John Edwards vows to end "all bad things" by 2011

[The Count]

"Many bad things are not just bad—they're terrible," said a beaming Edwards, whose "Only the Good Things" proposal builds upon previous efforts to end poverty, outlaw startlingly loud noises, and offer tax breaks to those who smile frequently. "Other candidates have plans that would reduce some of the bad things, but I want all of them gone completely."
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/john_edwards_vows_to_end_all_bad

Add a few apologies and it's the best description of his non-descript agenda! :-)

[LittleClarkie]

1. That would be vows, now wows

And I thought he was pretty much pro-union and making poverty a priority. Seems pretty "dscript" to me

[The Count]

2. Thanks for the edits. Not much for irony, are ya?

Always imagined his followers a bunch of pretty literal people - no wonder the Onion found it a rich target! ;-)

[Jai4WKC08]

4. How can you tell?

He's never actually done anything to support unions or reduce poverty.

My hubby likes to say, "Talk's cheap; take's money to buy beer."

[iamjoy]

7. Well, He's Done Something For Unions

or he wouldn't have gotten a 100% rating from the AFL-CIO.

Last year, he gave $300,000 in scholarships to one High School in rural North Carlina. That was enough to pay for the first year of college for 100 students.

They established the Wade Edwards Foundation, which awards 10,000 per year in scholarships.

So, please don't say he hasn't done anything. I always wonder how much the people who criticise and condemn John Edwards for doing nothing are doing themselves.

[Jai4WKC08]

8. He was a senator for six years

Four of which the Democrats controlled the Senate.

All it takes to get a good union rating is to vote the right way on union issues. I would expect as much from any good Democrat. Someone who aspires to the White House should take a lead, not just vote with the pack.

What legislation did Edwards write or sponsor to help the poor? Or the unions?

Poverty was never an issue for Edwards until he needed a signature issue for his presidential campaign. Before that, he tried very hard to be one of the most conservative Democrats in the Senate.

The scholarship foundation is a good thing of course. But MANY rich people have them. Afterall, when you're good for $30+ million, why not donate a percent? Especially when it will save you over a hundred grand in federal taxes.

And since you want to make it personal, I can assure you I donated more than 1% of my net worth last year.

A senator should be able to accomplish something a little more far reaching than just a single high school.

[iamjoy]

10. Democrats Controlled The Senate For Two Years

and, while in the Senate, under Republican leadership, Edwards sponsored bills to

Help with affordable housing
http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c106:1:./temp/~mdbszxajFm::

Funding for mental disabilities
http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c106:3:./temp/~mdbse2d7D1::

Assist law enforcement officers
http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c106:1:./temp/~mdbsCAvEo5::

I think on the whole, he has done more good than bad, although there will always be some saying he hasn't done enough. To me, all these attacks against John Edwards for not doing more are very much like the assaults on Gore as being phony on the environment because of his house's energy usage. Only, with Gore, the attacks are from right wingers, which is to be expected. Most sensible liberals recognize the agenda of the right and defend Gore. With Edwards, otherwise smart people on the left buy into the Right Wing Noise Machine's smears.

[AdHocSolver]

19. Edwards is the most likely candidate to appeal to independents and moderate Republicans...

and win their votes. Clinton is divisive and would be a lightning rod for bringing out a strong anti-Democratic vote. Obama is popular now, but he is inexperienced and couldn't make the long haul.

Edwards, on the other hand, made his fortune successfully litigating against the corporations. He knows their dirty tricks, and has successfully fought them off. The 2008 election is all about winning. If Clinton or Obama is the party's nominee for president, then the election will be very close and the Republicans will steal it like they did in 2000 and again in 2004.

Who is more liberal is irrelevant. Vote on that basis and be prepared for another Republican president in 2008.

Americans are fed up with Bush/Cheney and the right wing Republicans. Yet Democrats have a knack for choosing candidates who cannot win elections. As in 2004, the 2008 election can be lost by choosing a nominee who will only appeal to die-hard Democrats. Edwards knows his audience and is making his appeal to a wide-ranging electorate. That is the only way to win, and that is the only game in town.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

18. Response

==Four of which the Democrats controlled the Senate.==

False. They controlled the Senate (by one vote) for less than two years--and not any ordinary two years. The first couple months were during the honeymoon period of a new Republican president. Then after 9/11 this Republican president had sky-high approval ratings for the remainder of the time Democrats controlled the senate. It wasn't exactly a time for progressive change...

Edwards was also a junior senator in his first term. Given how the senate works, that greatly handicapped him. Look at Obama. He is not running on his senate record. Is he a slacker in the senate? No. He is just very low on the totem pole and cannot achieve much there.

Post #10 offers some concrete examples of what he did in the senate. He also fought the * agenda in Congress, such as the disastrous tax cuts in the spring of 2001 (I will decline to take the obvious shot here...Let's just say it is ironic to see some criticize Edwards' record during that time...).

==The scholarship foundation is a good thing of course. But MANY rich people have them. Afterall, when you're good for $30+ million, why not donate a percent? Especially when it will save you over a hundred grand in federal taxes.==

Does Clinton? Obama? Clark? Romney? And so on.

Edwards gave $350,000 in charity last year (28% of his income). There are some who consistently claim Edwards is a fraud because of a weird vendetta against him based on what someone else said four years ago. I presume you are not one of them. How about comparing Edwards' record on charity to that of some others? One prominent Democratic candidate gave 0.2-0.4% of his income (among the top 2% of income earners) to charity until 2005. The national average is 2.2% and even * gives about 1%. This candidate also speaks about our responsibility to others, empathy, being our brother's keeper, etc. I have yet to hear any of those who claim Edwards is a hypocrite, whether it is because of a weird vendetta or other reasons, on poverty say anything about this candidate...

==Poverty was never an issue for Edwards until he needed a signature issue for his presidential campaign.==

That doesn't make sense. Why? Ask any consultant. Poverty is not exactly a winning issue to base your campaign on. Why do you think no candidate since RFK in 1968 had run on poverty until Edwards? The others do not even mention poverty, unless their pollsters tell them to mention it before a given audience.

[Jed Dilligan]

23. What college costs $3000/year these days? nt

[John Q. Citizen]

3. His agenda is quite simular to Obama's and Clintons. Clinton said that

"American's are the hardest working people in the world," just last February.

So you know she's got a grip on what's happening also.

[The Count]

5. But unlike them, he had voted against almost all them things that are "good"

and for all the "bad" ones....So, The Onion has it right on!

[maximusveritas]

6. Funny, but it's not like Edwards has any other choice

As the third man out, he's got to make bold promises, even ones he can't possibly deliver, if he's going to have a chance of winning.

[penguin7]

9. Edward's 28,000 square foot house is lousy for the environment.

Doesn't building a 28 thousand square foot house give exactly the wrong message on the environment?

[FrenchieCat]

11. NOT if no one is listening..........and obviously the netroots

don't give a shit about such "minor" details! :eyes:

[draft_mario_cuomo]

17. So you think Gore should sell his family's massive estate?

Or is Edwards held to a special standard by you?

Why didn't you mention the "minor details" about Edwards being the first Democrat to make his campaign carbon neutral or his home being a green home? I can bet some prominent Democrats are not living in a green home. Some even profit from some "less than green" activities.

[penguin7]

21. How would Gore selling his house help the environment?

Gore lost credibility because of his electric bill. But Gore is not running for office, and his actions do not make global warming more or less of a problem. And also wasn't this house in the family for many years.

Edwards is running for office, his huge 28,000 foot house is lousy for the environment. It sets a crappy example. How can he tell Americans to conserve after building this estate?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

22. I am using the logic you and Frenchie applied to Edwards

If Gore and Edwards lived in a shack (like I am sure Clinton, Obama, Clark, et al. do) their contribution to global pollution (ignoring for a moment the fact that both live in green home and purchase carbon offsets for whatever carbon output remains) would be far smaller.

==Gore lost credibility because of his electric bill.==

Only among Republicans...

==But Gore is not running for office==

Gore is the leading champion of fighting global warming. That, and the fact that he is beloved on the netroots, is why I chose him as an example to show the absurdity of what you and Frenchiecat are claiming.

==How can he tell Americans to conserve after building this estate?==

Maybe you should read what you are replying to instead of simply reciting right-wing Republican talking points...Edwards lives in an energy efficient green home and purchases carbon offsets. You know, like Al Gore.

BTw, welcome to DU. I love it when new posters come here and do nothing but attack Democrats... ;)

[penguin7]

24. Building a 28,000 foot mansion is not green.

I can't follow the logic of your post.

I don't like John Edwards. His biggest contributors are the trial lawyers. The trial lawyers are also the biggest contributor to the Democratic party. They are not giving and not getting. I could go on and on and on about the lawyers corrupting the system. We don't need the poster boy for the trial lawyers running for president. If Edwards gets the nomination the trial lawyers will then become a major issue in the general election, and I sure as hell don't want that. I will not be able to support such a Democratic candidate. Americans do not like lawyers. I realize this anti-lawyer sentiment is not so popular in this forum, but generally it is quite popular.

Besides having such strong support amongst the trial lawyers, I also think that Edwards is a phony. This 28,000 square foot house is a further example of this. I admit though, if he was only a phony I would probably just leave him alone. As it is I feel compelled to be critical of John Edwards.

[JANdad]

25. Your concern is noted and alerted

If Edwards gets the nomination the trial lawyers will then become a major issue in the general election, and I sure as hell don't want that. I will not be able to support such a Democratic candidate.

Thank you for your support of the Democratic Party and DU!

[draft_mario_cuomo]

29. Thanks for the Republican point of view on these things nt

[penguin7]

30. The Republicans like lawyers also

The Republicans had the house, the senate and the presidency and there was no legal reform.

And I dont even agree with the reform that the GOP advocates since the legal system problem is more fundumental than suggested by the GOP.

Waving your hands and claiming that there is no problem with the legal system simply because the GOP uses trial lawyer bashing rhetoric does not cut it. This is pure rhetoric for the GOP feeding on the public's antipathy towards lawyers.

The trial lawyers are giving big time to the Democrats and that is a problem. Also, the politicians in both parties are mostly lawyers which is a very deep and serious conflict of interest.

[Alexander]

27. You seem to be concerned about Edwards.

Which candidate would meet your incredibly high standards?

[Nutmegger]

28. Wha...? No answers?!

Figures. People sure can dish it out but they always fall short when somebody calls them on it.

[jenmarie]

12. ROFLOL!!

:rofl:
Thanks, Count. I needed that!

[sybil]

13. cripes

...just wait until Elizabeth sees this, we'll never hear the end of it!

[Jillian]

20. --------

:hide:


:rofl:

[Cameron27]

14. ROFL

I love the onion:rofl:

[The Sushi Bandit]

15. DUPE!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=295273&mesg_id=295273

[calteacherguy]

16. Edwards announces new campaign song! An R.E.M. classic!

Shiny happy people laughing
Meet me in the crowd
People people
Throw your love around
Love me love me
Take it into town
Happy happy
Put it in the ground
Where the flowers grow
Gold and silver shine

Shiny happy people holding hands
Shiny happy people laughing

Everyone around love them, love them
Put it in your hands
Take it take it
There's no time to cry
Happy happy
Put it in your heart
Where tomorrow shines
Gold and silver shine

Shiny happy people holding hands
Shiny happy people laughing
:) :D :7 :toast: :hi: :pals: :rofl:

[PresidentObama]

26. .....Lame.....Slow day on DU?