Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

I like Edwards – but couldn’t support him because…

By

Of stuff like this…Progressive Senator Russ Feingold sums it up quite well here.

The one that is the most problematic is (John) Edwards, who voted for the Patriot Act, campaigns against it. Voted for No Child Left Behind, campaigns against it. Voted for the China trade deal, campaigns against it. Voted for the Iraq war … He uses my voting record exactly as his platform, even though he had the opposite voting record.

When you had the opportunity to vote a certain way in the Senate and you didn’t, and obviously there are times when you make a mistake, the notion that you sort of vote one way when you’re playing the game in Washington and another way when you’re running for president, there’s some of that going on.

That level of shape changing is Romneyesque.  He plays an authentic populist on the trail – and I do think he believes in it, but his record in the Senate betrays him.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. If only Russ had run, he couldnt have won but he would have been a much more authentic progressive choice than Edwards or admittedly Obama (whom I might have still supported looking towards the general) but Russ would have been much preferable to Edwards as the true progressive alternative.  

    • If Russ ran, maybe he would have run. Despite Obama’s Iowa success, he hasn’t run a great campaign. If there reall was a candidate who could have united the entire netroots behind them and progressives from all across the country – which I submit Russ Feingold would have done – there’s a distinct possibility he could have defeated Obama and Hillary. Heck, even Edwards could have done so, if Iowa’s turnout wasn’t so large. If he won Iowa, and in almost any other year he would have given his success there, this race would be completely different.

    • I don’t vote for bundles of positions – I vote for my sense of who a person IS.  Here is a link to the interactions in South Carolina:

      <

      p>http://www.johnedwards.com/wat…

      <

      p>I am not going to play “more progressive then Thou” because, to quote Rhett Butler in Gone with the Wind, “Frankly my dear, I don’t give a damn.”

      • Neither Edwards’s voting record nor his platform define him, but each says something about who he is. The fact that they send contradictory messages leaves me confused about who he is and what kind of president he would be. At worst, he may be somebody who (like Romney as the diarist points out) will say anything to get elected.

        • I appreciate that comment, and it shows solid and honest consideration.

          <

          p>I find that John Edwards life, and what he has done with it appear a consistent to me, and I have a sense of connection.  

          <

          p>That is a personal matter, and I do not know how well it translates.

          <

          p>I guess having a mother who began as a mill worker, and ultimately became a phi beta kappa and a school teacher, I am familiar with the concept of growth and development.

          <

          p>What looks like inconsistency to you looks like growth and development along a life lived fully to me.

      • With all due respect, you do not know John Edwards personally, nor have you interviewed him in depth. There is no such thing as the knowable essence of a person that is distinct from his or her actions. All we have is evidence, nothing more. What he says. How he voted. What he’s done while campaigning.

        <

        p>To say that you are voting based on who he IS is to put ribbons on fantasy. In fairness, everyone does this, but it doesn’t constitute an argument so much as a plea to be immune from argument.

        <

        p>I say this, by the way, as one who has contributed to Edwards and who is inclined to vote for him.

        • But you actually do not know if I have met John Edwards [I have].

          <

          p>You assumed I had not spoken with him – but that is not true either.

          <

          p>Now, I am not claiming to be “objective” – for me politics is NOT about objectivity, but about choice.  While it is 100% true that no one ever 100% knows another person, I know John Edwards better than I feel I know Governor Patrick.

          <

          p>Anyway, glad to hear you are included towards Edwards and thanks for listening.

          <

          p>As to “in depth”, I suppose that is a matter of opinion.  But three conversations that I found memorable is three more conversations then I have had with any of the other Democratic OR Republican candidates for President.

          <

          p>So, I offer a poem, which I can print without fear of copyright problems because I wrote it.  My concerns sometimes are easier to state via poetry, I think:

          <

          p>LET US BE TOUGH ON TYRANNY

          <

          p>Let us be tough on true tyranny

          <

          p>because

          <

          p>TOUGH ON TYRANNY

          <

          p>must come before

          <

          p>tough on crime will have any possibility

          <

          p>of a winning the battle on crime.

          <

          p>.

          <

          p>The tyranny of poverty

          <

          p>The tyranny of class

          <

          p>The tyranny of ethnic bias

          <

          p>The tyranny of the majority.

          <

          p>These terrible tyrannies cripple our children.

          <

          p>These voracious tyrannies eat the choices for our future

          <

          p>These tyrannies imprison us all.

          <

          p>But the most dangerous tyranny

          <

          p>is the tyranny of the majority

          <

          p>Where to be different

          <

          p>Means to be thrown away;

          <

          p>For both conformity

          <

          p>and “political correctness”  

          <

          p>are insatiable monsters

          <

          p>That eat our young.

          <

          p>Written 2006, revised 2008.

          • The economics of voting:

            … there are costs and benefits associated with voting. Becoming politically informed is costly, as is taking the time to register and go to the polls to vote. These costs are not large, but they are much larger than any private benefits realized by shifting political decisions in the direction the voter prefers. A benefit of that sort is effectively zero given the minuscule probability that any one vote will decide the outcome of an election, particularly a state or national election.

            But many people do vote, so they must realize personal benefits from voting even though their votes don’t decide election outcomes. From the economist’s perspective, the question isn’t why do so few people vote, but why do so many vote? The most likely answer is that people realize an expressive benefit from voting-a benefit having nothing to do with the election’s outcome: People feel good about expressing support for, or opposition to, particular policies and candidates. And since no one vote is likely to affect the outcome, it costs a voter effectively nothing to express support for policies, even though these policies, if enacted, are not in the voter’s private interest.

  3. That level of shape changing is Romneyesque.

    <

    p>Romney campaigned on progressive issues, won, somewhat enacted/maintained them, then campaigned against them.

    <

    p>I was living in North Carolina when Edwards ran for senator.  It was pre-9/11, the Patriot Act didn’t exist… he certainly didn’t campaign on it in 1998.  It was pre-GWB, No Child Left Behind  didn’t exist… he certainly didn’t campaign on it in 1998.  China wasn’t the juggernaut it is now, and the Iraq war wasn’t on the horizon.

    <

    p>I’m not saying it’s perfectly OK for him to vote one way but then “see the light” later and campaign against it.  But, it’s not Romneyesque because Edwards didn’t campaign one way and then campaign another way.  Edwards made some votes he regrets on war and civil liberties.  But he didn’t promise voters one thing and then when the wind blew, promise something else.

    • Romney campaigned as a fiscal conservative can do business fixer who could spark the economy, lower taxes, make Govt run like a business, etc – deemphasising social issues for the most part.  A progressive he was most certainly not.  

      <

      p>Yes, he shaped changed to become a right-wing freak to try and win the GOP nod for prez but let’s please not call him a progressive ever.  Unless, the term has ceased to mean anything.  

      <

      p>And I think Edwards voting for all these landmark bills and then vociferously panning them on the campaign trail is almost worse then campaigning one way and then another.  Campaigns are rhetoric, votes are real.  I’d think people should be concerned about how he voted and not what he said.

      • the times when Romney would famously claim on the campaign trail that he’d be a stronger advocate for LGBT issues and woman’s issues than any of his D opponents. So you could say he was campaigning on progressive positions on a few social issues. But this was just pandering. I don’t ever remember Romney emphasizing any economically progressive themes in the ’02 campaign.

  4. Look at an objective review of his positions and votes.

    <

    p>http://www.ontheissues.org/Joh…

    <

    p>It’s clear that Feingold wishes Edwards had taken more bold stands in his first time as a Senator. I do too, and Edwards has apologized for some of the votes he cast. Contrast that with Clinton’s convoluted explanation for her vote to take us to war in Iraq, and her recent vote taking us closer to war with Iran.

    <

    p>There’s nothing to indicate that John Edwards has been anything but genuinely interested in working families. The fact that he’s campaigning against long odds to call attention to important issues proves his sincerity.

  5. …the idea that of all the ways John Edwards could have framed himself — if all he was interested in was doing well in a presidential nominating contest — and he picked being the most progressive candidate…yikes, I don’t think so. He believes and I know he wishes he had cast symbolic votes alongside Feingold on a variety of issues. (The hysterical irony being that Edwards is the only candidate taking public financing…for which he was eviscerated in the political press…and there is high and mighty Russ talking about choosing between Clinton and Obama…who are doing all they can to destroy previous fundraising records and destroying the conspets underpining the one “reform” Feingold has moved forward in his career.)

    <

    p>The reason Senators never get elected President is precisely becuase most of the time you are faced with bad legislative choices, so you vote compromise sometimes, not convictions…and people then dog you for it forever.

    <

    p>John Edwards has played a huge role in defining issues in a race that constantly tilts toward the inane. (I was embarrassed watching Clinton and Obama Monday night sounding like they were running for Alderman in Chicago…slum lord…sellout…I did more community organizing…no i did…sheesh) I shudder to think what the debate on issues would sound like if Edwards was not in the race and the positioning was Clinton/Obama v. McCain.

    • Edwards always hoped the race would allow him to go straight against Clinton.  Positioning himself to her left-flank, which he thought he’d have all to himself, made sense for the primaries.  He wasn’t going to take the center – so he became stridently anti-war, anti-trade to get the union vote and positioned himself as “farm boy” populist, which has always played well in the state Edwards had to win – Iowa.  Obama screwed things up for him with his appeal to the more rarefied progressive wing of the party (a section of the party that may have gone with Edwards had Obama not been around).

      <

      p>The fact that he was a Senator from conservative North Carolina explains his voting record as much as anything.  Hard to vote against the war and Patriot Act, shortly after 9/11 when you are from NC.  But he also wanted to run for President – having done so twice now, and I think there is a lot of positioning behind Edwards moves.  That does not mean he isn’t sincere about his positions, but it means he is motivated no less than any other candidate, by where he thinks he can build a base to win from.

        • Thanks for posting that link; I hadn’t seen it before and was fascinated to see how Edwards’ evolved from freshman Senator to a bold progressive.

          <

          p>Fiengold does a disservice to all progressives when he makes attacks like this.

  6. I thought Edwards might run as an upbeat centrist.  There was some room there.  

    <

    p>Instead he went with the Two Americas thing which plays ok on blogs but just doesn’t resonate with enough voters.    

  8. I think John Edwards’ actions speak to his sincerity. Last year he conducted a pilot program in North Carolina where several hundred students were granted funds for college tuition in engage that they work part-time, and this project was extremely successful. Edwards took a group of college students (one of whom I know personally) to New Orleans to aid in rebuilding efforts, and throughout the campaign he’s continued to bring up the importance of not abandoning efforts there.
    –These are the kind of details that unfortunately get overlooked, but really reflect a candidate’s beliefs.

Archives