is a chance we can not afford to take again.
Every poll has John Edwards winning handily against any and all Republican challengers next year. Every poll has Hillary Clinton losing. Those are the facts, ma'am. Edwards energizes the base. Clinton does not.
Hey, Democrats! Do you want to know why I left your party almost a decade ago? You people are just dumb enough to give the nomination to Hillary Clinton! Prove me wrong, Dems. Prove me wrong.
Tom Degan
Goshen, NY
"The Rant" by Tom Degan
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: EDWARDS
Posted by: ProgressiveManiac
» RE: DWARDS
Posted by: Tom Degan
» RE: DWARDS - Ah, finally found the PROGRESSIVE part of the thread!
Posted by: UnEasyOne
» RE: DWARDS - Ah, finally found the PROGRESSIVE part of the thread!
Posted by: EdinIowa
» RE: I wouldn't be surprised by any of the rethug dirty tricks to make it a close election.
Posted by: johngary66
» 3rd party paranoia
Posted by: benzene
» RE: EDWARDS
Posted by: Chloe2005
» FDR Worship Misplaced
Posted by: 2dogarage
» The truth hurts
Posted by: 2dogarage
» RE: You ain't gonna get a lot of traction trashing the greatest president of the last century
Posted by: UnEasyOne
» RE: You ain't gonna get a lot of traction trashing the greatest president of the last century
Posted by: 2dogarage
» RE: The truth hurts
Posted by: EdinIowa
» RE: The truth hurts
Posted by: 2dogarage
» RE: DWARDS
Posted by: Sissy
» RE: DWARDS
Posted by: Tom Degan
» RE: DWARDS
Posted by: cherylholmes
» RE: DWARDS
Posted by: Tom Degan
» RE: EDWARDS
Posted by: Glennk1949
Comments are closed-
Posted by: otto on Dec 29, 2007 5:29 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: dustinblythe on Dec 29, 2007 6:27 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am going to Iowa on New Year's Eve to do my part on behalf of the Edwards campaign and this latest round of stories about Edwards' surge of momentum the week before the caucus has me more energized than ever!
Dustin Blythe
Mishawaka, IN
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: If I'm Dreaming, Don't Wake Me!
Posted by: Tom Degan
» You ain't Dreaming Brother!
Posted by: single-serving poster
» RE: You ain't Dreaming Brother!
Posted by: lisaisalefty
» Bet you ten bucks.
Posted by: single-serving poster
» RE: Bet you ten bucks AlterNet is
Posted by: Lauren
Comments are closed-
Posted by: old prof on Dec 29, 2007 6:47 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» "Go to blazes"
Posted by: Tom Degan
» RE: "Go to blazes"
Posted by: lisaisalefty
» RE: "Go to blazes"
Posted by: Lauren
Comments are closed-
Posted by: single-serving poster on Dec 29, 2007 7:22 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Edwards deserves support, not because HE will right anything, or how perfect and unassailable HE is.
But because in a scenario where Edwards can bash some unfortunate G.O.P. candidate saddled with Bush II's legacy, dragging momentum for populist congressional candidates with him, all the while railing eloquently against Corporate Greed, and Corruption:
We might just have a congenial atmosphere for important change in this country for the first time since Franklin Roosevelt died!
Can you get over your -understandable- quesyness at Huckabee's kooky religious convictions to see that even the MASSIVELY SURGING REPUBLICAN candidate is appealing to POPLULIST, WORKING-CLASS values?
I dream of a Edwards/Obama vs. Huckabee/Whoever race---- imagine it!
The Populist Plain-Talk Lawyer-for-the-People, and the Youthful, Charismatic "Beyond-Race" Mid-West Senator,
-against-
The Witty, Down-Home, Working-man's Baptist Preacher, and Whoever has the stones to stand with him against the MoneyBoys (Ron Paul?)
Ha, effin- HA!
What will the Oligarchs do then?
Cook up some big "fear" action to justify suspending the elections as so many of the "made themselves experts" on the InterWebs predict?
You tell me, where's the money in facing down the combined might of 50 million armed-to-the-teeth Rednecks and 100 million "that's the final straw!" ex-middle-class Workers?
NOT GONNA HAPPEN KIDS
Everybody on the "left" needs to start opening their eyes and face it:
THE BIG CHANGE IS COMIN' BABY!
Not the way we foresaw perhaps, but it's coming.
With the collapse of the Credit Finance system, with the It's-gotten-to-damn-obvious state of the environment, and with the continued, mind-numbingly stupid squeezing of the Majority by the Oligarchical Minority, it's coming.
Commodity and food prices going "north" because of the inevitable, and should have been predicted and accomodated for effects on price of Peak Oil, is gonna be the "straw that broke the American-willing-to-stand-bullshit's back".
Mark my words.
All this is why for the first time in my several decades of eligibility I might actually register and Vote for the damned President of the U-dot, S-dot.
As long as the Dems put up Edwards that is.
Hell, I might even go so far as to register DEM and vote in the primary if I thought it would help (though it would break my Commie Grandpa's Heart).
We don't NEED John Edwards as President, but we sure could USE him!.
Remember kids,
No King is a Good King.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: The King will not Save Us. The Earth won't either.
Posted by: greentime
Comments are closed-
Posted by: HANGTRAITORS on Dec 29, 2007 8:04 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://www.whale.to/a/allopathy_h.html
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» How to prevent most cancer
Posted by: PaulK
Comments are closed-
Posted by: g50 on Dec 29, 2007 8:35 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
you want to know what would happen if huckabee & edwards some how bear their party's standard? president bloomberg - and i am voting for him.
i know there are economic frustrations, but what are these clowns going to do with their anti-corporate rhetoric? are they going to "take down the power of corporations"? sounds like a recipe for economic disaster. and if they aren't going to actually do anything they are just going to let you down by promising you the moon & giving you a photo of kraft cheese.
i can live with hillary, as long as she teams up with obama. and i can live with obama center-stage. clinton gets a bit carried away with her rhetoric some times, but is nowhere near as blatantly irresponsible with her promises as edwards. obama is honest - notice no real anti-corporate rhetoric. that's because like them or not corporations are the framework of the american economy & it has been that way since this land was colonized...they have to have a seat on the table, and yes, corporations can have a productive part in the process. they won't give away the farm, if that is what you want, but the recent ascendence of the left-liberal agenda is in no small part because the business class has simply turned away from the republicans due to their inability to govern effectively. corporate people are in fact informed & ready to accept both universal healthcare & global warming policies. even if what they want doesn't perfectly align with what you want, i bet you can get something out of the deal that is superior to the status quo, going forward without also taking steps back.
anyway, i'm not saying turn the keys over to corporate america. but people who work at corporations, who are employed by the corporate model, number in the dozens of millions and are part of our national family as well. the maturity to understand that we have to negotiate our mutual self-interest with good faith is vastly superior to the phoney edwardsian sibling rivalry.
one last thing - there can be such a thing as a good king. i mean, kings can be good or bad leaders, just as with democratically elected leaders. and if the national mood of discontent gives the GOP & DNC huckabee & edwards, i'd say bring on king bloomberg.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» You win the prize!
Posted by: single-serving poster
» RE: You win the prize!
Posted by: g50
» Another English tip: "Assertive" sentences never begin with the word "If".
Posted by: single-serving poster
» This is Distracting from real discussion, so we should drop it.
Posted by: single-serving poster
» And If your going to "quote" someone...
Posted by: single-serving poster
» RE: And If your going to "quote" someone...
Posted by: g50
» I was goin to let you go, but you're starting to scare me now.
Posted by: single-serving poster
» Is there someting "COOLIO" about not writing properly?
Posted by: Prairie Waif
» RE: Is there someting "COOLIO" about not writing properly?
Posted by: g50
» RE: You win the prize! Nobody wants to "end corporations"
Posted by: UnEasyOne
» RE: You win the prize! Nobody wants to "end corporations"
Posted by: Joe
» RE: You win the prize! Nobody wants to "end corporations" - What hate?
Posted by: UnEasyOne
» I HATE Corporate Welfare
Posted by: Prairie Waif
» RE: I HATE Corporate Welfare - good points
Posted by: UnEasyOne
» RE: You win the prize!
Posted by: Lauren
» RE: You win the prize!
Posted by: g50
» RE: oh my lovely loonie friends :)
Posted by: Glennk1949
» go to the head of the class g50
Posted by: reevolve
» Pity the rich? I don't think so.
Posted by: whatzaname
Comments are closed-
Posted by: thekidde on Dec 29, 2007 8:46 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: g50 - Corporate America, multi-nationals, the Fed and
Posted by: g50
» If you knew what you were talking about, you might...
Posted by: single-serving poster
» RE: If you knew what you were talking about, you might...
Posted by: g50
» Please show an example of my "hate", 'cause ya lost me there kid.
Posted by: single-serving poster
» Believe it or not, I'm trying to drop this, but...
Posted by: single-serving poster
» RE: Believe it or not, I'm trying to drop this, but...
Posted by: g50
» You should've given up 4 posts ago.
Posted by: single-serving poster
» RE: You should've given up 4 posts ago.
Posted by: g50
» RE: If you knew what you were talking about, you might...
Posted by: Lauren
» RE: g50 - Wonder if you are still going to be saying that
Posted by: UnEasyOne
» RE: g50 - Corporate America, multi-nationals, the Fed and
Posted by: anna132
» RE: g50 - Corporate America, multi-nationals, the Fed and
Posted by: g50
Comments are closed-
Posted by: herbal on Dec 29, 2007 10:52 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Rune on Dec 29, 2007 11:18 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Edwards is right about the need to fight for economic opportunity, of course, but to attract widespread support, he needs to emphasize opportunity instead of finger pointing and fighting. Even people burned by the pillaging of economies far and wide, including right here in the U.S., still lap up takes of the land of opportunity. In fact, the main reason most voters are upset is that the three biggest myths about America have been busted by Bush:
(1) The U.S. is the biggest, bestest do-gooder nation on the planet;
(2) The U.S. can and should run the world through economic and military might that ultimately brings peace and justice to all who deserve it; and,
(3) The U.S. is the land of opportunity and prosperity for the hard working, common person.
Pointing fingers at the multinational, robber-baron corporations that are vacuuming up the wealth and health of the nation faster than Ross Perot can say "sucking sound" may play well to party loyalists who are mad as hell and highly motivated to participate in primaries and caucuses, but it is not going to be an attractive message to the barely conscious that give the GOP hope for another four years despite the ruin they have already wrought for the last seven. Most people are just too afraid and traumatized to let go of their hope that they will have a job and just enough pay to live a descent life to risk anything that sounds like an attack on the powerful providers of jobs--until they hear that there is some sort of safety net and new promise awaiting them if they let go of their reliance on mega-corporations and whatever trifle they allow to trickle down to the mere mortals that work for them.
Edwards would do well to let go of the pain and fear rhetoric and put considerable focus on rewarding businesses for delivering on the promise of the greatest good for the greatest number (not the biggest billionaires) that was the original selling point of the theories of free trade and capitalism. Where business cannot deliver on that promise when left to its own devices, government has a legitimate role in regulating and facilitating economic activity so that such outcomes are more likely than the looting and laying waste that has become the devastating new norm of globalization.
Edwards has some good points. He just needs to put more attention on the good and less on being pointed.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: dwards needs to turn his negative attacks into positive leadership
Posted by: anna132
» RE: dwards needs to turn his negative attacks into positive leadership
Posted by: Lauren
» Edwards/Obama - that's the ticket
Posted by: whatzaname
» RE: dwards needs to turn his negative attacks into positive leadership
Posted by: Glennk1949
Comments are closed-
Posted by: starvinmarvy on Dec 29, 2007 2:22 PM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
were guest at a Bilderberg gathering! Now...
I`m not Mr.Know It All by any means...but I`m thinking anyone even remotely connected with these Globalist are not good for us...the middle class
slaves of the state! Are we all still so ignorant
of what they let us see and read? Do we really think ANY...of these clowns will make a difference
in our lives? Do we think that the choices of the so called "presidency" of the "United States of America"....will bring peace and prosperity to we the people? To peace on the planet? To a better life for our children? Do you really think one of these "chosen few" will give us affordable healthcare?Ect????
They`re cut from the same mold folks.
The "election process" of this country is a joke.
The election process is a convenient diversion of whats really going on.
The presidency of this this country has become a "voicebox" for the global elitists!
I`m not saying anything here that we don`t already know.......right?
THEN....whats with this story on another
puppet?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Here we go with the conspiracy theories again. It's just an attempt to change the subject
Posted by: johngary66
» RE: Here we go with the conspiracy theories again. It's just an attempt to change the subject
Posted by: starvinmarvy
Comments are closed-
Posted by: cherylholmes on Dec 29, 2007 2:48 PM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Your children, your grandchildren will all die in middle eastern wars that are perpetuated by either party because the government likes it, they love killing, torture, power, money and wealth. We let our government sell us out and destroy us. It's gone on for too long now to throw the plan in reverse and no candidate or elected official is about to do that anyway. These people don't represent us, so why bother to vote or get all excited about another phoney election? Nothing has or will change.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Doesn't matter...
Posted by: dustinblythe
» RE: Doesn't matter...Are you gonna actually claim
Posted by: UnEasyOne
» Congratulations.....
Posted by: carbon-based
Comments are closed-
Posted by: diof09 on Dec 29, 2007 6:20 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Trying to correct a mistake from nearly 28 years ago...Me too
Posted by: UnEasyOne
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Clockwise Cat on Dec 29, 2007 7:49 PM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'll take Edwards over Pillory and O-dumba, of course, but Edwards doesn't have the progressive credentials and the record that DK has.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Do you think for one minute AIPAC will let Dennis go anywhere???
Posted by: sofla100
» RE: Do you think for one minute AIPAC will let Dennis go anywhere???
Posted by: Lauren
» RE: Kucinich, you dolts!
Posted by: EdinIowa
» I was all for Kucinich too, but I had started wondering about his judgement.
Posted by: johngary66
» Agreed - if Kucinich things Ron Paul is a good runningmate...
Posted by: whatzaname
» Kucinich, you dolt, indeed.
Posted by: Philip Newton
Comments are closed-
Posted by: richardbelldc on Dec 29, 2007 9:12 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Even if Iowa's population is not representative of the country as a whole, I would rather have Iowans who pay attention doing the deciding than people whose only contact with the candidates is through the distorting lenses of the mainstream media and paid campaign commercials.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Let's Hear it for Iowans
Posted by: Lauren
» Iowans? Give me a Break (please)
Posted by: LookOut
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sofla100 on Dec 29, 2007 9:33 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Let's Give Edwards a Chance
Posted by: g50
» RE: Let's Give Edwards a Chance
Posted by: Glennk1949
» RE: Let's Give Edwards a Chance - Not only that
Posted by: UnEasyOne
» RE: Why the 1 rating?
Posted by: UnEasyOne
Comments are closed-
Posted by: CharliePatton on Dec 30, 2007 12:44 PM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Edwards voted for the reviled Bankruptcy Bill--not once, but twice in 2002 and 2005.
Obviously, Edwards chose financial interests over working families.
How does Edward's records square with "takes on corporate greed"? Clearly, Edwards is an enabler of "corporate greed".
The only venue where Edwards "takes on corporate greed" is in his empty promises, which too many gullible Democratic Party voters buy--hook, line and sinker--to their detriment, again and again.
Forget about what Edwards says--and the same goes for Shillery Clinton and Obama--and examine his voting record.
In addition, Edwards--or should I say, Judas--also sided with the entire GOP caucus to vote against the Wellstone amendment to the 2001 Bankruptcy "Reform" bill.
Moreover, Edwards rejected a means test amendment that would have protected debtors from sudden financial misfortune. On the same Bankruptcy "Reform" bill, Edwards again voted with the entire GOP caucus to reject an amendment that would have included a more consumer friendly means test than that included in the original bill.
And, last but not least, Edwards supported the final version of the Bankruptcy bill that "punishes the vulnerable." Months later, Edwards again voted for the similar version of the Bankruptcy bill that emerged from negotiations with the House of Representatives. He also voted to limit debate twice on the bill, stifling further amendments or arguments. This version was not substantively different from the earlier versions, as it still made it significantly harder for working Americans to discharge their debts through the bankruptcy system. Chris Dodd rejected this bill, along with Senators Durbin, Feingold, Harkin, Kennedy, Kerry and Wellstone. 14 Democrats and 2 Republicans voted against the final measure. (That is, HR 333, Vote 234, 7/17/01; HR 333, Vote 236, 7/17/01; HR 333, Vote 230, 7/12/01).
The late Senator Paul Wellstone, D-Minn, said the Bankruptcy "Reform" Bill--and I quote--"punishes the vulnerable and it rewards the big banks and credit card companies for their poor practices."
Edwards, Clinton and Obama's treachery extends to other policy debates, as well.
Where have they voted against a clearly illegal war?
Where have they stopped funding?
Where have they voted for re-deployment of the troops?
How about impeachment of the war criminal, George W. Bush?
The truth is that Edwards, Clinton and Obama have done nothing.
All you have, at the end of the day, when dealing with Republicans who masquerade as "Democrats"--like Edwards, Clinton and Obama--is a handful of empty promises, which they have no intention of fulfilling.
The reality is that Edwards, Clinton and Obama are funded by the same Americans and foreign entities who support and fund Bush and the Republican Party. The fact is that all three of them--Edward, Clinton and Obama--have tripped over themselves to give Bush everything he wants--from illegal war to corporate friendly legislation. None of them has fought Bush--none, not one of them.
And, finally, I must take issue with the author of this grotesque puff piece. The author misleads the reader when claiming that Edwards is anti-corporate, when examination of Edward's voting record proves that Edwards--like Clinton and Obama--is nothing more than Republican who masquerades as a "Democrat".
Forget about Edwards and his empty promises, and instead, examine his deeds.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Didn't Jack Bruce write a song about Edwards, Clinton and Obama?
Posted by: CharliePatton
» RE: You made some very good points, so let's do that - Examine his words AND deeds.
Posted by: UnEasyOne
» RE: You made some very good points, so let's do that - Examine his words AND deeds.
Posted by: CharliePatton
» RE: Excuse me, but everybody works SOMEWHERE!
Posted by: UnEasyOne
» RE: Excuse me, but everybody works SOMEWHERE!
Posted by: CharliePatton
» RE: More on Edwards hedge fund connections and corporate contributions
Posted by: CharliePatton
Comments are closed-
Posted by: truthteller on Dec 30, 2007 1:46 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I couldn't help fearing that at the end of this speech, or some speech, some day, we're going to hear the dreaded news report start out, "Earlier today, shots rang out at the end of John Edwards' rally...". It always seems to happen to those on the side of the people who fly too close to the Sun. I hope not this time. Maybe I've just seen the replay of RFK's last speech too often. Things like that that happen when you're young and impressionable have a way of haunting you for life.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Saw his rally today on C-SPAN
Posted by: CharliePatton
» RE: Again, Charlie, what is your alternative?
Posted by: UnEasyOne
» RE: Again, Charlie, what is your alternative?
Posted by: CharliePatton
» RE: Of course, but maybe I should have said "Who is your alternative?"
Posted by: UnEasyOne
» RE: Of course, but maybe I should have said "Who is your alternative?"
Posted by: CharliePatton
» RE: Oh, please
Posted by: UnEasyOne
» RE: Parrot the corrupt corporate media--Is that all you can do?
Posted by: CharliePatton
» RE: And what do you mean by "non-response"?
Posted by: CharliePatton
» RE: And what do you mean by "non-response"?
Posted by: UnEasyOne
» RE: God, please send me smarter detractors
Posted by: CharliePatton
» RE: God, please send me smarter detractors - LMAO!
Posted by: UnEasyOne
» RE: Keep trashing Edwards
Posted by: UnEasyOne
» RE: Keep trashing Edwards
Posted by: CharliePatton
» RE: Unbelievable
Posted by: CharliePatton
» RE: Unbelievable - you are the liar
Posted by: UnEasyOne
» RE: Unbelievable
Posted by: CharliePatton
» RE: And when will you reply to the substance of my argument?
Posted by: CharliePatton
» RE: Shame you have no reading comprehension
Posted by: UnEasyOne
» RE: You're a sophist, and a poor one at that
Posted by: CharliePatton
» RE: One last time - because you really bore me.
Posted by: UnEasyOne
» RE: Wrong, You only read half the sentence and cherry picked it
Posted by: CharliePatton
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Shenonymous on Dec 30, 2007 5:57 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
and check out all the other candidates while you are there too.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Edwards down on cannabis
Posted by: aonghus36
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Philip Newton on Dec 30, 2007 10:14 PM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let's elect him and see if he holds up.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Edwards = Democrat that PRETENDS to pick up the populist mantle...
Posted by: LookOut
» RE: dwards = Democrat that PRETENDS to pick up the populist mantle...
Posted by: Philip Newton
» RE: Edwards = Democrat that PRETENDS to pick up the populist mantle...
Posted by: LookOut
» RE: dwards = Democrat that PRETENDS to pick up the populist mantle...
Posted by: Philip Newton
Comments are closed-
Posted by: whatzaname on Dec 31, 2007 9:31 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: LookOut on Dec 31, 2007 9:30 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Anyone who believes this act merely projects their own fantasy onto another hollow ad campaign for the corporatists running the show.
On what pretends to be the "left" Kucinich may not be perfect but at least he's a reasonable facsimile of what he presents himself to be.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Edwards = Phony Populist & Phony anti-Fascist
Posted by: CharliePatton
» I am confused by your Edwards' voting history
Posted by: purplewarrior
» RE: You're right. I cut and paste the wrong info
Posted by: CharliePatton
Comments are closed-
Posted by: CharliePatton on Jan 1, 2008 7:30 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
09/29/2006 Military Commissions Act of 2006 Y
09/27/2006 Military Commissions Act of 2006 Y
10/24/2001 USA Patriot Act of 2001 Y
10/12/2001 Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001 Y
06/21/2000 WTO Withdrawal resolution N
04/14/2005 Bankruptcy Reform Bill Y
09/14/2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force Y
04/18/1996 Comprehensive Terrorism Prevention Act Y
07/31/1996 Welfare Reform Act of 1996 Y
07/18/1996 Welfare Reform Act of 1996 Y
03/14/1996 Anti-terrorism bill Y
12/13/2001 No Child Left Behind Act Y
05/23/2001 No Child Left Behind Act Y
06/13/2000 Higher Education Funding Amendment N
02/06/1995 Line Item Veto Act Y
12/12/2007 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 Y
03/06/1996 Cuba Sanctions bill Y
10/30/1995 Bosnia Troop Deployment Resolution Y
10/20/2005 Firearms Manufacturers Protection bill Y
08/02/2007 Prescription Drug Imports N
10/31/2007 Trade and Globalization Act of 2007 Y
07/11/2007 Extension of Funding for Transitional Medical Assistance and Abstinence Education Y
06/15/2007 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Y
09/14/2006 Secure Fence Act of 2006 Y
02/10/2005 Real ID Act of 2005 Y
1/07/2007 Sexual Orientation Employment Nondiscrimination Act (ENDA) N
07/30/1996 Working Families Flexibility Act of 1996 N
12/13/2007 Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 Y
03/07/2006 PATRIOT Act Reauthorization bill Y
09/28/2006 Electronic Surveillance Modernization Act Y
06/27/2003 U.S.-Chile Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act Y
06/27/2003 U.S.-Singapore Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act Y
08/04/2007 Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2007 N
11/05/2003 Military Construction Appropriations Act, 2004 Y
07/24/1996 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) Funding Amendment N
12/21/1995 Welfare Reform Bill NV
11/08/2007 United States-Peru Trade Agreement Y
07/20/2006 U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement Y
05/04/2000 Africa Free Trade bill Y
How, after examining Edwards' voting record, can anyone conclude that he is "populist" or "anti-corporate" advocate?
This is not the voting record of a "populist" or "anti-fascist"; this is the voting record of a Republican who masquerades as a "Democrat".
Obviously, Edwards thinks that we, the voters, are a bunch of cretins. And it appears that in the case of gullible Edwards' supporters that he may be right.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: John Edwards--was not in the Senate after 2005.
Posted by: greentime
» RE: You're correct
Posted by: CharliePatton
» I am confused by your Edwards' voting history
Posted by: purplewarrior
» RE: You're right, see corrected voting record, below
Posted by: CharliePatton
» RE: John Edwards--The triumph of rhetoric over reality. (corrected)
Posted by: CharliePatton
» FYI--Here are my voting record sources
Posted by: CharliePatton
Comments are closed-
Posted by: CharliePatton on Jan 1, 2008 11:02 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
02/02/2000 Bankruptcy Reform bill Y
03/23/1999 Kosovo Resolution Y
10/25/2001 USA Patriot Act of 2001 Y
09/14/2001 Military Force Authorization resolution Y
11/19/2002 Homeland Security Act of 2002 Y
05/21/2004 Condemning Iraq Abuse of Prisoners resolution NV
10/11/2002 Use of Military Force Against Iraq Y
05/18/1999 Religious Memorials at Schools Amendment Y
2/18/2001 No Child Left Behind Act Y
06/24/2004 Defense Department FY2005 Appropriations bill Y
09/25/2003 Terrorism Information Awareness bill NV
07/17/2003 Terrorism Information Awareness bill Y
04/03/2003 Appropriations for Operations in Iraq Y
10/16/2002 Department of Defense Appropriations, FY2003 bill Y
08/01/2002 Department of Defense Appropriations, FY2003 bill Y
07/18/2002 Military Construction Appropriations Act FY2003 Y
0/18/2001 Military Construction FY2002 Appropriations bill Y
09/26/2001 Military Construction FY2002 Appropriations bill Y
10/14/1999 Defense Department Appropriations bill, FY2000 Y
06/30/1999 Cuba Travel Ban Amendment Y
06/30/1999 Foreign Operations FY2000 Appropriations bill Y
04/29/2004 Internet Access Tax bill Y
03/19/2003 ANWR Oil Drilling Amendment Y
07/13/2000 Death/Estate Tax Amendment Y
06/20/2000 Hate Crimes Amendment Y
05/20/1999 Juvenile Crime bill Y
10/28/2003 Michael Leavitt, Adiminstrator of the EPA NV
02/03/2000 Alan Greenspan for Chairman of the Federal Reserve Y
01/24/2001 Norman Y. Mineta for Secretary of Transportation Y
01/24/2001 Thompson for Secretary of Health and Human Services Y
01/23/2001 Martinez for Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Y
01/23/2001 Anthony Principi for Secretary of Veterans Affairs Y
03/02/2004 Firearms Manufacturers Protection bill NV
10/03/2000 American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act, 2000 Y
11/09/1999 Two Year Minimum Wage Increase Amendment N
11/09/1999 Three Year Minimum Wage Increase Amendment N
6/11/2002 Hate Crimes Bill Y
10/22/2003 Reduction of SPAM bill NV
09/25/2003 Do-Not-Call Registry bill NV
09/16/2003 FCC Media Ownership bill NV
09/19/2000 U.S.-China Relations Act of 2000 Y
How, after examining Edwards' voting record, can anyone conclude that he is "populist" or "anti-corporate" advocate?
This is not the voting record of a "populist" or "anti-fascist"; this is the voting record of a Republican who masquerades as a "Democrat".
Obviously, Edwards thinks that we, the voters, are a bunch of cretins. And it appears that in the case of gullible Edwards' supporters that he may be right.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Several of your lies have already been exposed, Troll
Posted by: UnEasyOne
» RE: Several of your lies have already been exposed, Troll
Posted by: CharliePatton
» RE: Hey, UnEasyOne,
Posted by: CharliePatton
» RE: I collect all my info from Congressional records and VoteSmart
Posted by: CharliePatton
» RE: "unsourced smear"? Here's your source, troll.
Posted by: CharliePatton
» RE: So, tell us. How does your nice, hot bowl of crow taste, UnEasyOne?
Posted by: CharliePatton
» RE: To the person who gave this comment a score of 1
Posted by: CharliePatton
Comments are closed-
Posted by: CharliePatton on Jan 1, 2008 2:40 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
07/26/2005 Small Employer Health Benefits Plan Amendment Y
04/14/2005 Bankruptcy Reform Bill N
07/26/2002 Homeland Security Act of 2002 N
12/13/2007 Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 N
10/16/2003 Iraqi Debt Forgiveness Y
06/27/2003 Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 N
06/15/2007 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations N
06/22/2006 Death/Estate Tax Amendment N
12/12/2007 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 N
11/14/2007 Head Start Act of 2007 Y
11/08/2007 Homeowners’ Catastrophic Insurance Act of 2007 Y
06/22/2006 Line Item Veto bill N
04/13/2005 Death/Estate Tax Repeal Permanency Act of 2005 N
03/17/2005 Budget FY2006 Appropriations Resolution N
05/05/1999 Bankruptcy Reform bill N
10/09/1998 Bankruptcy Reform bill N
11/07/2007 Sexual Orientation Employment Nondiscrimination Act (ENDA) Y
08/02/2007 Prescription Drug Imports N
07/31/2007 Lobbying and Donation Regulations Y
07/13/2006 Voting Rights Act Reauthorization Y
04/05/2006 527 Reform Act of 2005 N
05/17/2007 Guantanamo Transfer Plan Y
06/22/2005 Flag Desecration Resolution N
09/26/2006 Public Expression of Religion Act of 2006 N
07/31/2007 Lobbying and Donation Regulations Y
12/11/2007 Recognizing the Importance of Christmas and the Christian Faith Y
02/12/1997 Term Limits resolution N
07/25/2007 Ban on Permanent Bases in Iraq Y
12/19/2005 Defense Department FY2006 Authorization bill N
05/20/2004 Defense Department FY2005 Authorization bill N
06/10/1999 FY2000-2001 Defense Authorization bill N
03/18/1999 National Missile Defense bill N
11/08/2007 United States-Peru Trade Agreement N
6/16/2006 Global War on Terror N
04/28/1999 Military Operations in Yugoslavia Limitation Act Y
04/28/1999 Withdrawal of U.S. Troops from the Balkans resolution Y
10/05/1998 Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998 Y
06/18/1999 72 Hour Gun Background Check Amendment Y
05/01/2003 AIDS Assistance bill Y
06/08/2000 OSHA Ergonomic Protection Amendment Y
03/09/2000 Minimum Wage Increase-Two Year Raise Y
03/09/2000 Minimum Wage Increase bill Y
09/29/2006 Military Commissions Act of 2006 N
09/27/2006 Military Commissions Act of 2006 N
10/10/2002 Use of Military Force Against Iraq N
08/04/2007 Foreign Intelligence Acquisition N
09/28/2006 Electronic Surveillance Modernization Act N
06/29/2006 Intelligence and Law Enforcement Resolution N
03/07/2006 PATRIOT Act Reauthorization bill N
10/24/2001 USA Patriot Act of 2001 N
10/12/2001 Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001 N
06/27/2007 Andean Trade Preference Act Extension N
07/20/2006 U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement N
07/28/2005 CAFTA Implementation Bill N
06/09/2005 Withdrawing Approval from the WTO Agreement Y
06/27/2003 U.S.-Chile Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act N
06/27/2003 U.S.-Singapore Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act N
07/27/2002 Trade Act of 2002 N
12/06/2001 Fast Track Trade Authority bill N
06/21/2000 WTO Withdrawal resolution Y
11/14/2007 Head Start Act of 2007 Y
10/18/2007 State Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) Reauthorization Y
10/10/2007 National Affordable Housing Trust Fund Act of 2007 Y
10/04/2007 Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act of 2007 Y
Source: Dennis Kucinich's voting record.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: UnEasyOne on Jan 1, 2008 3:14 PM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
MUSCATINE, Iowa — Ralph Nader unleashed on Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton Monday — criticizing her for being soft on defense spending and a chum of big business — and expressed his strong support for John Edwards.
In an eleventh hour effort to encourage liberal Iowans to "recognize" the former North Carolina senator by "giving him a victory," the activist and former presidential contender said in an interview that Clinton will "pander to corporate interest groups" if elected.
Alternet has a piece and a link to the entire article.
Ralph doesn't like corporations either.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Nader endorses Edwards!!!
Posted by: CharliePatton
» RE: Nader endorses Edwards!!! Ralph won a huge lawsuit against GM
Posted by: UnEasyOne
» RE: Oh and by the way
Posted by: UnEasyOne
» RE: Oh and by the way
Posted by: CharliePatton
» No, that's not how Nader made his fortune
Posted by: CharliePatton
» RE: I don't read the "National Enquirer" either
Posted by: UnEasyOne
» Non-responses aren't answers, idiot.
Posted by: CharliePatton
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kwms on Jan 6, 2008 2:20 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://www.dennis4president.com/
An Edwards/Kucinich ticket is pretty impossible!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Vancouver's Games Will Be the Gayest Olympics Ever
Trial Begins for Activist Who Fought to Protect Federal Lands from Drilling -- Join the Protest
Starbucks' Cop-Out to Gun Nuts: Customers Served Coffee While Strapped




