Let's see who else voted for the 2001 Bankruptcy bill Edwards is getting flak about.

[madfloridian]

Edwards voted for the one in 2001. He was not in the Senate in 2005. More below about that bill.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0316-03.htm

The Sell Outs:

Daniel Akaka (Hawaii) [e-mail]
Max Baucus (Montana) http://www.senate.gov/~baucus/EmailMax.htm
Evan Bayh (Indiana) http://bayh.senate.gov/webmail.html
Joe Biden (Delaware) [e-mail]
Jeff Bingaman (New Mexico) [e-mail]
John Breaux (Louisiana) [e-mail]
Robert Byrd (West Virginia) [e-mail]
Maria Cantwell (Washington) http://cantwell.senate.gov/mailform.html
Jean Carnahan (Missouri) [e-mail]
Thomas Carper (Delaware) http://carper.senate.gov/
Max Cleland (Georgia) http://www.senate.gov/~cleland/webform.html
Hillary Clinton (New York) [e-mail]
Kent Conrad (North Dakota) [e-mail]
Tom Daschle (Sorth Dakota) http://daschle.senate.gov/webform.htm
Byron Dorgan (North Dakota) [e-mail]
John Edwards (North Carolina) http://www.senate.gov/~edwards/contact.html
Dianne Feinstein (California) [e-mail]
Bob Graham (Florida) [e-mail]
Fritz Hollings (South Carolina) http://www.senate.gov/~hollings/webform.html
Daniel Inouye (Hawaii) http://www.senate.gov/~inouye/webform.html
Tim Johnson (South Dakota) [e-mail]
Herb Kohl (Wisconsin) [e-mail]
Mary Landrieu (Louisiana) http://landrieu.senate.gov/webform.html
Patrick Leahy (Vermont) [e-mail]
Carl Levin (Michigan) [e-mail]
Joe Lieberman (Connecticut) [e-mail]
Blanche Lincoln (Arkansas) [e-mail]
Barbara Mikulski (Maryland) [e-mail]
Zell Miller (Georgia) http://miller.senate.gov/email.htm
Patty Murray (Washington) [e-mail]
Ben Nelson (Nebraska) http://www.senate.gov/senators/ben_nelson.html
Harry Reid (Nevada) [e-mail]
Chuck Schumer (New York) [e-mail]
Debbie Stabenow (Michigan) [e-mail]
Robert Torricelli (New Jersey) [e-mail]
Ron Wyden (Oregon) http://wyden.senate.gov/mail.htm

Democrats Who Voted No:
Jon Corzine, N.J.; Mark Dayton, Minn.; Chris Dodd, Conn.; Dick Durbin, Ill.; Russ Feingold, Wis.; Tom Harkin, Iowa; Ted Kennedy, Mass.; John Kerry, Mass.; Bill Nelson, Fla.; Jack Reed, R.I.; John Rockefeller, W.Va.; Paul Sarbanes, Md.; Paul Wellstone, Minn.

Not Voting:
Barbara Boxer (California)

Let's spread the grief around. The 2005 bill was far more devastating. The Blue Dogs and New Dems wrote letters to Hastert asking it be brought to a quick vote so they could vote for it.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/699

"The Blue Dogs voted 32-3 in favor of it. The New Democrats sent a letter to Dennis Hastert begging him to bring it up for a vote soon. More on that later.

Nancy Pelosi and David Sirota suffered fallout over the Bankruptcy Bill. They said it was wrong, they told why it mattered...and they suffered for that.

It was more than a bill. It was a total sell-out to corporations, in this case the credit card companies. The Blue Dogs and New Dems knew that when they advocated for it and voted for it. They knew it condemned the ill, the elderly, the poor, and those hurt by circumstances like hurricanes..to losing their homes and being left with little recourse.

Did you know that Nancy Pelosi stood up for the "liberals" in the party and stood up to the Blue Dogs and New Dems against the Bankruptcy Bill? Did you know it was one of the things that caused the worst divide between Pelosi and Hoyer."

Here is the letter from the New Dems to Hastert. TNR published it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2987822&mesg_id=2987907

Here is the Blue Dogs' letter to Hastert.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2987822&mesg_id=2988639

So there was a bill in 2001, not nearly as outrageous as the one in 2005 which is when they wrote to Hastert.

Edwards voted for the one in 2001, but he was not in the senate in 2005.

[lligrd]

1. They All Deserve Flak For It

Why do we feel compelled to forgive our candidates when they voted for things that have really hurt people? There is no excuse for having voted for this or giving Bush the authorization to invade Iraq.

[madfloridian]

2. Then don't just attack one person. It is out of control here.

People don't seem to have a clue what they are attacking anyone for. They just attack and attack.

I don't like the votes either. I don't like a lot of the votes a lot of people made.

But it is silly going after one person and not including the others.

[lligrd]

5. Agreed. I Don't Like The Attacks Myself

But given a choice I am going for someone who didn't sell out.

[madfloridian]

6. Well, good look in your search for perfection on not selling out on anything.

That would be nice.

[lligrd]

9. Not as hard to find as one might imagine

There are some and a few are even running.

[lligrd]

12. Not Looking For Perfection At All

I can look past most anything (affairs, drug abuse etc) but selling us out for politics is not one of them. Look at all the deaths they have sanctioned with the authorization. Look at all the ruined lives they have caused with the bankruptsy bills. Those are not mine to forgive and I will not sanction them.

[karynnj]

18. Edwards was the person being interviewed

The vote is 180 degrees away from his signature issue. It was fair to ask about it.

Of te Democratic Presidential candidates, Biden and Clinton voted for it too. Biden voted for the other bankrupcy bill too and it comes up EVERY time his name does. Hillary should be questioned on this too, but it will hurt her less as she is not running as the populist candidate.

It is not bashing to correctly point out a vote. Your reaction to it is nearly hysterical. Do you think that Edwards should be questioned on anything?

[madfloridian]

32. If you think my pointing out the others who voted the same is hysterical..

then I say read the post again, and the one about the China trade bill again.

I think hysterical is a little bit much.

[karynnj]

45. I didn't comment on the China bill because I didn't know enough about it

On the bankrupcy bill, this is exactly what they do to every candidate when there are things that are not consistent. I never complained when Stephanopolis, Matthews or Russert did this to others, including Senator Kerry, who actually did very well in these situations. This was no different from the way Biden was trested a few weeks ago.

In general, Edwards got more of a free ride on these issues than most. I suspect that underlying this may be the feeling that having been given a pass on his vote, he then came back to damn others for not being as anti-war as he. This takes chutzpah when you consider he not only voted for it, but was on the Intelligence Committee, co-sponsored it and was for the war at least until the end of 2003.

That list consists of items that may or may not be important. I don't think the NCLB one is - that was Kennedy's bill as much as anyone else's. It has many major problems and every Democrat, I think including Kennedy knows it needs massive change - the problem is not just that it wasn't funded. I do think it is fair to look at his record. The response needed is to show that those are cherry picked bad votes.

It is also clear that the bankrupcy bill was a very bad bill that luckily ran into some problems. It is something he needs to explain.

[madfloridian]

48. Don't worry, all the candidates need "vetting". That will happen.

And let's not pretend that nothing is happening when post after post is lined up on page 1 of GDP with all kinds of stuff about Edwards.

We had enough denial here in another primary.

[karynnj]

61. I was not here in 2003 or 2004

I saw only one day of 2003, because some posted a thread with links to all the 2003 threads of that day.

It was interesting by way of comparison. Du has matured at least some since then. There are fewer really nasty posts. From the one day sample, it seemed there was considerable animousity but from that very small sample it was all aimed at one person.

[Tom Rinaldo]

28. Of those now running for President...

Hilary Clinton, Joe Biden and John Edwards voted for the 2001 bill, while Chris Dodd didn't. I will also note that two men who almost ran for President in 2008, Russ Feingold and John Kerry, voted against the 2001 legislation, while Evan Bayh also voted for it.

I have seen Joe Biden torn into repeatedly here on DU over his efforts to protect the credit card industry with both of his votes on bankruptcy. I have seen Hillary Clinton attacked on this also, with a similar defense raised by her supporters, that she only voted for the first bill (I believe she was absent for the second vote). I remember this being talked about on DU fairly extensively when Jonathan Tasini ran in the NY Primary against her. It was one of the issues he was using against Hillary.

For the record, I would personally feel more comfortable voting for Chris Dodd, Russ Feingold or John Kerry for President than I would for Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, or John Edwards, though not because of this issue only (and leaving aside important issues of "electability"). I think it is valid for anyone critical of John Edwards, or anyone uncertain about his record on issues who personally opposes that 2001 legislation, to point to his 2001 vote regarding bankruptcy law as a matter of concern. However I think it is also valid, MF, for you and anyone else to put that vote in its proper context, whatever that might be. The fact that most Democrats supported the 2001 legislation at that time is part of the valid context. The fact that later legislation was even worse arguably is also.

However most Democrats are not running for President now, not even Harry Reid. We are discussing here who we should support for President, not which Senators we most trust and admire. John Edward's entire 2008 platform is based in part on pointing out how his stance on important issues differs, in a progressive way, from most Democrats. He just semi-attacked the vast majority of Congressional Democrats for not showing enough backbone and courage in facing down Bush's veto of the Iraq War funding act which included timelines for withdrawal. For Edwards in this case the fact that the overwhelming majority of Congressional Democrats are taking a different stance than the one he is urging was not significant enough for him to refrain from airing commercials opposing their position on this.

People make mistakes, people learn lessons, people grow and change, and no one is perfect. All very true. I far prefer John Edward's current positions and priorities on economic and other issues than what his Senate record reflected. But it is valid to ask about changed positions taken by people after they decide to run for President. When a Republican changes his position on Abortion to appeal to the current base of the Republican Party after he decides to run for President, we here are all over that guy over his crass political flip flopping.

It is a valid line of questioning to ask of anyone who wants to be President "why have your views changed over time?" There are plenty of potentially good answers to that question but they still need to be given. And you can flame me on this if you want but I will add this also. If someone seems to change too many important views in too short a time period that can become an issue for me. In some cases it could raise questions of sincerity, but it isn't only that. It also raises questions of judgment and decision making process if someone too often gets something wrong the first time even if they later reach a far better conclusion. Now what is the trip wire for "too many times in too short a time period?" That is subjective and personal to a large degree. Each one of us has to make that decision for themselves. For now I know that I would certainly support John Edwards for President if he becomes our nominee, beyond that I can not say.

In closing I will add that increased public scrutiny of one's record simply comes with the territory of running for President, and that is fair and just. Frankly, I care a lot more about Bill Richardson and John Edward's past record right now than I do about Danial Akaka and Ron Wyden's. The former are asking me to vote for them to become President of the United States (instead of supporting other good Democrats for the job) while the latter aren't.

[papau]

3. 2005 vote: Clinton did not vote for it (did not vote at all) & Obama voted against

Alphabetical by Senator Name
Akaka (D-HI), Nay
Alexander (R-TN), Yea
Allard (R-CO), Yea
Allen (R-VA), Yea
Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Bayh (D-IN), Yea
Bennett (R-UT), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Yea
Bingaman (D-NM), Yea
Bond (R-MO), Yea
Boxer (D-CA), Nay
Brownback (R-KS), Yea
Bunning (R-KY), Yea
Burns (R-MT), Yea
Burr (R-NC), Yea
Byrd (D-WV), Yea
Cantwell (D-WA), Nay
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Chafee (R-RI), Yea
Chambliss (R-GA), Yea
Clinton (D-NY), Not Voting
Coburn (R-OK), Yea
Cochran (R-MS), Yea
Coleman (R-MN), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Conrad (D-ND), Yea
Cornyn (R-TX), Yea
Corzine (D-NJ), Nay
Craig (R-ID), Yea
Crapo (R-ID), Yea
Dayton (D-MN), Nay
DeMint (R-SC), Yea
DeWine (R-OH), Yea
Dodd (D-CT), Nay
Dole (R-NC), Yea
Domenici (R-NM), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Nay
Durbin (D-IL), Nay
Ensign (R-NV), Yea
Enzi (R-WY), Yea
Feingold (D-WI), Nay
Feinstein (D-CA), Nay
Frist (R-TN), Yea
Graham (R-SC), Yea
Grassley (R-IA), Yea
Gregg (R-NH), Yea
Hagel (R-NE), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Nay
Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Inouye (D-HI), Yea
Isakson (R-GA), Yea
Jeffords (I-VT), Yea
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Kennedy (D-MA), Nay
Kerry (D-MA), Nay
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Kyl (R-AZ), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Nay
Leahy (D-VT), Nay
Levin (D-MI), Nay
Lieberman (D-CT), Nay
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
Lott (R-MS), Yea
Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Martinez (R-FL), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Yea
McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Nay
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Obama (D-IL), Nay
Pryor (D-AR), Yea
Reed (D-RI), Nay
Reid (D-NV), Yea
Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Nay
Salazar (D-CO), Yea
Santorum (R-PA), Yea
Sarbanes (D-MD), Nay
Schumer (D-NY), Nay
Sessions (R-AL), Yea
Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Smith (R-OR), Yea
Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Specter (R-PA), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Yea
Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Sununu (R-NH), Yea
Talent (R-MO), Yea
Thomas (R-WY), Yea
Thune (R-SD), Yea
Vitter (R-LA), Yea
Voinovich (R-OH), Yea
Warner (R-VA), Yea
Wyden (D-OR), Nay
Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State

Grouped By Vote Position
YEAs ---74
Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Allen (R-VA)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bennett (R-UT)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burns (R-MT)
Burr (R-NC)
Byrd (D-WV)
Carper (D-DE)
Chafee (R-RI)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Frist (R-TN)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Inouye (D-HI)
Isakson (R-GA)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reid (D-NV)
Roberts (R-KS)
Salazar (D-CO)
Santorum (R-PA)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Stevens (R-AK)
Sununu (R-NH)
Talent (R-MO)
Thomas (R-WY)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)



NAYs ---25
Akaka (D-HI)
Boxer (D-CA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Obama (D-IL)
Reed (D-RI)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Wyden (D-OR)
Not Voting - 1
Clinton (D-NY)

[madfloridian]

4. And in 2005 Edwards spoke out against it.

But of course, he is not supposed to apologize, so I won't say he apologized for his vote in 2001, but he did.

Seems to me with the Clinton presidency and the DLC having such influence, we might see a pattern and not be so condemning of one person.

[karynnj]

19. Clinton was not President in 2001

[papau]

21. Amen to that idea - none of our candidates are to run against on "moral" grounds - all

have at one time or another voted in a way that was being pushed by some corporate lobbyist - indeed not all things pushed by corporate lobbyists are bad - much just makes the rules clearer so no one gets in to trouble - but of course much is just greed pretending to be a clearer rule.

We are a jobs by corporations/small business society, so one has to help the corporations get through regulation and get some value added out the door each day. But the GOP approach the chore by selling the decision to be made to the highest bidder. Our guys - all our guys - appear to try to think it through - and appear to try to help the poor/middle class in their decision. Even NAFTA was net jobs producer for a while, and Work required for Welfare has indeed turned half the folks that were on welfare into a better life style with more self esteem - both just could have been done better with union rights, human rights, minimum wage etc as part of NAFTA, and bypass rules for those that just can't work after the 5 years for welfare.

[w4rma]

7. Biden is the only Democratic candidate who consistently voted against Democrats. Hillary didn't vote

at all, of course, as you stated.

[wyldwolf]

25. gonna admit that mistake, MF?

[madfloridian]

37. What mistake? Please post it here so I can apologize.

??

[madfloridian]

44. Again, I ask, what mistake? If I made one I will apologize.

Please post what I said that was incorrect.

[SaveElmer]

34. Clinton did give a floor speech the day before denouncing it...

And missed the vote due to Big Dawgs bypass surgery!

[Cameron27]

35. Excellent!

Thanks for pointing that out.

[wyldwolf]

36. ...so there is every reason to believe she WOULD HAVE voted against it.

[SaveElmer]

40. Exactly...

Since she said that very thing...just to be absolutely clear!!! :-)

[Greyhound]

51. Except for her vote in favor of the 2001 version. n/t

[wyldwolf]

54. which wasn't the version that passed in 2005 - the version she didn't vote for

... hey, Kucinich... flag burning amendment...

[SaveElmer]

55. And abortion...

And ...stem cell research!!

[Greyhound]

56. There was no significant difference between them. They were both

anti-person, pro-corporate sell outs.

Kucinich owns his idiotic flag burning vote, which did nothing to anyone one way or the other, and he has stated that he was wrong on his abortion stance (elmer's distraction).

So what's the deal? What justification is there for further punishing the poor for being poor?

[wyldwolf]

57. Not sure of that. I do know Clinton would not have voted for the one that finally passed...

..which kinda means she owns the first "yea" vote she passed, right?

[Greyhound]

59. Did she say that? I must have missed it if so.

Here's a decent http://www.pirg.org/consumer/bankrupt/index.htm">source for the issue as a whole.

Aside from the myth that "bankruptcy abuse" even exists, the millionaire loophole and credit card company provisions are particularly interesting. No longer will future "Kenny boys" be forced to change their states of residence to Florida.

The whole thing stinks of bribery.

[wyldwolf]

63. Pretty much so.

I can't find the transcript of her floor speech online. But here is a clue and an excerpt:

WARREN: Mrs. Clinton, in a much more secure position—as Senator a couple of years later—when the bill came up once again—Senator Clinton was not there—the day of the vote. It was the day that President Clinton, you may remember, had heart surgery. But she issued a very strong press release condemning the bill and I assume if she had been there that she would have voted against it.

http://jinchi.blogspot.com/2007/03/hillary-clinton-and-bankruptcy-bill-of.html

And an excerpt from Clinton's speech:

This bankruptcy bill fundamentally fails to accord with the traditional purposes of bankruptcy, which recognize that we are all better off when hard-working people who have suffered financial catastrophe get a "fresh start" and a second chance to become productive and contributing members of society. With the passage of this legislation, which makes obtaining this fresh start more expensive and more difficult, we are ensuring that many responsible Americans will continue to be buried under mountains of debt, and unable to take back control and responsibility for their lives.

[Greyhound]

64. Then good for her. I'd still be interested in an explanation of

her yes vote for the 2001 version though.

[Straight Shooter]

8. madfloridian, I like your style.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

Nice to see Senator Wyden (Oregon) voted for it and then wise up and voted against it. What's important is that people learn from mistakes, and then set about correcting them. Lots of stupid mistakes were made in bush term 1.

As for the attacks on candidates, they all live in glass houses. I'm trying to learn the positive aspects of each one, because when I get out there and talk to people about Dem candidates, that's what I'll be focusing on.

If only Dean or Gore were in the running, though. :)

[lligrd]

10. If Only!!!

I'll second that.

[Tejanocrat]

11. Agreed!

[rosesaylavee]

23. Funny thing - even Lieberman voted against it in 2005. n/t

[Straight Shooter]

26. I didn't even notice that. Well, you know what they say about broken clocks. n/t

[Tejanocrat]

13. The 2001 bankruptcy bill was nothing compared to the vile bankruptcy bill of 2005 (Biden lost my

support over that one).

[Forkboy]

14. My guy is still looking damn good to me.

He's not perfect but he won't be found on that list. :)

[Hippo_Tron]

15. They sent the 2001 version of the bankruptcy bill to Clinton and he vetoed it while in office

I find it interesting that so many Democrats voted for something once Bush got in that was vetoed by President Clinton.

[elizm]

16. Obama voted AGAINST it...AND...

And if you look back at his Illinois voting record....He has been consistent in looking out for the working poor throughout his career...NOT just since he decided to run for President.

[Hippo_Tron]

58. Obama wasn't in the Senate at the time

You are referring to the 2005 bankruptcy bill, I assume.

[elizm]

65. You assume right...

[karynnj]

20. including his very own wife!

[SOS]

80. 2001?

The 2000 version was vetoed by Clinton.
The 2001 version was held at desk over anti-abortion complaints.
The 2005 bill passed and was sent to Bush.

Gotta hand it to the credit card vultures. They pushed this for 5 years until they got what they wanted.

[Inspired]

17. It is orchestrated.

It doesn't take long to recognize the same user names on most of the negative posts about John Edwards.

Isn't it crazy how some folks love to tear apart other Democrats? It isn't just the freepers who do this. We do it to ourselves. I thought we were smarter, or at least better, than this. It is very disappointing when it hits home that we are not as unified as we need to be to win back the White House.

[karynnj]

22. This is not tearing apart

This is reconciling the record to the rhetoric. Should we let each candidate create a watercolor portrait of who they and pick the one that we like best - ignoring whether their real record matches?

[Inspired]

67. It's the organized effort that bothers me.

I don't see the same reconciliation being done on every candidate.

[madfloridian]

31. And it is all ok here.

That's the sad part. I just keep lowering my expectations.

[IA_Seth]

33. A lot of it would go away...

If, like Karynnj says above, his campaign or his supporters would reconcile his record with this rhetoric.

Any question of Edwards on this board is seemingly met with persecution complexes and complaints of attacks, instead of answers, quotes, and links to support Edwards. In my opinion, all that is only making it worse.

[madfloridian]

38. Why? We know his record. What about others and their records?

We were asked to ignore all kinds of records in 2003 and 2004. We did.

[IA_Seth]

39. The others get just as much flak..

And the others aren't campaigning as champions of the poor.

I would never ask anyone to ignore records in 2003 and 2004, that would be foolish. Voting records clearly seem to be the most obvious indicator of future governing tendencies. With that being said, I do see the room for evolution of political ideology and growth of a person... but recent votes contradicting recent rhetoric seems like something worth questioning to me.

Look, if it comes down to it, I will support Edwards (if he gets the nod), but these nagging questions of judgment that are expressed here (which is seemingly the liberal liberals) should trigger alarms as to what the general electorate will feel when the right drudges this crap up onto TV 24/7. Now is the time that we vet our candidates and ensure that they are truly who we want to represent all of us.

[madfloridian]

41. Vetting is one thing. One post after another with misleading info is another.

So vet away.

[madfloridian]

42. And one good thing about calling it "vetting"....one can do it to anyone.

I can post stuff I hear in an email...and I can say I am vetting. I can ask about something I read at a right wing source, and I can say I am vetting.

Vetting is another word for tearing up our own.

Mostly it is not Edwards' supporters doing it.

[Cameron27]

43. What misleading information is being posted about Edwards?

[The Count]

70. I noticed this question was never answered. Just vague accusations against

bad, bad "Edwards bashers"
To my knowledge I brought up - several times his vote on the 2001 bankruptcy law. I have yet to see what's misleading about that statement.
The fact that other democrats also voted badly does NOT lift any personal responsibility/hypocrisy from Edwards.

[madfloridian]

72. We will call it "vetting" from now on. We will vet all candidates...

right?

Go ahead with what you need to do.

[The Count]

75. I don't call it anything. I tend to bring facts and issues - the ones important to me

such as war(present and upcoming), stolen election 2004, education, social justice, civil rights. It just so happens your guy falls extremely short on all of them.
I don't need to pretend I am doing anything else than I am actually doing: shedding light on a scam.

[madfloridian]

77. Well, I don't care what you call it... everyone must be "vetted".

Don't worry we will get around to your candidate also.

[The Count]

78. I'll let you know as soon as I get one - so you can "pay back" - it's all very

personal with you. Unfortunately, for now, issues are all I got. So, fight them if you can.

[AnneD]

24. I said it was a black mark...

on DEM voting records at the time and I still say it today. There was little evidence of folks filing bankruptcy just to get out of debt. Medical, divorce, and job loss were the main causes of bankruptcy. The GOP and their buds wanted it pass and Clinton vetoed an earlier version of it for good reason. Even if it were to pass, the DEM should have held their ground. The only one I would excuse from voting for the bill was Lieberman.

This is when they need to be held accountable.

[flpoljunkie]

27. 2005 bankruptcy bill "virtually the same unfair legislation" as the 2001 bill, HR333.

The bankruptcy bill:

In the 107th Congress (2001-2002) final passage of the one-sided anti-consumer bankruptcy bill (HR 333) was stymied at the end of the session. Confusion among its proponents, as well as a push by the credit card industry to eliminate all state rights to enact credit reporting laws (see PIRG FACT Act archive) caused it to be delayed through the 108th Congress, but now the industry is gearing up for another push. Now, bankruptcy proponents have announced they seek swift passage in 2005 of virtually the same unfair legislation. S. 256 (Grassley-R-IA, Carper-D-DE) has already passed the Senate floor. The key vote was on ending debate, and we lost 69-31 (consumer vote NO). More info on the Senate floor battle here. Language opposed by pro-life protestors, which helped kill the bill in 2001-2002, has been removed.

http://www.pirg.org/consumer/bankrupt/index.htm

[papau]

74. 25% rule was made much harsher - concept was the same as 2002 - but much harsher n/t

n/t

[ChiciB1]

29. Just Want To Say "Thanks Again" Madfloridian! You & Several Others

are so very good with this stuff. I thank many of you for doing the "hard work" and "research" on this type of thing.

I once would get terribly upset by all these attacks, now I just make my comments and move on. I still have my opinions, but mostly I find these ATTACKS on OUR candidates to be kind of disrespectful in some way.

And yes, I do understand that information is useful, but just remember when those on the other side see us doing this day in and day out... IMO it only adds FUEL to THEIR fire!

I may not support everyone else's pick for candidates, but I made a pack with myself not to lower myself to the mean spirit free-for-all that I see some others participate in EVERY SINGLE DAY!

Edwards & Clinton seem to get the brunt of it, but others do too... I find it pretty SAD!! If I'm still getting email about WHEN & WHAT Bill Clinton did in office, as if he were running for office right now, it makes me wonder if Democrats will EVER be able to get to the WH again!!

[Cameron27]

30. May I ask you sincerely

what attacks you're talking about? I honestly don't know how to evaluate a candidate without examining his rhetoric now, and balancing it in the context of how he voted in the Senate just a few years ago.

I would say that it would be unfair to judge someone today for what they talked about maybe 10 years ago, but this is very current history and it involves very significant issues. Issues on which John Edwards is framing his campaign...the war and poverty.

I also applaud madfloridian for taking up the challenge of presenting her view on his record, some don't bother to do that, but the conclusions she draws don't reflect the opinions of everyone. That's ok. Obviously our personal opinions are the reason we choose different candidates to support.

Anyway, I'm not trying to call you out, your post was the last one I read, so I thought I'd give it a shot.

Thanks

[Greyhound]

46. And which candidates are not this list?

Whom is it that has steadfastly stood with the people, against the corporate oligarchy, for his whole career?

[Cameron27]

47. That's actually a good point.

If you fluff over the bad choices of some, it diminishes the credit that others deserve for having the good judgment to vote correctly.

[madfloridian]

49. From The Nation's "Enron Democrats...the McAuliffe problem. "

This part is important for vetting because he is still active with a campaign today. This is from Greider's Nation article printed at Common Dreams in 2002. Our Democrats were facing money challenges from Democrats who had decided to get money from business interests because they could get more than if they worried about the rest of the party...and it was easy once the decision was made.

People keep saying they need to vet Edwards. I agree. We need to vet all our candidates.

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0322-05.htm

The McAuliffe Problem

"Many Democrats are inhibited as reformers by one other factor--Democratic national chairman Terry McAuliffe. He is their main money guy, an ebullient and fabulously successful fundraiser who's close to both Clintons, Gephardt and Daschle and other potential candidates, AFL-CIO leaders and hundreds of fat-cat contributors. McAuliffe is also thick with Gary Winnick, chairman of Global Crossing, the failed telecom company that is now in the cross-hairs of SEC and Congressional investigations. Winnick cut his pal in at the takeoff and McAuliffe reaped up to $18 million on an investment of $100,000. McAuliffe's good fortune was shared by other early investors like the AFL-CIO-affiliated Union Labor Life Insurance Company, which also made spectacular gains from Global Crossing and, according to BusinessWeek, cut in some union officials. Were other deserving Dems befriended in this way? McAuliffe categorically denies ever having suggested to anyone that they invest in the company.

His problem is, Global Crossing looks a lot like Enron: The insiders sold early; the employees, ordinary investors and pension funds got trashed big-time. Global Crossing is the fourth-largest bankruptcy in US history but lacks the sophisticated artistry of Enron's complex financial deceptions. That distinction doesn't help Democrats much. "People are reluctant to make the arguments that need to be made for the Democratic agenda," one of them said. "They don't want to hurt Terry."

[wyldwolf]

50. I've noticed an odd little pattern with the anti-Clinton/DLC/Centrist articles posted here

People like to call it journalism but sources are seldom named.

"People are reluctant to make the arguments that need to be made for the Democratic agenda," one of them said. "They don't want to hurt Terry."

WHO said it?? It sounds just like more of the general bile passed here as fact on a daily basis.

[madfloridian]

52. Don't you just hate that stuff when it happens?

Maybe Greider remembers from 2002. I don't. I resent your posts today trying to discredit me.

[wyldwolf]

53. I know if it wasn't for "unnamed, phantom, mystery" souces, the far right and left would be lost

[Jax]

60. Outstanding and spot on madfloridian

As usual you nailed it.

:thumbsup:

(don't worry about the right wing 22 percent losers who like to stalk you, they will ALWAYS be 22% losers who don't have the integrity to own up to it.)

Nominated.

[madfloridian]

62. Edwards statement in 2005 against the bill.

It is just short of half way down the page. Much more at the link.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/bankruptcy/archives/2005/04/index.php#005436

"Guest Blogger: John Edwards

This morning Elizabeth Warren and her students invited me to say a few words about the bankruptcy reform bill. I'm grateful for the opportunity.

I'm now spending a lot of my time tackling the challenges of poverty, but I learned a lot about bankruptcy on the campaign trail last year. I saw how many good families end up broke and poor, and
how they need the safety net of a fair bankruptcy law if they're going to get back on their feet.

Like a lot of Democrats, I voted for a bankruptcy reform bill before. I can't say it more simply than this: I was wrong.

The bill is supposed to crack down on irresponsible borrowers. That's the right thing to do. The problem is that this bill imposes big burdens on families who did everything right but went broke just because they lost a job or lost their health insurance. And, even
more than the legislation I supported, this bill doesn't crack down on the real abusers.

Two million Americans go bankrupt every year, but you might never know it. People keep it to themselves. They're ashamed about what has happened to them. But they aren't alone-these families are our neighbors, our brothers, our friends. And I've listened to so
many people tell me how their life was on track until hardship hit. Thanks to Professor Warren, we now know that half of families going broke suffered illnesses or high medical costs. "

[karynnj]

66. This does hint at a reason he voted for the earlier one

This sentence explains both the change in Edwards and a difference he perceives in the bill.

"The bill is supposed to crack down on irresponsible borrowers. That's the right thing to do. The problem is that this bill imposes big burdens on families who did everything right but went broke just because they lost a job or lost their health insurance."

I suspect that Edwards who grew up moderate income at best, married Elizabeth and both quickly made successes of themselves. Internally, this may have to some degree given him a believe that if you work hard, you will succeed. The first 2 sentences reflect that. The next sentence may reflect the people he saw in 2004 - where there lives were impacted by things they could not have controlled.
This was likely the same in 2001 as in 2005, what changed was that Edwards saw it could happen to almost anyone.

" And, even more than the legislation I supported, this bill doesn't crack down on the real abusers." lays out some thing he saw as changing for the worse in the bill.

Very interesting statement, Madfloridian

[The Count]

69. Is there ANY vote he cast he thinks he was right?

And what in all this turn-about helps his credibility? Was he "electable" then or is he now?
May I add - he never voted against the federal abortion ban, media consolidation/medicare rip-off act, the permanent free trade with China, NCLB, IWR. Patriot Act, Yucca Mountain, against a Wellstone act funding the war veterans (I remember a dispute in 2004 over that).
Since his war apologies he threatened Iran.
His voting record is WORSE than Joementum's - why should anyone trust him to act any differently?
How many times will you throw in people's faces

BUT HE APOLOGIZED!

[The Count]

68. Hillary put a poison pill in it that stopped W from signing it (mansions couldn't

be deduced as residence). As such, on this one she gets a pass from me. The rest of them, don't.
Edwards gets flack because he is running, and his entire senate record is in direct opposition to his rhetoric. So, finger pointing ain't gonna lessen the flack Edwards deserves.
Finger pointing defenses are for the BFEE ("but Clenis also didn't catch OBL!")
Lame and dishonest.

[madfloridian]

71. Count, go right ahead with what you need to do. People do notice.

They notice who takes time to be fair and who just doesn't let up.

DU has given permission for this stuff to continue, and we are to lower our expectations.

Mine are pretty low now anyway.

You do what you need to do. People will notice.

[karynnj]

73. Do you have a link on this?

I do not see Hillary on any amendment or the substitute bill in the Senate. It is hard to follow - so can we have a link?

[The Count]

76. I wish I had. It really is a memory from 2001 - I am quite sure it's correct

because the law did stay quietly unsigned. But no links - sorry. My archives were eaten by smartgroups.

[karynnj]

79. Here's what I was able to find:

Why the bill didn't pass -Two reasons were given:

1) The mid year change in leadership of the Senate when Jeffords switched, 911, and the anthrax attacks led to the conference bill not being completed in 2001. It was picked up in 2002.

2) In the lame duck session in 2002, the conference report was defeated in the House because of a provision that made it impossible for people who had decisions against them for violent anti-abortion protests from declaring bankruptcy to avoid paying.

For a detailed history on bankruptcy bills, this seemed good:
http://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1351&context=expresso

Here's a link of Hillary and the various bankruptcy bills. It is mixed - the woman was impressed with her ability to learn the complex bankruptcy details, but was later dissapointed. It also explains how the abortion provision got in the bill - it was Shumer, not Hillary and his intent seemed to be to pander, not to defeat the bill.

"In a strange twist of politics, the credit industry's version of the bankruptcy bill had been supported by Senator Charles Schumer, of New York, who had garnered strong support among women's groups for his pro-choice politics. Ever responsive to his constituents, Senator Schumer inserted a provision into the bankruptcy bill that would make it more difficult for abortion clinic protesters to discharge judgments entered against them if they were sued for their protest activities, much in the same way drunk drivers and embezzlers cannot use bankruptcy to discharge judgments against themselves. Eager to appeal to women voters, the Senate had accepted the amendment in 2001. But in 2002, when the bankruptcy bill went back to the House with the abortion amendment in it, a coalition of right-to-life representatives refused to go along. They brought the bill to a standstill.

Desperate to get the bill passed, the banking lobby went back to the Senate, pressuring Senator Schumer to remove the controversial abortion provision. The industry ran attack ads against him in his home state, demanding that he support the bankruptcy bill -- and claiming that he was costing every American family $550 a year. (The attack on Senator Schumer was particularly ironic, since he had received more campaign contributions from the credit industry than any other Senator, just nosing out fellow New Yorker Hillary Clinton.) But by this point, the pro-choice women's groups were also mobilized, and they held firm, supporting Senator Schumer and threatening to withhold support from any elected official who moved to take the provision out of the bankruptcy bill. In one of those rare defining moments, Senator Schumer had to choose between big business and pro-choice women, both of whom had supported his campaign. He chose women, and the amendment remained in the bill."


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/credit/more/cement.html



By the way here is the information on the bill that Bill Clinton pocket vetoed - it was hard to find so given the name in Thomas is completely not related to bankruptcy - I knew the date and yeas and neas. Note Edwards did vote against this then.

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 106th Congress - 2nd Session

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate
H.R.2415
Title: To enhance security of United States missions and personnel overseas, to authorize appropriations for the Department of State for fiscal year 2000, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Smith, Christopher H. (introduced 7/1/1999) Cosponsors (1)
Related Bills: H.CON.RES.427, H.RES.247, H.RES.624, H.R.833, S.625, S.886, S.3046
Latest Major Action: 12/19/2000 Pocket Vetoed by President.
Latest Conference Report: 106-970 (in Congressional Record H9723-9765)
Note: As sent to the President, H.R. 2415 was a bankruptcy reform bill. Originally, H.R. 2415 was an FY2000 State Department authorization bill with provisions for enhancing the security of American embassies. On 11/17/1999 another version of the FY2000 State Department authorization bill was introduced as H.R. 3427. H.R. 3427 was incorporated by cross-reference in the conference report to H.R. 3194, which became Public Law 106-113. On 10/11/2000 the H.R. 2415 conference committee struck all of the House bill after the enacting clause and inserted the provisions of S. 3186, the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 2000. The President pocket vetoed the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 2000.


Vote Summary

Question: On the Conference Report (H.R. 2415 Conference Report )
Vote Number: 297 Vote Date: December 7, 2000, 03:46 PM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Conference Report Agreed to
Measure Number: H.R. 2415
Measure Title: A bill to enhance security of United States missions and personnel overseas, to authorize appropriations for the Department of State for fiscal year 2000, and for other purposes.
Vote Counts: YEAs 70
NAYs 28
Present 1
Not Voting 1
Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State



Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State


Grouped By Vote Position YEAs ---70
Abraham (R-MI)
Allard (R-CO)
Ashcroft (R-MO)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bennett (R-UT)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Bond (R-MO)
Breaux (D-LA)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bryan (D-NV)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burns (R-MT)
Byrd (D-WV)
Campbell (R-CO)
Chafee, L. (R-RI)
Cleland (D-GA)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeWine (R-OH)
Domenici (R-NM)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Enzi (R-WY)
Frist (R-TN)
Gorton (R-WA)
Graham (D-FL)
Gramm (R-TX)
Grams (R-MN)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Hatch (R-UT)
Helms (R-NC)
Hollings (D-SC)
Hutchinson (R-AR)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Jeffords (R-VT)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerrey (D-NE)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
Mack (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Miller (D-GA)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Nickles (R-OK)
Robb (D-VA)
Roberts (R-KS)
Roth (R-DE)
Santorum (R-PA)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-NH)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Thomas (R-WY)
Thompson (R-TN)
Thurmond (R-SC)
Torricelli (D-NJ)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)

NAYs ---28
Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Boxer (D-CA)
Daschle (D-SD)
Dodd (D-CT)
Durbin (D-IL)
Edwards (D-NC)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Moynihan (D-NY)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Wellstone (D-MN)
Wyden (D-OR)

Present - 1
Fitzgerald (R-IL)

Not Voting - 1
Landrieu (D-LA)

[Jillian]

81. Does this mean you're gonna get off of Biden's ass about it?

All I ever hear about:rofl:

[madfloridian]

82. If you mean me, I don't ever mention Biden.

So I don't know what you are talking about.