BREAKING: John Edwards to join MoveOn.org Veto Rally Tonight in Portland!

[Joanne98]

BREAKING: John Edwards to join MoveOn.org Veto Rally Tonight in Portland!
open discussion
Fresh off a jam-packed public town hall today in Portland (more on that later), Senator John Edwards just announced that he's going to attend the emergency veto rally organized by MoveOn.org.

Tonight's veto rally is at 5:15 p.m. at SW 9th and Jefferson, in front of the Portland Art Museum.

From the campaign's announcement, just released:

As you may have heard, MoveOn.org and a coalition of progressive groups are organizing emergency rallies in hundreds of cities nationwide, calling on Congress to stand firm in response to Bush's veto.
We just found out that there's a rally planned for this evening in Portland and John Edwards has decided to attend to add his voice to the movement. Please join us tonight at 5:15 PM at Portland Peace Square (South Park Blocks) on 9th and Jefferson (in front of the Art Museum) in Portland.

Here's the description of the event from the organizer: "We will be gathering at the Park Blocks to let Bush and the world know that his veto of the Provisional Funding Bill is unacceptable to the American people."

Here are the details:

When: 5:15 PM, Wednesday, May 2

Where: 9th and Jefferson (in front of the Art Museum)

Directions: We will meet at the South Park Blocks, in front of the Art Museum. You can get there by MAX or Metro. It is in Fareless Square. Parking is very limited downtown, especially at that time of day, so we suggest you take public transportation.

We hope you will be able to join John Edwards this evening in speaking out against this war!


Discuss.

May 2, 2007 | open discussion | E-mail to a Friend
Permalink: BREAKING: John Edwards to join MoveOn.org Veto Rally Tonight in Portland!http://www.blueoregon.com/2007/05/breaking_john_e.html

[demnan]

1. Thanks great

I'm glad he's taking this step. I was in front of the White House a couple of hours ago and we didn't get much of a crowd there. Maybe having a national figure who is running for President as part of a protest might help (I know Dennis was at the D.C. one in January, and so was another Congresswoman, whose name escapes me at the moment.

[Colobo]

2. Bad political move...

The guy is honest and his guts gotta be respected, but I don't think this helps him in any way, politically speaking.

[polichick]

4. Maybe not such a bad move...

MoveOn folks can be counted on for cash, and he may have lost some financial support recently because of the house and hair thing.

[tkmorris]

6. A "bad political move" implies.....

A "bad political move" implies not that it doesn't help him, but rather more than that. You seem to believe that it hurts him somehow, but I don't see how it would unless you think that any association with the MoveOn group puts a candidate in a poor light with moderates. If that's what you mean, frankly I just don't see it.

[ChiciB1]

43. Here We Go AGAIN!! That's ALL I'm Saying... Just Want To

read EVERYTHING later, so needed to post something!

[Morgana LaFey]

10. You're kidding, right?

You apparently buy the rightwing spin about MoveOn? Or you don't, but you think Americans do so we should let the rightwing not only define us but control our activities?

Ridiculous, either way.

[polichick]

3. Another good move...he's on a roll!

Have any of the others shown up with such peaceniks (other than Kucinich of course)?

[Colobo]

5. Do you think mainstream America?

Meaning, the independents and the moderate voters (Democrats and Republicans alike)... do you realize the opinion they have of the "far left" Kucinich, Gravel and others represent?

America elects people who sell themselves as moderates even if they are not.

[polichick]

7. I see your point...

...but there's plenty of time before the general election ~ like I said, MoveOn folks pony up the pennies!

And indies & moderates want out of the war too.

[eridani]

9. They sure like "far left" polices quite a lot

And could you stop spreading bullshit Repuke memes while you are at it? Universal health care is not especially "left" at all in most of the world.

[w4rma]

13. Edwards has Teflon® in that respect.

People just look at him and stereotype him as a conservative/moderate even though he is a strong progressive.

If he can make it through the primary we get the best of all worlds with him.

[IndianaGreen]

15. The issue is saving lives of our troops and Iraqi civilians

Ending the war will not be a clean and surgical move, it will be messy, as it was when a previous Congress ignored the "keep the powder dry" among them and voted to cutoff all funding for the Vietnam War.

[depakid]

55. Actually attitudes like this are exactly why Dems lose

Now, maybe they play in Oklahoma- but pandering to the likes of that state means suicide in the rational parts of the country.

Bottom line is that on ISSUE AFTER ISSUE progressive positions are (sometimes by overwhelming numbers) more popular among the electorate than so called "conservative" or corporatist ones. You can see that reflected in the polls over and over.

If we've learned anything over the past 12 years, it's that playing "Republican lite" and trying to look "moderate" (whatever the hell that is) is a losing strategy.

And it'll lose in 2008, just as it has in the past.

[OregonBlue]

8. Oh Pooh, I'm out of the state for a few weeks, won't get to go.

[Czolgosz]

11. k

[sampsonblk]

12. Good day for Edwards

Smart guy, though I wouldn't vote for him at gunpoint. He kicked their butts on CNN this afternoon and now this, I think he finally gets it.

On edit: I think this forces Obama and Clinton to respond in some way. We are moving in a positive direction.

[IndianaGreen]

14. I am sure that those "Keep the Powder Dry" Democrats are annoyed at Edwards

just as they were annoyed at Kerry when he announced that he was going to lead a filibuster against Alito's nomination to SCOTUS and when he joined Feingold in introducing a troop withdrawal resolution in the US Senate.

Way to go Edwards! You are fast becoming the alternative to Hillary!

[BigBearJohn]

16. Each and every day, I am becoming more convinced that Edwards is my man for President.

He's pushing the envelope and I really think
we need that right now.

The only other person I would like better is Al Gore.

[MannyGoldstein]

17. I Have A Better Idea

Why doesn't he grab a rifle and go fight the war he co-sponsored?

[chimpymustgo]

18. Because he wants to END the war. Dammit.

And he's fighting to do that. What's your candidate doing?

[MannyGoldstein]

19. He's On The Front Lines

In the Senate where he can effect change. Keeping his record consistent.

He's NOT running around flip flopping on every important issue, like Edwards is.

[chimpymustgo]

20. Who is it Manny? And why so coy about it? nt

nt

[MannyGoldstein]

21. Who's Being Coy?

Obama, right now. He's not a known hypocrite, to my knowledge - please disabuse me if I'm wrong.

[chimpymustgo]

22. Well thanks, Manny. So your goal is to tear down Edwards to build up Obama.

Surely your candidate has enough going for him that you can promote him, rather than try to destroy an opponent with lies and smears. John Edwards did not start this war. That is a lie. You should be ashamed for smearing it all over DU.

Try promoting your guy.

[MannyGoldstein]

23. No - My Only Goal is Identifying Hypocrites

We've had several decades of lying, pandering hypocrites in the Oval Office - and look where it's gotten us. I can't see how another one will help.

Want to discuss the relative virtues of two non-hypocrites, say, Obama and Kucinich? That's a worthwhile effort. But voting for a mealy-mouthed hypocrite can never end well.

Enough is enough.

[chimpymustgo]

24. Please, dude. We're not stupid around here.

People can look at the candidates and make up their own minds. We don't need YOU to try to THINK for us, and tell us who we should or should not vote for.

We're smart enough. Get over yourself.

[jcrew2001]

32. Edwards is trying to fix his mistake

If Obama was in the Senate in 2002, he would have done the same thing, I guarantee it.

[Cameron27]

38. Oh Bull.

Obama spoke out against the war, while your guy co-sponsored the damn IWR. Don't try to bring Obama down with your speculation.

[jcrew2001]

40. If only Obama were elected in 2000

Maybe he could have done something about it.

[malikstein]

25. Obama's no hypocrite.

No, I guess not. He hasn't come out against the Iraq war, because he's in the Crown family's pocket. The Crown family are better known as General Dynamics, a major component of the military-industrial complex.

http://chicago.indymedia.org/newswire/display/76429/index.php

[MannyGoldstein]

26. Ahh... The Miracle of YouTube

YouTube seems to strongly disagree with you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhpKmQCCwB8

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=obama+iraq

Looks like he's come out very strongly against the Iraq War.

If Obama accepted contributions in excess of what is allowed, then he should be prosecuted. Somehow, I doubt that he knowingly did that.

[malikstein]

27. Has your man come out

in favor of complete withdrawal? Is he in favor of abandoning the permanent bases that are being built? How does his Iraq policy differ from Mrs. Clinton's?

Why do you suppose the Crown family is shoving so much money in his direction? Do they want to convert their sword business to making plowshares?

[MannyGoldstein]

28. Here's What He Said

Thanks for that question. I didn't know the answer, so I poked arount the 'net, and here's what I found from a speech he gave last year (http://www.thechicagocouncil.org/UserFiles/File/Obama%20Remarks%20%20_11-20-06_.pdf).

"As a phased redeployment is executed, the majority of the U.S. troops remaining
in Iraq should be dedicated to the critical, but less visible roles, of protecting logistics
supply points, critical infrastructure, and American enclaves like the Green Zone, as well
as acting as a rapid reaction force to respond to emergencies and go after terrorists.

In such a scenario, it is conceivable that a significantly reduced U.S. force might
remain in Iraq for a more extended period of time. But only if U.S. commanders think
such a force would be effective; if there is substantial movement towards a political
solution among Iraqi factions; if the Iraqi government showed a serious commitment to
disbanding the militias; and if the Iraqi government asked us – in a public and
unambiguous way – for such continued support."

Looks like a very good answer to me. Thanks to you, i learned something new.

[malikstein]

29. I remember that statement, now that you bring it up.

Here's my worry about Obama's Iraq policy: There is wiggle room in it for an open ended stay in Iraq.

One of the matters currently being argued in Iraq is whether to hand over the country's oil reserves to private oil companies for the next 30 years. At the same time, Jimmy Carter is saying that the reason that there is no exit policy is that there is no intention to leave.

Now, as far as I'm concerned, we have no business leaving any troops in Iraq. Just as we had no business putting them there to begin with.

In 2004, Kerry complained that he could run a better occupation that Bush, and I held my nose and voted for him nonetheless. This time, I'm not going to vote for anyone who is fronting for the oil companies and will keep troops in Iraq to protect their profits. I'm looking for a candidate who leaves no wiggle room in his get out of Iraq policy.

In my generation, a lot of my contemporaries died in Vietnam to save Southeast Asia for capitalism. Enough of that shit. How about we design American policy for the American people, not for the billionaire elite.

[jcrew2001]

30. He's the only candidate who can beat Rudy or Fred

and I think that matters a lot in this election.

[Cameron27]

31. He certainly is not the only one who can

beat Rudy or Fred. Your opinion again.

[jcrew2001]

33. According to polls, he is

but they are just polls after all, no concrete evidence there.

Besides, whats the use of predicting outcomes, lets get surprised.

[IA_Seth]

35. So what if Edwards doesn't get the nod?

Are we all screwn?

Do we just accept the fact then that Rudy or Fred would beat whoever beats Edwards, and give up?

"the only candidate" is silly talk.

[jcrew2001]

39. Rudy is seen as a centrist by moderate voters and

he will likely beat Hillary and Obama.

I would not be surprised if Rudy wins everything.

[IA_Seth]

41. So, like I said, if Edwards loses?

Do you just give up?

[jcrew2001]

47. move to Canada?

maybe - or Ohio and Florid to rig the vote.

[rinsd]

36. Um Fred gets his ass kicked by Obama.

Obama is close to Rudy(3pts).

Clinton is 1 pt behind both Rudy & Fred.

To claim Edwards is the ONLY one who CAN beat them is simply not true.

Hopefully his efforts dealing wiht the veto will get his campaign some tractiuon because he has yet to break 20%.

[jcrew2001]

50. I think Rudy could beat Obama

It would be interesting having the first Italian in the white house.

[Cameron27]

51. You have an awful lot of confidence in Rudy.

I don't think he'll make it out of the primaries.

[jcrew2001]

52. Rudy would be competitive in the northeast

which is where i'm from. He could suck in the south. I think he can beat Hillary if he wins the red states.

[ripple]

34. Edwards' ace in the hole

is that he doesn't have to be accountable through the legislative process for anything he advocates. He can truly be an armchair quarterback.

I like Edwards and he's actually my second choice of those in the running, but I think it's important to remember that he does not have a constituency that he's accountable to and that when he was a United States Senator himself, he made a very, very bad choice.

With that said, I think it shows savvy on his part that he's playing up this political advantage.

[Cameron27]

37. It might be savvy now,

but the others aren't going to sit still for it much longer. Dodd was the first:

Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) just released a statement taking former Sen. John Edwards to task for his new ads on President Bush’s veto of a bill establishing a firm deadline for withdrawal of American troops from Iraq.

“As Senator Dodd was the first candidate to support the Reid-Feingold measure, we agree that Democrats in the Senate should stand up to a President who stubbornly refuses to change his failed policy in Iraq,” said Christy Setzer. “We wish that Senator Edwards was still in the Senate for this important fight.”

Setzer added: “If we can’t get his vote in the Senate, of course we would welcome Senator Edwards ‘ support for Senator Dodd’s plan, which would safely re-deploy out troops and bring an end to this war within on year rather than the incremental eighteen-month approach he has proposed.”

Snip: The argument goes that Edwards, a private citizen, is free to throw rhetorical bombs at his Senate rivals with no real consequences since he will never have to vote on a bill or bills that may be seen as half measures or worse by base voters. That’s a luxury that Obama, Clinton, Dodd and Sen. Joe Biden (Del.) don’t enjoy.

Does this start a period of more direct attacks among the candidates? It just might.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2007/05/dodd_throws_a_punch.html?nav=rss_blog

It's going to get interesting out there!

[jcrew2001]

42. I agree, its okay for Obama to not vote for the Iraq War bill

because he wasnt in congress at the time.

Its easy to create the illusion of change when you are an Outsider.

For Edwards, he is now an Outsider.

Maybe its the perception that Washington is part of the problem, and a true outsider needs to come in and clean house.

[Cameron27]

44. We'll see.

[jcrew2001]

48. I know, Obama can be 'anti-war' because he

never voted against the Iraq War bill - but Edwards can also be anti-war because he's no longer a Senator.

Of Course, Obama can now vote against any Iraq war bill - he's got to step up now - do the right thing Barry!

[ripple]

53. I'm an Obama supporter

and I freely acknowledge that when the IWR vote took place, Obama was in a much different position than Hillary, Edwards, Kerry, et al. He still gets a great deal of credit, though, for opposing the war before] public opinion was on his side. Not to mention, he was still a state senator who had to answer to his constituents.

I think those who voted for the IWR against their better judgment, did so for purely political reasons. At the time, virtually anyone who opposed the administration was automatically dubbed a terrorist sympathizer. Kerry, Edwards, Clinton, and Dodd had a lot at stake, as they probably had a pretty good inkling that they would be running for the top job at some point. It was purely a political decision that has backfired badly for all but Dodd.

[jcrew2001]

54. Iraq War is Bush's war and even if the entire Senate voted

against it, no one would have stopped him, imo.

We can put our military anywhere we want, Kosova, Bosnia, Darfur, Somalia, Grenada.

Congress only acts as an over-seer, especially if things get out of control.

[jcrew2001]

45. Its an advantage to be a Washington outsider and

tell voters that you can bring change when you get elected. That's why Senators never win and Governors do.

[Cameron27]

46. The republicans are not only nasty, they have long memories.

Edwards is going to be held to every mistake he ever made in the Senate. Count on it.

[jcrew2001]

49. Yeah, but southerners will vote for him anyways

rather than Hillary.

[DemBones DemBones]

56. Great, but what's to discuss???

Your post ended:

We hope you will be able to join John Edwards this evening in speaking out against this war!


Discuss.


:shrug: