John Edwards: "No more secret prisons, no more torture or condoning torture."
By bluegal Sunday Sep 02, 2007 5:42pm
(h/t CorrenteWire.) This is what I'd call a good start. What about the Presidential power grab of the Bush/Gonzales cabal? No more secret prisons and torture, sure, but let's add to that: no more signing statements, no more evading Congress, no more no-bid government contracts to companies that clearly have interested parties in the administration. And Democratic contenders? We want specifics on how you'll go about rolling those powers back.
Login or Register to post comments.
Good start.
John Edwards the only Democrat who beats every Republican. Yep, the only one.
And....
He is on the correct side of every issue.
He is the guy we need.
United Steel Workers and United Mine Workers endorsed Edwards today.
CNN.com - 1 hour, 58 minutes ago
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- Iran has reached its long-sought goal of running 3,000 centrifuges to enrich uranium for its nuclear program, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced Sunday in a report on state media.
Oh boy Bush must be drooling.
Yes, a good start.
OUTSTANDING!!
I must have missed hillary's speech on this.
L.A. Confidential @ 4:
It is going to happen, folks, unless we put our lawn chairs away on Tuesday, take part in some serious grass-roots organizing, and take action to prevent a wider war - while we still can.
Ray McGovern 9/02/07
Your Conscience @ 6:
Somehow I don't think you did....
How could they possibly govern if you take away all they know? Today is the first anniversary of the Bush Administrations destruction of the National Airspace System and the decimation of the ranks of Air Traffic Controllers. It is a system you pay for, and they want to bring it to its knees and sell the safest and busiest air traffic control system to its knees and sell it to the lowest bidder. You all know how that will turn out. Please write your Congressperson.
http://themainbang.typepad.com/
www.natca.org
http://www.faafollies.com/
http://gettheflick.blogspot.com/
http://vanityfairmusings.blogspot.com/
If you fly, this is of utmost importance. Thank you.
Works for me! :)
Edwards backs mandatory preventive care
TIPTON, Iowa - Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards said on Sunday that his universal health care proposal would require that Americans go to the doctor for preventive care.
Freedom
That's such an interesting speech. Yet when all of the democratic presidential nominees were asked point blank "who would support Dennis Kucinich's bill to impeach Cheney the Dick" No one, INCLUDING MR. EDWARDS would raise their hand. Why are they so afraid? Why is Mr. Edwards so afraid?
He is an interesting candidate who has a chance to win, but he needs to start acting and doing something. You cant yap about how the Chenguin discregards the constitution, and then not do anything about it.
SUPPORT DENNIS "SEABUISQUIT" KUCINICH. HE IS THE ONLY ONE THAT WILL STAND UP FOR THE PEOPLE. HE IS THE ONLY ONE WITH THE COJONES TO DO IT.
WWW.DENNIS4PRESIDENT.COM
How bout talking about affordable Health care for once? How bout getting the Insurance Mafia and Corporate Goons out of Medicine?
"Mandatory" anything gives me the creeps.
Check out Edwards speeches:
No more secret prisons and torture, check
no more signing statements, check
no more evading Congress, check
no more no-bid government contracts to companies that clearly have interested parties in the administration. check
Suggestion for future demands/questions: Go to the site, http://johnedwards.com/ and read what he has written, and listen to what he says. Welcome.
What a pathetic thing to have to say.
imo....HC is out,Obama is out,Dodd is out,Biden is out,Gravel was never in....so that leaves Edwards,Kusunich and Richardson.Kusunich may be the best option....but can he win...I don't think so.Richardson has all the qualifications and then some...but again...can he win..maybe...Edwards has just enough experience..and he can win... That being said...I can only hope whomever the candidate is.....Knows what needs to be done to save this nation.
If I may say so, Mr. Edwards: no shit, Sherlock.
mrobinsong @ 14:
I want to know what the catch is. The trade off.
Damn this country is fu*ked up.
And Democratic contenders? We want specifics on how you’ll go about rolling those powers back.
I think we need to let future elected democrats know that we want some plain talk. If you sound like a politician you won't get my vote. We want to know that they are on our side and not their own political career. It is time for some people with brains to be in charge. When they show up to speak we need to protest the politicians. Some one who is the right sort will hear this and hopefully fill the gap. Or maybe not. How can we get rid of these political movie stars. I am so sick of the whole thing.
mark @ 22:
I'm sick of "personalities and celebrities" regardless of their particular field.
Ughhhh
Give us a transforming platform to get this countries apathetic butt off it's ass. Enough PC already.
mark @ 22:
Fatigue.....your not the only one.I think most of the planet feels this way.
Ya, Mr Bildeburger, CFR suck up finally shows his true colors.
http://infowars.net/index.html
I had a glorious full out run with the Apocalyptic horse today too.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article2369001.ece
I think I can speak for all intelligent Americans when I call bullshit to bullshit. What else is this buffoon gonna say? I mean, come on people. He WANTS to be the next Prez. His handlers will have him say what will get him elected. Hell our current buffoon can't even speak english, and was elected TWICE! But we shouldn't feel we are the only nation with this problem. All supposed democratic nations are going through the same thing. Sick and tired of these lying morons. They don't get it. We are tired of all the BS.
well, I want to know if he still plans to bomb Iran.
CensoredFan @ 26:
let;s be fair. the moron was not elected. he was first selected by scalia then he was cheated for by blackwell. boosh never fairly elected.
L.A. Confidential @ 14:
Me too... but again, as pointed out on this site, if we think of government-run health care like government-run education, making "attendence" mandatory isn't such a big deal.
Two main reasons why I don't have a problem with mandatory preventative care:
1). It'll probably only be a check-up every six months, which isn't a bad idea for ANYONE to have.
2). Preventative medicine saves bundles of $$$ in the long run, which is of interest because we'll be paying for it.
I'm probably sure that I'm voting for Edwards... let's hope he wins Iowa and makes it to California so that I may...
Edwards is against torture? Great. Too bad he's for the death penalty and opposed to same-sex marriage. What a wanker.
I guess I'm just too cynical. You'd have to prove it to me. How many times have we heard politicians say one thing and do the exact opposite? Take George Bush (please) for example. He campaigned on a platform of compassionate conservatism in 2000, yet he's been anything but. I've seen politicians lie boldly and subtly, but lie they do. They may go into office with the best of intentions, but then when those lobbyists get at them those intentions are thrown out the window in favor of money. Politicians should be strictly mandated to only one term. It's when they start caring more about re-election that they "forget" about their promises. To a politician, a promise is just so much hot air.
Doesn't he support bombing Iran as well?
Well, it is nice to see Senator Edwards coming out against torture (I can not believe that I am typing those words in the 21st century); Obama has been there for quite awhile. When he voted against nominating Gonzo he said:
He also came out against secret prisons (again, I can't believe that I am typing this), I had a long quote but am having some technical difficulties posting so I'll keep it short and see if it works.
Listen, if we don't torture them over there we will have to pay transportation costs so we can torture them over here. Always thinking of the taxpayers. Vote Republics.
The Democrats could have stopped the establishment of the Bush dictatorship when they were out of power and didn't. They have shown only a rhetorical inclination to change course now. What will they do if Bush & Co. decide to attack Iran?
Go along and support the attack. You can't question the president in a time of war. Especially when he's trying to open up a third front.
mark @ 22:
With all due respect: This is exactly the sentiment that scares me. The left votes for Nader, or whoever, while they stand behind their principles, refusing to vote for a democrat because they can't be all things to them. Yes, they're all pieces of shit, and I wish a person who deserves to win actually could. But in the meantime while you stand behind your principles, the right wing votes party. This is why our country won't be out of the woods once Bush is gone. The right wing has no solid, organized, loyal opposition ... just a bunch of fractured groups with narrow interests voting for douchebags like Nader.
Sure, vote your conscience, blah, blah, blah. But don't piss and moan when Romney/Gulianni are running the show in '09. If I really wanted to vote to accomplish making a statement (that nobody will hear anyway), I'd write in Jesus Christ. But that wouldn't do shit to stop these neo-fascists. IMCO (in my cynical opinion)
Great post bluegal. :)
To be fair to John Edwards, his most recent interviews are not as rabidly for attacking Iran as his Herzilya speech seemed to be. It was pretty strident, of course he was aiming it for a right wing audience in Israel. (Take the difference in tone how you will.)
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?articleId=12434
Now if this is the real John Edwards, or just what he says to a liberal magazine I'll let the reader decide -- I'm not sure myself.
I'd be much happier if the frontrunners were Obama, Edwards, and Richardson.
As a side note, the post that said that Edwards was the only candidate to beat all the Republicans was incorrect -- Obama also does if you follow the link.
Isn't this the same guy who ran on keeping the Iraq war going in 2004? Yeah, I thought he was. And then he ran as VP for another guy who wanted to send even more troops into Iraq, what was his name? I guess he must think most Amuricans have short memories, or something. Thank god I know who the only candidate is who has been right on Bush's* war from the beginning: Dennis Kucinich.
*Bush's war now being the democratic congress' war as well, I guess.
BaScOmBe @ 27:
You mean WHEN not IF.
If he keeps talking like that the press will turn him into an unperson.
If "you can't change horses mid stream", then we have to have Bush as president forever.
I like the idea. Keep him there. Cut his balls off. Immaciate the executive back to what it was meant to be. Leave him up there for all to see. President forever.
It is funny, people talk about secret prisons, but there is no more talk about the 385 million awarded to Halliburton to build huge detention facilities here in the US to support "the rapid development of new programs". I can't talk about this enough. Someone convince me it is fake, please.
Heh, this will wipe him out among the AIPACers:
I like Edwards. I like what he has to say, I like that he is not a silver spoon baby, I believe he is sincere and I think most of the negative rhetoric comes from the right and gets picked up by the left and - most importantly - I think he could win where I don't feel that way about any of the other Democratic candidates. Yes - Dennis is great but there is no way he could make it.
Vote your conscience? The survival of the nation and possibly the planet are at stake here. It has all gone way beyond conscience. I know what the Democratic Party has become, but I will still be in full yellow dog mode once they pick a candidate. There is simply no viable alternative, and that is a shame in what needs to be the world's greatest republic.
Is youtube down for everyone?
John already said that he would never do signing statements. And he's pledged to transparency in Congress. I don't think I've heard anything yet about no bid contracts, but I'll betcha if asked he would be against them.
Erk, I meant he's pledged to a transparent White House, not Congress. He pretty much believes in the separation of powers.
CD @ 47:
Nope CD...
I pretty much agree with everyone and am a lot more pissed off then anything else. I have been saying that we need to vote dem ticket including the dog catcher for a long time now. It is kinda hard to be idealistic in the present situation but I guess we all get a little cheese with our whine from time to time. I thought that idealism was supposed to wear off when you become older and more cynical but my hope for a better fellow man is still there for some reason.
[...] Clark John Edwards: “No more secret prisons, no more torture or condoning torture.” » This Summary is from an article posted at Crooks and Liars on Monday, September 03, 2007 This [...]
Closing down Guantanamo on the first day of his presidency?
I swear, he SO has my vote.
Funny how the trolls all got the day off--or maybe they just left the white house under a cloud and have nothing better to do. I'd suggest cleaning a few bathrooms, cleaning up some dog poop, and washing a few pots and pans--forever.
If you've ever seen John and Elizabeth in person, you know they are real and they care--something the haters here don't understand.
Edwards is consistently right on my side on all of the issues. Too bad his SUV/Haircut/Home/amazingly lucid and honest wife seems to be the chief reason people can't get behind him. For those of you who read "Don't Think of an Elephant" 2 years ago, you missed the point. The media--Fox, CNN, ABC and the like are writing a useless narrative that we need to ignore. Unless Progressives right there own narrative we'll be working next summer to get Senator GOP-light Clinton elected because she's the "least evil of the two." BY GOD, we need to push for candidates that speak the narrative that we want spoken. Its time that we get behind Edwards...early and with force.
"We want specifics on how you’ll go about rolling those powers back."
AMEN!
JLee @ 52:
If he closes it down, period, that will be great. I'm sure it won't be the first day, but if he gets the wheels in motion (FAST motion) during his first week, then I would consider the promise fulfilled and not just campaign rhetoric.
Edwards is looking very good to me. He can win. Kucinich cannot, due to our celebrity-style, cult of personality politics (which I plant as squarely on US as I do mass media and the crooks who lie through it), though I do count on him getting an important position in the new adminiastration where he can do a lot of good!
So, maybe I am a little behind on this but:
Is it too late for Gore to enter? Is it a moot point on all fronts?
(It doesn't matter, I guess. He will do more good over his lifetime doing what he does now than as president)
What we need to hear from our presidential wanna-bes, ASAP.
I will Not... Spy on you.
I will Not... Torture anyone.
I will Not... Use Signing Statements.
I will Not... Allow the Justice Department to be used as a political ploy or weapon.
I will Not... Corrupt the Supreme Court of the United States.
I will Not...Lie to start illegal and immoral wars.
I will Not...Ignore evidence of War Crimes and High Treason.
I will Not... Pervert the Bill of Rights, nor allow anyone else to trod on them.
I will Not... Build secret prisons, or military bases.
I will Not... Set up secret courts, nor tolerate laws made in secret.
I will Not... Abuse Executive Privilege.
I will Not... Abuse congress, nor challenge their authority, as defined in the US Constitution.
I will Not... Allow national disasters and tragedies to be neglegted or overlooked.
I will Not... Allow my Secretaries to lie to you.
I will Not...Let my friends profit from the deaths of our soldiers.
I will Not... Tolerate war profiteering.
I will Not... Abuse and neglect the soldiers of the US Armed Forces.
I will Not... Give illegal or immoral orders as Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces.
I will Not... Deny the Geneva Conventions.
I will Not...Delay in restoring Habeus Corpus, and Posse Comitatus.
I will Not...allow illegal or immoral policies of prior presidents to stand.
I will Not...Embrace religious operatives into policy discussions, nor allow policy to be presented on religious grounds.
I will Not...Write any policy in secret.
I will Not...Let my administration hide or destroy documents.
I will Not...Dishonor Freedom of Information Act Requests.
I will Not...Start any more land wars in Asia.
I will Not...Allow lobbiests access to myself nor White House Staff.
I will Not... Let trillions and trillions of dollars remain missing.
I will Not...Let some son of a bitch kill 3000 US Citizens and then get away with it.
I will Not...Leave questions of 911 unanswered.
I will Not...Recklessly kill a million more people.
George @ 33:
And yet, Senator Obama, unlike Senator Edwards, had the opportunity to co-sponsor and get behind a bill (S576) that would restore Habeas Corpus and restore the Geneva Conventions as the law of the United States and did not do so. Of the candidates who had the power to actually do something about torture as the law, policy and practice of the United States, only Senator Chris Dodd has done so, by introducing S576, the Restore the Constitution Act in the Senate.
Sadly,
For Dan,
Heather
Joy @ 50:
Oh good.
It's back for me too now.
L.A. Confidential @ 11:
So, We would have no choice but to go to the Doctor? What would happen if we didn't want to go? Would we be put in the "New" non-secret prisons?
I used to have a job
An' I was doin' fairly well
Depression came along
An' everybody start to yell
"Where'd they go, them good ol' days,
An' all that crap we used to sell?"
Now I'm in Hot-Plate Heaven,
at the Green Hotel
SOB is going to take all the fun out of this war. What's a little rape and torture? Jeeezus, next you are going to expect us to follow the Geneva Conventions.
Hey! Kucinich has won at every level of government in all three branches.
Stop thinking he is unelectable, especially in the primaries! For cryin out loud what a brave stance coming out against torture...what BS.
Edwards is my favorite of the ...grrrr "front-runners", there I said those hateful words, but he still isn't even on the same level as Dennis at all.
Good suggestion, Republicans seem to like to hang out in bathrooms.
Chacounne @ 58:
Get your facts straight -- Senator Obama is indeed a cosponsor of S.576. No wonder you want to vote for a candidate who isn't running. I can't believe how many people fall for lies.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-576
George
Charles Wilton @ 30:
Reality check.
Politics is the art of compromise, reconciling what you actually want to do against competing voting blocks with diametrically opposed interests. If he comes out for example, no pun intended with strong support for gay marriage, he creates opposition of forty million fundies, who are currently disgusted with rethug gay scandals, corruption, the set of GOP candidates, etc, and will be disinclined to vote unless strongly energized. Conversely, he could come out in favor of them and curry favor with the say forty million homosexuals, and sympathetic parties......who are overwhelmingly liberal, and would most likely vote for him anyways, if at all.
He may well, in actuality be in favor of gay marriage, but it is a losing position for him....so he takes the neutral stance of "civil unions", and has his wife take a pro-gay position......and hopefully, after he gets re-elected in 2012, a liberal congress puts a law in front of him, he signs it, and there is a two year cooling off period for the jesus freaks to realize that the world isn't actually ending because two men can get married.
Now he could come out and say what he really thinks, and most likely lose, or play the game, win, and maybe be able to do some good. Take your pick. Don't hate the player, hate the game.
Regarding Edwards, he, having the Democratic nomination is unbeatable by the rethugs. He is liberal enough to make the leftists happy, but no so much so that it will scare the fascists. For those clueless about the issues, jellybrains, or "gut feeling" voters (a pretty sizeable block), he is handsome, telegenic, charming, charismatic, and southern, which makes inroads into republican "bubba" demographics, and has a great "story" of by all accounts being madly in love with his cancer stricken four year older than him wife.....this appeals to women voters....I apologize for sounding mysoginistic, but they are more than half of the population, and as a ----whole----- prone to emotion based thinking
Having acquired the white house, he should have affinity towards the working class, having come from it, and should do bold things to reverse the stupidity of the last by that time eight years.....he wants the minimum wage raised to 9.50 an hour, which is a pretty good start, and is likely to put in appropriate taxation of the wealthy and corporations. He went to work in a hedge fund, and has acquired the knowlege (rare among leftists) to understand how that shell game is used to transfer wealth to the upper class, and may likely take action in that area.
Best of all, he has a trial lawyer's adversarial mentality....a "courtroom warrior". He is trained, and has succesfully determined what his opponents weaknesses are, and then engaged in action to DESTROY those opponents. I've pointed out numerous times that given sufficient political impetus, the president can fix most any problem with the whip of a pencil.......and winning political support over to your side isn't much different than convincing twelve jurors to see things your way.
V V
Well, I'd believe that except for his weak performance against Dick Cheney in the V.P. debates. That is his biggest problem to overcome -- his ticket lost, and Americans do not like losers very much.
John, you had me at when you said that you support the Constitution. Edwards is the Repugs' worst nightmare. therefore, no one even remembers to mention him in the mainstream media. They are trying to cram Hillary down our throats to let us float without a paddle. Keep on talking John. The mine workers and steelworkers and the carpenters are on the right track.If my father were alive ( he belonged to the IAM), he would be supporting Edwards like me. So much for some union chief's opinions.
George @ 68:
What I've read is that he was reigned in by Kerry political consultants, the same morons who sent John Kerry out to kill some varmits in an orange hunting vest to "butch up" his image, chose to "take the high road" on the swiftboating, among other mistakes, like using automated telephone messages to advertise gay friendlyness to Michigan black voters on the eve of the election(the issue doesn't resound with them).
Now despite the badly run Kerry campaign, historical propensity to keep a sitting president during wartime, and unprescedented fear mongering from the government, Chimpy STILL had to cheat his way into the white house with Diebold voter fraud....and that just BARELY got the job done......remember, at that time, there was still an illusion that dubya was more than a partisan cronyistic incompetent....
V V
Somebody @ 58:
Somebody said a mouthfull...
BaScOmBe @ 27:
This is a massive issue.I'd like to know the answer too...if he dances around the answer....fuckem...
mudshark @ 71:
you just described dennis kucinich!
PurplePatriot @ 37:
Mark has a point. Many politicians talk a good line but when time comes to deliver---develop amnesia. It's far easier just to be a cowardly panderer delivering milquetoast soundbites that risk nothing. Take a stand for principle and integrity? Why that involves speaking frankly and taking some risk. Who would want to do that---why, the public might not love you anymore. But I believe that is exactly what the public is looking for.
And remember too that cynicism is the death of hope. It may take some time to clean up the toxic waste left by the Bushcovite Junta but clean it up we will. In the words of Dr. King: " What self centered people have torn down---other centered people can rebuild."
I like what Edwards is saying. And he seems to be the only one with these great ideas. But how about he (or any candidate for that matter) signs a contract to carry out the promises? Wouldn't it be great if we could hold our leaders legally responsible for breaking promises, and sue them if they did not follow through?
Stasi-esque behavior needs to end today
Somebody @ 58:
Am in hopes John Edwards get the nomination...
I'm happy to say that I'm behind Edwards 100%. My rainbow Edwards bumpersticker is on and I'm contributing what dollars I can. He may not be as progressive as Kucinich, but neither are Americans, as a whole, and this is about more than just us lefties. He has the best chance of beating any Republican according to the matchups. I DO NOT want to be white-knuckling my way through another election night.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/favorables/elect...
BaScOmBe @ 27:
I have seen this comment before about Edwards saying he would bomb Iran. This is misrepresenting what Edwards said. Edwards had a one on one interview with Ezra Klein that fully explains Edwards' stance on Iran that should be looked at if you are really concerned about his stance on Iran. Please take a look at this interview to gain a better understanding of his view on Iran and Iraq for that matter.
Excerpt...
EK (Ezra Klein)-So, I just want to get it very clear, you think that attacking Iran would be a bad idea?
JE (John Edwards)-I think would have very bad consequences.
EK-So when you said that all options are on the table?
JE-It would be foolish for any American president to ever take any option off the table.
EK-Can we live with a nuclear Iran?
JE-I'm not ready to cross that bridge yet. I think that we have lots of opportunities that we've … We're not negotiating with them directly, what I just proposed has not been done. We're not being smart about how we engage with them. But I'm not ready to cross that bridge yet. And I think the reason people react the way they do -- I understand it, because, when George Bush uses this kind of language, it means something very different for most people. I mean when he uses this kind of language “options are on the table,” he does it in a very threatening kind of way -- with a country that he's not engaging with or making any serious diplomatic proposals to. I mean I think that he's just dead wrong about that.
EK-So we should, first step, talk to Iran, try to open up negotiations?
JE-Correct
EK-Do it, if necessary, bilaterally?
JE-Absolutely.
Full interview:
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?articleId=12434
Sorry, I missed the George @ 39 comment. Thanks George.
How about no more Patriot Acts, Military Commisions Act, or other Constitutionally objectionable acts? How about no more government by corporate boards? How about no more wars of aggrassion? How about no exemption from the International Criminal Court? How about no self-exempting laws that evade accountability for crimes against humanity? How about an NSA that is accountable to the Constitution? How about abolishing the supreme clusterfuck and rape of the citizenry that we all know as the Department of Homeland Security. How about never again referring to American by the term beloved by all fascists and totalitarians:"Homeland".
And this will only restore freedoms stolen from us by thugs and a complicit Congress since 2001.
"well, I want to know if he still plans to bomb Iran."
It's the role of the screwed up media to push the envelope in the interview until they get the quote they are looking for and then take it out of context and play it again and again. They aren't believers in either side; they go only where the best story in their mind is. Will this be my Pulitzer? Screw them. They are opportunistic and they are complicit more than anyone or anything else in allowing this corrupt administration to remain in power. They are the news anchors, the probing "journalists" who ask the questions that comprise tomorrow's headlines, they are the at the core of the destruction of the United States. The are the Katy Couricks, the George Stephanopoulas, the Bryan Williams', and a myriad of others who are known but will go unnamed for now. they are all out to make a name and buck and they get me sick. Will they still have positions of power in the "news" world when this country goes down???
all right, since kucinich can't win, edwards can and as the most viable candidate on the top rung, why can't he declare kucinich as his vp elect prior to his (edwards) winning the nomination. kucinich would have to agree, but unfortunately, the writing's on the wall for him. I know declaring a vp before winning the nomination is not how it's done, but we live in a new age with the rules being rewritten all the time. Is this a ticket that we could support? Edwards-Kucinich????
Vitam Vas @ 67:
So, I should vote for him on the assumption that he is lying to us about what he really believes? That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. What else is he lying about?
It would be so much better had Edwards said he would have America join the International Criminal Court. Kucinich beats Edwards on every issue and Hillary's record is left of Edwards.
It's still early...we have 16 weeks to go.....lets watch and listen some more.
Charles Wilton @ 85:
Again, it's all a big game, and EVERYONE is playing it. If you don't play, you lose. End of story. From your perspective, if you want gay marriage (I'm not opposed to it and sympathetic, but not a big issue to me), understand that if you fail to support the more or less leftist candidate, and the right wins, you have no chance in hell of seeing it as fundamentalist christians are part of their core constituency, so they would alienate a like a third of their voters. Conversely, if the left gets into power, you may get civil unions fairly quickly, and after progressive economic policies have reduced economic despair (a lot of people run to become fundie christians because of it....throwing themselves to the lord as they can't cope with their problems), and a few more prone to be socially conservative but vote like crazy old people have died off, homosexuals and sympathetic parties will probably have enough support to get full blown gay marriage. It's just the way things work.
V V
tyree @ 73:
Bravo, Tyree! Bravo! You said it brilliantly. Edwards is such a goddam wannabe! And WTF is wrong with people who will support a candidate who falls WAY short on the issues that are truly important, especially to us progressives. And somebody mentioned it before — if Kucinich is so unelectable, then why has he been able to win at every level of government in all three branches? (Thanks Nanderson!) Of course the MSM is playing an enormous part in marginalizing Kucinich, so WE must get the word out. Fuck the polls! WE decide who wins!
It would be encouraging were it not for the fact that Edwards doesn't stand a chance in hell.
It would be encouraging were it not for the fact that Edwards doesn’t stand a chance in hell.
Not true. National polling does not select candidates, the caucus system does. And Edwards is highly dominant in Iowa, and I believe doing well in New Hampshire.....a similar scenario made Kerry the nominee in 04.
V V
Vitam Vas @ 91:
Edwards is leading the polls in Iowa by 5% over Clinton and has moved up to second over Obama in South Carolina.
He consistently polls the highest of any of the Democratic candidates against the all of the GOP contenders.
That whole mandatory thing was taken out of context by Drudge and the AP ran with it. He was talking about prevention being mandatory for coverage - insurance companies have to cover it, notthing to do with mandatory procedures.
The campaign issued a clarifying statement on it:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/9/5/175249/8233
"Senator Edwards believes it is critically important to take preventive steps that help reduce health care costs and prevent disease. The truth is many people do not currently seek medical services because they aren't covered or can't afford to see a doctor. That is why Edwards' universal health care plan would require most insurers to cover preventive measures at low or no cost. Through incentives like lower premiums, the Edwards plan would also encourage people to use preventive health care, from checkups to cancer screenings, which will result in lower costs for both the individual and the country."
L.A. Confidential @ 14:
Login or Register to post comments.