John Edwards: "My view is, you give them a seat at the table, they eat all the food!"

[Sapphire Blue]

"What I’ve heard him {Obama} talk about is hope & giving the opponents a seat at the table. My view is, you give them a seat at the table, they eat all the food! You cannot compromise with these people. They are very, very good at what they do. And When you negotiate with them, they win. You have to beat them. You have to take them on. You have to bring America with you in the effort. But you have to beat them. It’s the only way you can actually be successful."

- John Edwards


Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pmxzcv0Tvdc

[Totally Committed]

1. Not only that, but they spit the last bite in your face as they leave.

He's right about this, whatever his motive.

TC

[cui bono]

26. and take your food off your plate and give it to the dog.

Actually no, they just throw it in the toilet. Oh wait a minute... they already ate all the food. Oh well, you know what I'm getting at.

:silly:

[CTyankee]

96. Hi, TC. Who's the cutie on your post?

I want to say I agree with Edwards, too. That's what I like about Edwards. He's a litigator and he'll go after those bastards and won't take any crap from them.

This is not the time to make nice. I think Obama made another error. I know he probably wants to cater to the public's desire that the parties work together (which only works to the Repubs benefit IMHO), but there could be time for that later.

Right now, the Repubs are looking so bad we shouldn't interrupt them! Let them keep on "steppin' in it"!

Hugs to you, TC. I'm back from a little vacation in Door County, Wisconsin (lovely place).

[falconwing]

106. Here's the deal...

These people in power are ruthless.

Extend to them any of the qualities and attributes we on the left possess, and they will laugh while they take you for all you are worth...AGAIN!

It has been a painful lesson. The centrist democrats are, I believe, part of the same power structure and problem.
Edwards is saying things that matter, that are real, and if you want there to be a nation in 10 years called the United States of America that has democracy as its form of government, you'd better listen....

[youngdem]

2. It really is too bad Edwards isn't getting more traction.

He really is our best candidate. He's a real populist, he's smart, his policies and statements SAY SOMETHING REAL and correct, and he's too rich to be bought off easily. And he's not trying to prove how much of a war monger he is to counter the sexist belief that women aren't tough enough to be prez.

[Inuca]

3. I will probably get a lot of flack for this, but

IMHO this is a rather horrible statement.

[Warpy]

6. The truth often is

Edwards knows who and what we're all up against in Washington.

He's willing to look them straight in the eye and refuse to knuckle under.

Are you?

[maximusveritas]

11. No, I agree with you; looks like Edwards wants to continue Bush's politics of division

I realize he's just trying to pander, but it's still a very bad statement.

[tired_old_fireman]

29. Who cares if it's divisive?

He wants universal healthcare and he wants to fight the Republicans to get it. He wants to increase MPG on cars and he wants to fight the Republicans to achieve it. He wants to help those in poverty and he wants to make those who make over a couple hundred thousand dollars a year to pay higher taxes and he is going to fight the Republicans for it. He wants to end the war and he wants to fight the Republicans to end it.

What is bad about that statement?

[Inuca]

30. "What is bad about that statement? "

You answered your own question, it is divisive. Some of the people "on the other side of the isle" want to eat all te food, I agree with that, but NOT ALL OF THEM. And if whoever is going to be in charge does not try (and succeed!) to form some sort of consensus, things will get even worse. Edwards claims he wants to achieve all these wonderful things, and I hope he means it. But on his own or with a narrow majority, he will NOT be able to do a damn thing. I'd rather have somebody less "pure" (and sorry to say, I do not actually trust Edwards' purity of intention, but that's a whole other subject) but who can find a way to achieve at least a modicum of success in things that I deem extremely important, like all te ones that you mentioned in your post.

In some other thread, Obama was criticized and ridiculed for being willing to work with COburn in the Senate. Coburn is a kook and not very smart, but I don't think he is a crook and he seems genuine about the things he believes in (most of them completely crazy, I agree). But if Obama was able to find something non-kooky that he and Coburn had in common, that transparency-related bill that they worked on together, that's a very GOOD thing. Create bridges wherever you can without compromising the important things you believe in nor your integrity. There very few people, politicians included, that are completely evil. What Edwards has said, and I hope that it will haunt him, is meant to make the walls even higher, even more impassable, instead of trying to break down at least some of them. Why is this any better than Bush's refusal to talk with Iran and Syria? It's the same approach, we only deal with friends, not with enemies. The even worse thing in my book is that I do not think Edwards actually believes it, and he is becoming a rather despicable demagogue.

I sincerely hope I am wrong.

[CarolNYC]

34. I'm with you on this....

The statement sounds way to much like the junk coming out the current occupants of the White House...I've had enough of that. And I would suspect we're not the only ones who have.

[tired_old_fireman]

42. I don't want compromise.

I want the war to end. I want universal healthcare. I want a fairer tax system. I'm with Edwards on this one. To get any of those things, we are going to have to fight republicans on every one of those issues.

I've seen too much compromise these past six years. Compromise has done nothing but send more troops to die in a meaningless war while Americans are neglected and left to drown in the streets or they are spied on while they lose their right of free speech and women slowly lose their right to choose.

[Control-Z]

60. I agree

I believe he is saying what he thinks the people want to hear or what he's being told they want to hear.

[sendero]

68. Amazing..

.... the Bush gang has played this game for 7 years. What has it cost them? They are not in the shitter now because they failed to compromise, failed to be bipartisan, any of that crap.

They are in the shitter because their policies don't work, simple as that.

Being "inclusive" and ineffective is rubbish. Fuck bipartisanship, and I mean that completely. We don't have to reach out to the hardcore Republicans, they have thoroughly discredited themselves and don't deserve any consideration AT ALL.

[Inuca]

69. You actually make my point

They are wher they are because of their policies that do not work, I agree. And they adopted these policies without caring what the others are saying, without trying to reach any type of consensus, the famous "my way or the highway" approach to politics. Had they adopted a different approach, things may be less "in the shitter". Not good, mind you, but better. There have been repub administrations in the past, and they were not as abomimable as this one. There is a bif difference between bad and horrible.

[Joe Chi Minh]

93. You presume a moral equivalence, which in fact reflects extremely badly on your own spiritual

condition, and needless to say on that of those who concur with your shocking indifference to such extremes of shamelessly wicked behaviour - even judged by the standards of the generality of politicians.

Christian scriptures state quite explicitly that we cannot treat with those who are wickedly disposed. Just as we cannot worship God and money. We either love one and despise the other, or vice versa.

What is it about this particular set of Republican politicians you find is not reprehensible in the extreme? I'm sure most of us would be very interested to hear.

[Inuca]

111. WHAT?!?!?

Not sure what you are talking about... and not sure what "this particular set of republican politicians" means. Which set are you referring to? All of them? IMHO some are beyond redemption, to stay within your christian-speak, others are redeemable, some are actually respectable wo/men that happen to have a different view.

[Joe Chi Minh]

141. "HAPPEN TO HAVE A DIFFERENT VIEW!"* I rest my case. Let me elucidate.

There are many respectable women who take daily Communion, who would steal from a beggar, in fact routinely do so, by their political choices. It's no good putting a few dollars in the plate for the poor, when you do your bit to make sure they remain under the institutionalised 'cosh' of the most vicious "Haves". Outside of their own family, the rest of the world can go to Hell.

There is a gender bias in that direction ensuing from women's immemorial economic marginalistation, coupled with being literally left "holding the baby", i.e. looking after the family, because the husband couldn't take the stress and p**d the family wage packet against the wall. So don't try and peddle respectable, middle-class women to me - or any of this "particular set of Republicans" for that matter. Any half-respectable Republican would have left the party by now.

Christ called that, straining at a gnat, only to swallow a Camel. Here's the Gospel text, which actually figures in today's Mass:

"Jesus said, 'Alas for you scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You who pay your tithe of mint, dill and cumin and have neglected the weightier matters of the Law - justice, mercy, good faith!* These you should have practised, without neglecting the others. You blind guides! Straining out gnats and swallowing camels!

'Alas for you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You who clean the outside of the cup and dish and leave the inside full of extortion and intemperance. Blind Pharisee! Clean the inside of the cup and dish first so that the outside may become clean as well.'"

A bit more old-fashioned Christian-speak for you. Sorry about that.

* There is such a thing as truth, and such a thing as falsehood, bad faith. Happening to "have a different view" here signifies an unequivocal repudiation of "justice mercy, good faith", which Christ refers to in the above text. "By their deeds, you shall know them."

"Can a bad tree bear good fruit?" I challenged you to mention one benefit Bush's administration had conferred on the nation. Not two or more. Just one. I've yet to read a serious suggestion in that regard. Can you oblige?

[Joe Chi Minh]

146. Having made my main point, I should add that I can understand John

Edwards appointing one or two of "these" Republicans to his Cabinet, if that's in line with your traditions, on pragmatic grounds.

My judgements of those Republican politicians are based on their obvious role in supporting the administration's policies and actions, and how they tally with Christ's explicit and most vehement Gospel teachings. Fortunately, I won't be sorting the sheep from the goats on Judgment Day, having to learn my own fate.

[JDPriestly]

119. Edwards has also said he would include a Republican (didn't say how many)

in his cabinet and has already made a list of people he would like in his cabinet. So, it's not that he is unwilling to work with all Republicans. He is talking about certain elements in the Republican Party and certain corporations and businesses that gouge profits out of very poor people and sick people. I agree with him one hundred percent both on including Republicans who have the country's interests at heart and on excluding those who don't.

[jefferson_dem]

37. I do. I'm sick to death of the divisive "us against them" chest-thumping machismo rhetoric.

Edwards has devolved into a "gadfly-esque" caricature.

[tired_old_fireman]

43. But it is us against them

We want universal healtcare and they don't. We want to end the war and they don't. We want to tax the super rich more and they want to cut their taxes more. If we want to accomplish any of those things, we have to fight for it.

Maybe you just don't like Edwards.

[venable]

80. thank god for his willingness to stand up to these bastards

and I am so friggin sick of the cutesy sweety pie everything is hunky dory crap that comes from virtually every single other candidate.

and your guy - Obama - is the worst of the lot.

He has so much to offer, and he has totally, completely, sweetly, triangulatingly, 100% dropped the ball.

tired of this, and pray for some courage on the part of the voters and the democratic party.

[riverdale]

136. He didn't stand up for shit when it mattered

Voted for IWR, voted for Patriot Act. Actions count 1000x more than words.

[liberation]

105. Gosh I would have loved to see some of you guys back in WWII

... now let's no be divisive and lets be good jews and lets talk to the nice Mr. nazi.

Idiots. Sit down, sing kumba ya, and rest assured that you are better than them. Right?

You can not sit on a table when the people who will be sitting across you not only want your food, but they want, in no quaint terms, to get rid of you.

Either the other side sends people to the table who are willing to show some manners, or we should skip them on next years' Christmas dinner. It is not us who need to show the willingness to invite them to the party, it is them who need to earn their invitation.

But let's all be good abused wives, if we behave well enough the husband may only kick our ass just a little so we don't need to wear too much make up tomorrow so we can keep up pretending everything it is OK in front of the children. Let's take more abuse, please, it is for the children.

Pathetic the lot that now call themselves the left in this country.

[JDPriestly]

122. Bush has chosen to play the divide and conquer game.

He viciously excluded Democrats from the table and treated us with scorn for the entire period of his presidency. When Democrats are back in power, we have to rewrite the rules.

Compromise on the important issues is wrong. We have to stand for the people who have been dispossessed during the Bush and Reagan administrations. When I think of the people who lost their pensions or who lost benefits from their pensions due to the Enron fiasco, I do not want to compromise with those who steal the life savings of others.

When I think of the people who are uninsured, just waiting for an illness or accident to send them into bankruptcy, I do not feel like compromising with those who profit from denying insurance and overcharging for insurance.

When I think of the young people starting their lives with a load of debt due to college and graduate school loans, I do not feel like compromising with the companies that charge interest on interest when the students defer their debts due to low income jobs.

I could go on and on. It is not a personal vendetta or an unwillingness to work with others. It is a question of standing up for the downtrodden and, increasingly, that includes people who believe themselves to be middle class. Bush has fooled people. His Republican lackeys in Congress have helped him do it. We should not compromise with them. You do not meet scoundrels halfway, not unless you are their fool.

[venable]

139. JDPriestly has the best line of the thread:

"You do not meet scoundrels halfway, not unless you are their fool."

[Nederland]

90. Here is what is bad about that statement

Here is what he said:

"What I’ve heard him {Obama} talk about is hope & giving the opponents a seat at the table. My view is, you give them a seat at the table, they eat all the food! You cannot compromise with these people. They are very, very good at what they do. And When you negotiate with them, they win. You have to beat them. You have to take them on. You have to bring America with you in the effort. But you have to beat them. It’s the only way you can actually be successful."

Now I know that he is talking about the Republicans here, but let me ask you this. Doesn't it remind you of how Dick Cheney et al refer to how the US should deal with radical Muslims in the Middle East?

[lumberjack_jeff]

38. I don't agree. I think it's very good.

The Republicans have been extremely successful using exactly this frame. The time for bipartisanship with vandals is after they've been punished and their damage repaired.

[Chulanowa]

41. If I have to choose between division from, or concession with the kiddie-diddler party...

then divide me the fuck up.

[maximusveritas]

44. Those aren't the only two options

It seems like some people have to live in a polarized world where there are only 2 options and everything is so simple. It's just us against them.
That kind of thinking leads us nowhere.
To really solve problems you have to enter the gray zone.

[Raksha]

46. I don't know where you've been the past six years,

but those ARE the only two options. You don't "negotiate" with Republicans. You either kick their asses, or you give in. If it's a polarized world, or a polarized America, that's THEIR doing, not ours. I'm for kicking their asses, and then if they want to...THEY can negotiate with US!

[Benhurst]

86. Would this have worked in WWII? Just exactly what was the

"gray zone" between Hitler and the Jews?

Are there two legitimate positions pertaining to an adult having sex with a child, a comfortable "gray zone" in which agreement can be reached between predator and victim?

Where is the "gray zone" when it comes to shredding the Constitution?

Or invading another country without cause?

And what sort of gray area is between fair, honest elections and fixed ones?

Compromise under many circumstances is not a virtue. It's a vice.

[lumberjack_jeff]

99. In the binary choice between good and bad.

Always choose good. I wouldn't waste any time looking for "slightly better" on the basis that "good" seems a bit greedy.

[bread_and_roses]

123. What grey zone exists between life and death?

The war profiteers don't care how many die - as long as they get a few $$ more
The disease profiteers don't care how many die ' as long as they get a few $$ more
The energy profiteers don't care how many die - as long as they get a few $$ more
The food and water profiteers don't care how many die - as long as they get a few $$ more

Edwards is telling it like it is.

[eridani]

62. The Bush politics of division have accomplished a great deal

They have successfully set back the rights of women and workers decades. They have gotten everything they want for the Pioneer Club except the elimination of Social Security. The fact that the latter is so unpopular that even hand-picked crowds of blue-haired culture warriors won't back Bush on the issue doesn't stop them.

Yet Dems refuse to advocate policies that are actually popular (viz. universal health care) because they don't want to be "divisive". What kind of bullshit are you trying to peddle here?

[JDPriestly]

63. Edwards is right. There will be no unity in this country until the Republicans

decide they need it. After 2000, Bush knew very well that he had lost the popular vote and probably had not really won the electoral college vote, yet he ruled like a king without including a single Democrat in his cabinet. Bush has continued the one party and one party only rule for his entire "reign." Neither he nor a single one of the Republicans has made the slightest effort, not even now that they are the minority party in Congress, to cooperate with Democrats or to allow Democrats to have a real say in what is going on.

Until the Republicans end their stance which is obstructionist not only to the Democratic proposals for the country, but to even acknowledging that Democrats could have a good idea somewhere along the way, will we be able to reach out to them. You have very little experience in negotiation if you think that Democrats are in a position or will be in a position after the next election to extend a hand to the Republicans. We will have to be unswervingly tough for quite a while until, as I said, the Republicans decide they have more to gain by working with us than they do by working against us.

we will have to lay bare a lot more of the Bush administration scandals and shame them more and more before they will get to that point. We have to be very patient, but very firm on this.

[Benhurst]

88. Amen!

[IdaBriggs]

67. Its "them against us" and I'm convinced that "they" (being Bush supporters)

are awful and should be shunned. I don't want to have dinner with them -- I want them kicked out of my country!!!

[venable]

79. pander??? you call standing up for our principles pandering????

I embrace his anger and strength.

[rucky]

95. Big difference:

Bush seeks to divide the people, culturally and economically.

Edwards sees the division being between the Political/Corporate elite and the rest of us. Edwards' politics is social justice!

[bread_and_roses]

124. Amen to that, brother/sister! (n/t)

[CTLawGuy]

22. not from me

it sounds like pure pandering. Where was this uncompromising uber-populist in 2002?

[ecstatic]

50. His comment is Bushesque, IMO

Can't you just picture Bush or someone from his admin saying the same thing?

[Bluebear]

64. No, it's far too lucid for Bush. nt

[venable]

81. that is a pathetic comparison, 100% wrong

bush CLAIMED to be a uniter.

Edwards says you guys have stolen our country and we are taking it back.


the very opposite of bush.

[Beetwasher]

73. Truly Spoken Like Someone Who Eats All The Food

n/t

[venable]

82. that makes no sense, at all, in any way nt

[Beetwasher]

94. Sure It Doesn't

*munch munch munch gobble gobble gobble*

[venable]

97. mature, too

bye, now.

[Beetwasher]

98. Buh Bye

[lyonn]

76. I laughed out loud when he said it.....

Sometimes the truth is funnier. How many think the HMO, health insurance group, pharmacies gave a damn about any of us, just our dollars. Edwards is getting my attention.

[GMFORD]

101. Flack

Here goes -- we dems have put up with being called traitors and cowards for 7 years. For the first 6 years, the republicans in congress made their decisions behind closed, locked doors - no dems allowed. Bi-partisanship? Forget it, they didn't need or want it.

Now they want it but they still think it means we should pull a Lieberman and step across the line THEY draw. I'm with Edwards - if they want to be a big happy family again, they will have to step across the line WE draw and embrace our values and our platform and our agenda. Otherwise, forget it.

[Ellen Forradalom]

102. All the worse for being true.

When have we last seen gracious bipartisanship from across the aisle?

[KittyWampus]

4. John, when will you stop pretending to be what you are not? You will NEVER stand up to the MIC

You are a moderate and will always be a moderate. Why not run as a moderate and be honest?

[Armstead]

9. I don't think his statement is immoderate these days

The piggies and the would-be Hall Monitors have shown themselves to be insatiable with their demands for power and wealth.

It's a moderate position to recognize and admit that, and to propose actually doing something to rein them in.

[Adelante]

18. Is that what he's talking about? The MIC? nt

[Kagemusha]

5. The Democratic Party has finally stooped to the level of Free Republic.

Don't think this is exactly what the worst of the other side has been saying about Democrats: you cannot compromise with these people, they are very, very good at what they do (I wish.) and when you negotiate with them, they win. You have to beat (the Democrats). You have to take (the Democrats) on. You have to beat them into the ground with a shovel. Anything else is defeat.

Abandon all hope, all ye who enter politics. It is too audacious for we.

[Inuca]

31. I agree, as long as you do not generalize it....

... to the whole Democratic Party.

[lumberjack_jeff]

39. To paraphrase Hudson (Bill Paxton)

"I dont know if youve been keeping up on current events, but were getting our asses kicked!"

It vexes me that anyone who lived through the last six years still has any moral qualms about using the tactics that the freepers used to defeat them.

It's more important that we win that it is that we feel good about it. There is a great deal at stake. If I could contemplate a way to kick it up another notch, I would.

[Kagemusha]

40. What are you talking about? People obviously feel good about using those tactics.

Where do you get the idea that the people who make my skin crawl actually find these tactics to be repulsive? They're proud of it.

What I don't understand is using that as your first resort not your last. But who am I to question.

[lumberjack_jeff]

65. I think we've been using our "first resort" for a couple of decades.

I've concluded that the high road doesn't ever get to our destination.

[lyonn]

84. Edwards called a spade a spade and there is an uproar???

This is why we have lost so many elections, tippy toeing around, don't offend, try to play nice. Our party needs to listen to the crowd more often. Some (many) issues are worth demanding the democrats attention. We don't want a watered down repub, again running for office. Cheating and lying are out, demanding our politicians be honest but gutsy would be vote getter. Edwards today appealed to me in that, finally, he seemed to be speaking more from his gut. He was so wrong about his Iraq vote. Still hasn't explained that one to my satisfaction. Today Edwards made some strong thoughtful, intelligent points. Why is he getting hacked on for saying what most of us agree with? the Corps are greedy ba*tards.

[QC]

52. Quite right, my good man!

This boisterous rhetoric is most unseemly!

[venable]

83. stooped? how about risen to it's true principles and courage

all in the voice of John Edwards.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

7. Anyone who says we can negotiate real change has a bridge they want to sell you too

Edwards is a realist and correct.

[calimary]

8. If he's talking about the rabid idealogues and CONservatives, he's

absolutely correct. If he's talking about negotiating with the "enemy" that may be in a Palestinian refugee camp or the Iranians or the Pakistanis or anybody like that, then I think he's not correct. THOSE are the people to whom we AT LEAST have to try to reach. Especially when we've done everything, up til now, to spit in their faces, wipe our dirty track shoes all over their backs, and shit on what's left of them to distract them while our cohorts can break into their homes and rob them blind. To THEM we have to start reaching out and offering them FEWER reasons to hate us rather than MORE reasons to hate us.

The knuckledraggers who've hijacked our country and our policies and our Constitution and our rule of law and our moral authority and what's left of our good name, well, let's just say THEY are the ones who deserve the treatment with the muddy track shoes, spit, and shit. The point is, we've ALREADY TRIED to reach agreement with them, we've ALREADY TRIED to reach out to them, we've already TRIED to find some sort of compromise with them - and it's just failed and failed and failed. Probably because they just will not compromise with us in any way. So I say to fucking HELL with them. We have NOT, on the other hand, tried REALLY SERIOUSLY to reach out to our "enemies" overseas, which is why we AGAIN should give up on strategies that don't work, and try something different. The bastards over there need to be met face-to-face and talked with. The bastards over here need to be shut up and shut out.

Just my opinion anyway...

On edit: Get thee to Greatest!

[Totally Committed]

14. Yeah! ----------What calimary said....

right here:

"The knuckledraggers who've hijacked our country and our policies and our Constitution and our rule of law and our moral authority and what's left of our good name, well, let's just say THEY are the ones who deserve the treatment with the muddy track shoes, spit, and shit. The point is, we've ALREADY TRIED to reach agreement with them, we've ALREADY TRIED to reach out to them, we've already TRIED to find some sort of compromise with them - and it's just failed and failed and failed. Probably because they just will not compromise with us in any way. So I say to fucking HELL with them. We have NOT, on the other hand, tried REALLY SERIOUSLY to reach out to our "enemies" overseas, which is why we AGAIN should give up on strategies that don't work, and try something different. The bastards over there need to be met face-to-face and talked with. The bastards over here need to be shut up and shut out."


Woman, you rock! :applause: :yourock: :applause:


TC

[Cameron27]

23. But he never limited it to that or anything else.

As someone said below, who will he refuse to bring to the table? It's a vague, blanket statement that everyone seems to be filling in with whatever connotation suits them.

[tired_old_fireman]

27. Did you watch the video?

He's referring to the issues of universal health care, global warming, economic inequality in the country and ending the war and how we shouldn't compromise with Republican opponents to achieve these big changes.

[calimary]

33. That's why I'm asking. I saw the clip (what I could hear of it), and

was never really sure who he was talking about.

Now, for me personally, I know LOTS of people whom I'd ask to get up and step away from that table for a change. I mean, THIS IS A DEMOCRACY, isn't it? Is this not the present world standard for contemporary democracy? Or, would that be - Didn't this used to be the world standard for contemporary democracy? For the most part, isn't the USA where most fingers reflexively point when a question is posed about where, across the globe, democracy can be found flourishing the most successfully? Are we living up to that reputation anymore? Is this, now, really the result that one wants when one implements what we are now seen doing? Don't OUR voices get equal time? Equal weight? Equal exposure? Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know the answer to that one already, she said, sardonically. But I think in the interest of TRUE fairness and balance, we need to hit that one head-on.

And I mean REALLY hit it.

1) Hijack the very phrase "fair and balanced." Take it the fuck over. Remake it in OUR image and likeness, and then start using it out loud. In public. Redefining what the term means because you're actively and repeatedly adding another definition and contextual application of it.

2) It needs to be pointed out WHILE you're doing point 1 - WHY the application of the buzzphrase "fair and balanced" is reasonably applied in the first place. And it has to be simple. Bumper-sticker simple. "Because these people now - big business, military contractors, monopoly owners, a lot of people in the GOP, money-trumps-peace types - THEY'VE NOW HAD THEIR TURN. They've had it for almost SEVEN YEARS. Time to move over and let somebody else have a turn for a change. Let's all be grown-ups and share, shall we? Or are we all still in pre-school? It's time for the guys in the front rows to get up and move so that OTHER PEOPLE can come in and take THEIR turn for a little while. Fair is fair, after all. Free market and all that. Everybody has a chance to compete. That means EVERYBODY. Not just the small, exclusive club of people who share the same viewpoint.

3) Point 2 can be pressed, but only if necessary ('cause this is now playing hard-ass and, depending on whom you're debating, might require a less aggressive approach), by going one step further on the "the guys in there now need to get up and move over" argument. You may find it necessary to point out WHY those "in there now" DO INDEED need to get up and move over. Because they've botched nearly everything they've touched, that's why. Name ANY pool they've waded into that hasn't by now been thoroughly peed in? At the same time they refused to allow us in, mind you, so it ain't OUR pee! Basically, they've HAD their turn. They've HAD their chance. We've done it their way. We tried it their way. We gave their way MORE than enough tries. We've given them MORE THAN ENOUGH benefit of the doubt. And LOOK WHERE WE ARE. Look what's happened to us as Americans, and to our country as America. Look what's become of the Constitution we supposedly revere, and that these schmucks swore on Bibles to uphold, and to preserve-protect-defend. We're seeing the results of that and I daresay the results are NOT what any reasonable American would want. And yes, I still believe there are more reasonable Americans out there than there are morons. Perhaps many, many more. I mean, who do you know who's happy about what's gone on and how things are in America now? If you know of someone, they're probably extremely comfortable, financially, and it suits their agenda. But I think those people are numerically in the minority. A surprisingly small minority, too, I'd bet, especially after the last several years of this shit. The payoff for those years of this shit has been remarkably small and NOT very wide-ranging. VERY few have seen their pie made higher, as it were. If you merely ask - who benefits? - the answer would be something on the order of "not too many of us." The people constantly in the front row, at the front of the line, at the big table, have had their turn, and now it's time to get up and move over, and let someone else step up, or move forward, or take one of the good seats. Fair and balanced IS fair and balanced, after all.

Again, that's some pretty in-yer-face stuff and can amp it up quite a bit in heat and probably volume! But it IS a tactic available to us if we need it.

And note how many opportunities there are to take some of their best-beloved buzz phrases and turn 'em inside out and on their heads. Make THEIR bumper sticker phrases start working AGAINST THEM, and FOR US. "Fair and balanced." "Let the free market work!" "Everyone can compete!" "YES. LET'S DO put the grown-ups back in charge." "Freedom!" "Democracy!" kkkarl rove had no trouble attacking our people at their strengths. WHY CAN'T WE??? Why should that schmuck be the only one allowed to play by those rules? Why can't we hijack, and co-opt, some of those same rules for ourselves?

Just some thoughts. Crap. Sorry this ran on so long...

[The Backlash Cometh]

10. Yes they do.

And as a DUer once added regarding a similar situation, after they eat all the food, they eat you.

[Cameron27]

12. As president, he's going to have to invite "these" people

to the table whether he likes it or not or he else he won't get much legislation enacted. I don't think our candidates have to 'cave' to the republicans to reach voters, but they don't need to be divisive either. I like Clinton's warnings about what to expect from the other side, and I also like Obama's unity theme as long as he fights any attacks quickly and successfully.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

13. We will have a Democratic Congress. We should not unilaterally make concessions to the GOP because..

...of an obsession with "unity." If we can achieve our goal with 51 votes so be it. We should not sacrifice progressive principles on the altar of getting 65, 70 votes, which is what you would need to achieve even a semblance of "unity." Anyone who claims he will achieve "unity" by passing things with 51% or 52% support is simply lying to voters. Thankfully, no candidate is saying that but Obama never tells voters what exactly "unity" would require, which is making enough concessions to Republicans to achieve consensus on major issues.

[Cameron27]

16. That's a big leap dmc.

No one's talking about unilateral concessions, or an obsession with unity. Edwards is being unnecesarily divisive when all he has to do is promote his own platform. Attack with a purpose, on an issue and fight hard, but these generalized, blanket remarks don't help him.

He hit back at Fox, good, EE hit back at Coulter, fine, and then he took it further and called her a 'she-devil' which was juvenile IMO. He had the issue in the palm of his hand and then lost points when he descended to her level with name calling.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

19. Obama's campaign revolves around him creating "unity" (with Republicans)

Notice how Obama never bothers to tell voters how he intends to do it? There is a reason for this and that is Democratic primary voters would not want to hear what "unity" requires...

[Cameron27]

21. I think he's using it in the context of bringing a battered country

together. I really don't see him caving in to the other side on any issue if that's where you're going.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

24. How do you do that if you don't make concessions to the other side?

If we continue to have the bitter partisan division we currently have how can we have "unity"? Isn't the partisan divide exactly what Obama claims he has a secret plan to eliminate?

[Cameron27]

25. When I see Obama back down from any of his positions

I'll agree with you. Why bother trying diplomacy with foreign countries like Iran or Syria for instance, that we have strong partisan feelings about? It doesn't mean that you cave in, it means finding what you have in common and trying to work from there.

Of course, there are right wingers who are beyond any hope of reaching, but Edwards didn't explain who he was talking about.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

56. He isn't president and has not had an executive position

So we have no relevant evidence either way as to him backing down. I think this is a fundamental question regarding the Obama "unity" theme: How do you do that if you don't make concessions to the other side? Thus far Obama has offered no answer. Go to his website. Is there a blueprint for achieving "unity" there?

There is a huge difference between talking and making concessions. If he was running on talking to Republicans that would be fine. Every candidate would do that. The problem is he is running on something that will require one of two things: 1) Making concessions to Republicans to achieve a semblance of "unity 2) Discarding his chief campaign theme as soon as he is sworn in because it was a fraud intended just to win votes like Bush did on 1/20/09. Remember, * ran on "unity" and a "new kind of politics" (then called "changing the tone in Washington") as well...

[Inuca]

32. "Unity" may simply imply...

... trying to find some common ground and work from there. It does not necessarily imply compromising important principles and ideas. See my example about the much denigrated cooperation between Obama and COburn in a post above. Not everything is, nor has to be, a divisive issue. Work on what can be done and hopefully build trust so that some other issues that are more controversial can also be tackled. No matter how major he democratic gains may be next year, we cannot go for the rovian dream of a 50 year long democratic majority or whatever his exact plan was, I do not remember... The current divisivness if horrible, and I do not care whose fault it is (well... not exactly true, I do care, but from a practical point of view it does not matter), it has to stop.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

57. How do we find common ground on major issues? Obama has not told us how

How do we find common ground on the climate crisis with people who do not believe in global warming? How do we find common ground on health care with people who believe any government role in health care is "socialized medicine"? And so on. You cited Coburn. Notice what Obama and Coburn worked together on. We can do it on minor issues but not on the big issues. Why hasn't Obama sponsored a health care bill, for instance, with Coburn, a doctor? Surely Coburn has an interest in health care.

Besides, "unity" means consensus. There is only one way to get consensus without Republicans. If there is another magic way I would like Obama to state it. What rankles me the most about Obama is he is promising things he can't deliver. If he achieves "unity" he will not be able to govern as a progressive; if he opts to govern as a progressive he will have to discard unity--his chief theme--on 1/20/09. He is like Reagan in promising voters they can him their cake and eat it to.

[Inuca]

70. I do not know, if I knew

I would be in politics myself :-).

As for your examples, not all republicans do not believe in global warming, etc. I did not say compromise at all costs, I said (or tried to say) find the common ground where it exists, and try to build from there. Don't be negative, and do not generealize where a more subtle approach will work better. That's all.

And by the way, I am not an Obama supporter. I like him the best among the "top three", but I am far from enthusiastic. IMHO he should have waited. What I think will not count in any case in the primaries, I live in IL :-).

[Raksha]

45. It does? I knew there was a reason I have no interest in Obama.

Obama's campaign revolves around him creating "unity" (with Republicans)

FUCK "creating unity" with Republicans! Edwards is my favorite of the Big Three, and even more now than before.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

58. He is running on 3 major things

1) He will create "unity"
2) He will create a "new kind of politics" (a bipartisan one that is an extension of "unity")
3) He was right on Iraq 5 years ago (notice how he never talks about his voting record in the senate on Iraq?)

[cascadiance]

15. Many of these people should be indicted, not "negotiated with"...

Those that have used the Jack Abramoff crowd on K Street aren't WORTHY of our negotiations. We need to restore our rule of law and the constitution and enforcement of such and start by going after some of these folks for breaking these laws (Rico Act, Hatch Act, FISA Act, etc.).

In a way, I like that a "moderate" like Edwards is being vocal like that. If he appeals to them on the real important issues "in the middle" that the so-called "moderates" but more corporate serving DLC types and Republicans claim to serve but don't really, that will resonate with much of the independents and moderates on both sides that probably feel that they've not been heard on their issues of SUBSTANCE that the Robber Baron Lobbyist crowd is afraid of America having any kind of conversation on.

They want us to focus on all of those divisive issues that the Religious Right in the past has been focused on, like gay marriage, abortion, etc. and on other similar issues such as immigration "amnesty", etc. where the corporations don't have as much of a vested stake on caring who wins, just that it mobilizes and distracts voters into voting for people that will continue to look the other way why they take more and more power.

If you have more REAL moderates (whether it's John Edwards, who I think is more progressive than some give him credit for here), starting to see this and jumping on this bandwagon instead of letting the DLC or other Republican groups hijack them for corporate dollars, I think that's when our real grass roots revolution takes place.

That's not to say that a woman's choice, marital freedom, and how we do our immigration policies aren't important, but we need to recognize that the real cancer is in the areas that the corporations and their enablers use as a basis for their power in government, and we need to rip out the cancerous tissue first before we tackle other problems.

I think John Edwards is starting to help wake up this message. I applaud him for it!

[lyonn]

89. Wasn't Edwards referring to corporations and those that took their

money? On reflection from watching it live and trying to remember what he was responding to it seems it was the issue of using corp. money. How can you fix the health care and insurance system when you are taking money from them? We will eventually get the transcript. That is what his comment was referring to.

[calteacherguy]

17. He's speaking in very vague generalities. I'd like him to tell me what he's talking about.

Who, specifically, would he not have a conversation with?

[Adelante]

20. I don't know what he's talking about, either

I can't get the video to play.

[tired_old_fireman]

28. If you watch the video, he's referring to republicans who oppose

universal healthcare, efforts to deal with global warming, solutions to economic inequality in the U.S. and bringing an end to the war.

Why should we negotiotate with Republicans on those issues?

[Gloria]

35. A Democratic leader should educate the public about what his/her goals are....

When have we last seen that??? This party has been "negotiating" and giving away a lot of the store for a long time...I'm sick of "keeping the powder dry," too. If you don't state your beliefs and goals clearly, then there is a quick descent into mush which doesn't make you distinquishable from the GOP.

I say pick a fight first and stake your ground....then "negotiate" from a position of strength and boldness.

Why reveal your friendship with Tom Coburn now? Is that for the benefit of Democrats or doing a general election play for the other side? I think it's the latter...

[slipslidingaway]

54. Watch this video "A Democratic leader should educate the public"

I just posted this in the videos forum and this is exactly what Kucinich is speaking about re healthcare, two and a half minutes.

Des Moines Register Q & A : Health Care : Kucinich
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PcMb9SDbZ8

[calteacherguy]

103. We should negotiate with them because it's the only way to persuade people. nt

[The Gunslinger]

36. Edwards is right

Lets see where Compromising with the far right has got us.

End of the Occupation of Iraq............Nope actually an escalation.
An end to wiretapping ...................Nope actually more power to do so.

I'm tired of giving the decider his way for the sake of "compromise".

[robinlynne]

47. hear! hear!

[nashville_brook]

48. he's so right -- i'm liking him more all the time!

[ecstatic]

49. I don't know. I still don't trust Edwards

I think he is a hypocrite.

[More Than A Feeling]

51. It's time for Republicans to give in to us and call it "compromise"

rather than us doing the reverse, as we've done so often. Edwards is right. First you beat reason into Republicans and corporations politically, and then they will be reasonable, or they will lose. But until then, they will continue trying to take advantage of you, and fight tooth and nail for every last privilege they don't deserve. You have to be equal to the challenge, and with Edwards, we will be.

[QC]

53. Nice to see a candidate who knows how power works.

Much better than being told what a sweet guy Senator Coburn is.

[ecstatic]

55. well you might be right... which is scary, but could work in our favor

If he's serious. However, prepare for a very partisan 8 years (if he runs a liberal equivalent to BushCo's admin).

[returnable]

59. So says the candidate who spent his only 6 years in public office...

...bending over for the Bush agenda.

Sorry, John, but we could've used your "awakening" back when you could've actually made a difference. But now, as a second-tier candidate trying desperately to crack into the Top Two, I just can't take such statements seriously.

[bpeale]

107. people get their awakenings when they get them

they don't PLAN them. his message has always been about poverty and the poor. methinks that unless he changed his name to hillary or barrack you won't be cutting him any slack no matter what.

[provis99]

61. what is it with you compromise pussies

These Republicans crawled out of the sewer. Maybe fighting them in the gutter is where we should be! All I see is a lot of freeper-lover compromisers who would let them get their way yet again. Compromisers are nothing but cowards and weakling enablers who allow Republicans to consistently shit on the Constitution, all the while indulging in the worst sort of effete namby-pamby milquestoast apologizing for Democratic politicans with no balls or principles to stop them.

Fuck compromise. You don't compromise with evil, meeting it halfway.

[sendero]

66. Edwards is right...

.. and it amazes me to see folks here, that after 7 years of this bullshit, STILL don't get it.

Compromise is only possible with people who will compromise. The Bush gang DOES NOT COMPROMISE, and every time the Dems try to meet them half way, they wind up getting NOTHING.

Edwards barely has a snowball's chance in hell, but he is RIGHT on this issue.

[BreweryYardRat]

72. Bingo. There's the key to modern politics, right there.

"Compromise is only possible with people who will compromise."

You can compromise with old-fashioned conservatives like Sen. Snowe, but the ultra-far-right jackasses will never give up until they've screwed us all over in the name of profit for them and their corporate buddies and/or their false perversion of Christianity.

[demgrrrll]

74. Absolutely. How could anyone read that Rolling Stone article and then

come to this thread and talk about divisiveness!! Unless.......

[ecstatic]

78. Well my initial response to his comment was negative

This is the guy who claims to want to end poverty. He chose a horrible analogy (food at a table) to make his point. He should choose better analogies to get his point across in a less offensive way.

[quiet.american]

71. One of the best statements of the campaign season. n/t

[undergroundpanther]

75. You cannot'negotiate ' with psychopaths

Or tyrants.or theocrats, or wannabe dictators.

Edwards statement is 100% correct.

[waiting for hope]

77. Damn - I got an

"Error: You've already recommended that thread."........Thanks SB! Edwards once again telling it like it is!

[vanboggie]

85. I like JE's statement

Have the negotiations our Congressional leaders have been carrying on with the WH gotten us anywhere? First we need to reclaim this country. Then perhaps we can make nice again.

[wyldwolf]

87. Awesome, John.

[TwilightGardener]

91. I will say this about Edwards: He picked a far better "token Republican" (Hagel) than

Obama did (Coburn). Edwards is a good judge of character in that respect.

[Inuca]

112. Are you referring to what he said in one of the debates?

or something else? In the debate, I think he was just mimicking Biden, and wanted the question out of the way. By the way, based on what I saw of him in the Senate, I think Coburn has something that may be construed as character. He is also crazy and dumb (Hagel is neither).

[Greyhound]

92. Kicking this to inspire some more spinal growth.

:kick:

[venable]

117. kicking Greyhound's kick

more spine. please.

[Brigid]

100. That pretty much sums it up.

And then they try to tell you they're the only ones fit to be at the table. :eyes:

[calteacherguy]

104. Well, this sums up for me everything that is wrong with Edwards and his campaign.

True leaders talk with those with whom they disagree, make an effort to find mutual points of agreement, and engage in civil discussion to explain and persuade. I wonder if this is also how Edwards would treat foreign leaders with whom he disagrees.

There's a reason Edwards is not doing as well as he'd like in the polls, and this is a good example why. Americans are tired of the politics of acrimony and division.

[bpeale]

108. fact is you wouldn't agree w/him because he's not your favorite,

not because he's wrong on an issue.

[calteacherguy]

110. No, that's simply not true.

I would be shocked to hear Obama make such a statement, and I hope he never does. I disagree with Edwards on some other issues as well, and I'm not fully comitted to any candidate, although I do have hopes for Obama.

[venable]

115. oh, please, you attack Edwards constantly, and I've never heard a single peep

out of you about anything else.

Maybe you do post thing other than Edwards-hate, but I just haven't come across it.

Let's be honest here.

[Catchawave]

120. LOL...

stop peeing on our legs and telling us it's raining :silly:

[Greyhound]

125. The truly terrifying thing is that you may actually be a teacher.

I like to believe that you are just some undergrad wannabe, but after attending a couple of California's "institutes of higher learning", I am forced to acknowledge that you could well be a prof at some college.

[calteacherguy]

127. Such childishness. nt

[Greyhound]

130. Wow, I guess you told me huh?

The rapier-like wit, the acerbic comeback, demonstrating beyond any doubt that yours is an intellect to be challenged with great trepidation and only in the case of absolute necessity.

I'm cut to the quick.

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." - Einstein, Albert

[calteacherguy]

131. You great spirit? nt

[Greyhound]

133. Doubtful, it is the students and their potential that your obvious mediocrity may

poison that concerns me. They may be impressionable enough to take your input seriously, and that would be a shame.

[calteacherguy]

134. What do you disagree with? Or do you just want to act like a child?

You have articulated no point of view, only insults.

[Greyhound]

135. That's true, but you've become redundant, surely you can come up with more than childish

and "act like a child".

The point is that you are attacking Edwards for simply pointing out, in an admittedly southern way, that there is no negotiation or compromise with these villains. After over 20 years I would think it would be obvious to the even thickest fool that there will never be any give from that quarter. They have determined that we are irretrievably evil and it is their divinely ordained mission to destroy us and our ideals. Their openly stated goal is, after eliminating our nominally representative republic, to establish an American theocracy, under the control of the talibornagain, primarily for the benefit of the corporatocracy.

To continue to advocate negotiation with them is beyond naive, one-sided compromise is simply capitulation, and only serves to hasten our demise. We are in a war, a fight to the death for the ideals that this nation was founded on, and we had better start fighting like our lives depend on it, because they do.

[calteacherguy]

143. Who, specifically, are "these villians?"

Names, please.

[Greyhound]

145. If you are unable to suss this out for yourself, you are on the wrong

message board. (or maybe not)

[calteacherguy]

147. Are they the Republcans Edwards has promised to have in his cabinet?

:shrug:

[draft_mario_cuomo]

150. I thought you, of all people here, would be glad to hear that he, like Clinton and *, will have...

...a bipartisan cabinet. Psst...so will any of the other 18 candidates.

[Inuca]

113. Absolutely

could not agree more.

[venable]

114. yeah, because the democrat's collaboration is working out really well

for us and for the rest of the world.

It is one minute to midnight, whether you think so or not.

And desperate times call for backbone and strength and an ability to draw a line in the sand, which every single candidate with the exception of Kucinich and Edwards are afraid to do.

Maybe this won't get him elected, but it will be - in spite of your worry and desire for faux, ineffectual unity, and make no mistake it is faux and ineffectual - a reminder of what we could be as a nation.

Dont' vote for him. But I hope for all of our sakes that whoever does get the nomination has a fraction of the courage, the steel, and the unwillingness to compromise our fundamental, basic, elemental ideals that Edwards has.

My problem with Obama (don't even get me started on HRC) is that he is acting as if things are just maybe slightly out of whack, when the fact is our country has been stolen, the constitution raped, the language debased, and all honesty and honor have been twisted into some bizarre perversion of the truth. It is a hell.

And you think it's wrong to say No Mas.

I pray we get someone like Edwards, if not him, then someone with his principles and recognition that real change, not platitudes,are what is needed. And BO and HRC don't come anywhere near to cutting it.

Sit down, if you want, with the Republican leadership, and watch our nation become even more hated, more disturbed. They own us, precisely because we want to play nice. That is our disadvantage, and they have taken us to school. It is time to stop it.

It is time to take our country back. No prisoners. We want our Constitution and our principles. We want to be what our founding fathers envisioned, and we want the rest of the world to see that is who we are. We do not need to export liberty, especially since we have precious little of it to spare.

I've had it with half measures. If you haven't, so be it.

[More Than A Feeling]

118. It's about power.

You can't pretend to negotiate when the other has power and perks they aren't willing to give up. And why should they? They have the keys to the kingdom, through corporate-owned elections!

[Bodhi BloodWave]

109. why would unity needs you to give up on solid values?

And i don't see Obama's position as 'compromising' his values from what i've read up on him. His style is to try finding people, both Democrats and Republicans, who actually care about a particular issue enough to try to get the policy right, and then working with them on the said issue.

In my eyes that is how a good government should work. There are very few 'party' issues where it wouldn't be better for your cause and for the country to take that approach. You don't need permanent allies on everything.

[Adelante]

116. Not a seat at the table, but a seat in his cabinet

Edwards told a crowd of about 100 in front of the Rochester Common bandstand that he'll work with Republicans "in a principled way," acknowledging he ran the risk of alienating voters by saying the cabinet list "I've already made" includes members of the other party.

In a one-on-one interview with Foster's aboard his campaign bus, Edwards would not say who's on the list, and that he doubts he'd share the list in the future.

"I don't want people who are not chosen ... I don't think it's fair to them," he said.

Edwards' position was in contrast somewhat with rival Sen. Barack Obama, who over the weekend was reported as naming Republicans he would work with, but not necessarily appoint to Cabinet positions.

http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070827/FOSTERS08/708270073

[returnable]

121. Zing!

:kick:

[Colobo]

128. Ouch! Pwned!

[calteacherguy]

132. Zap!

[IA_Seth]

142. Hypocritical action #1452 n/t

[AtomicKitten]

151. that's gonna leave a mark

[fujiyama]

126. This is great "red meat" for the base...

but I'm not so sure this kind of rhetoric wins many voters in a general election...Most senators have to work with the opposition party at times to get something done.

But Edwards is right, for the most part.

But if we refer to the republican party as it stands right now, as corrupted as it is by its own arrogance and nastiness (in every which way!), I think we should be very careful about compromising. After all, no legislation is better than bad legislation!

[calteacherguy]

129. Edwards just doesn't get it. Talking with those with whom you disagree isn't compromising values.

It's showing your values and standing up for them. We don't need a Democratic version of G.W. Bush.; we need a President with the strength to bring people together for the common good.

I asked this upthread, but I'll ask it again. Is this the policy Edwards will have with foreign leaders with whom he disagrees as well?

[ClassWarrior]

137. Yes, our only problem with the Rape-Publicans is that we "disagree with them."

:eyes:

NGU.

[calteacherguy]

144. Please give me an example of a "Rape-Publican" with whom we should not communicate.

Thanks.

[ClassWarrior]

148. LOL

I think you're holding your own conversation with yourself.

:shrug:

NGU.

[Apollo11]

138. This is why Edwards is the best candidate in the race

He understands that there is a majority of Americans who never trusted Bush and Cheney, who never supported them, who never voted for them, who want to win back the Whitehouse!

Of the candidates currently in this race - Edwards is probably our best hope fo 2008.

But it's still not too late for Al Gore and/or Wes Clark to jump in.

[Adelante]

140. Question, please?

This is from the OP referring to Republicans and Obama

"What I’ve heard him {Obama} talk about is hope & giving the opponents a seat at the table. My view is, you give them a seat at the table, they eat all the food!"

This is from The Hill referring to lobbyists and Clinton
http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/edwards-uses-cancer-forum-to-attack-clinton-2007-08-27.html

“If you give these drug companies and these insurance companies a seat at the table, they’ll eat all the food."

Are both of these from the cancer forum in Iowa? Are they two separate quotes or one differently interpreted quote?

[Sapphire Blue]

149. The answer to your question is in the OP link.

The quote in the OP is from Edwards' New Hampshire bus tour. He was saying the same thing that he said at the Livestrong Forum, referring to lobbyists who use their influence to oppose change/progress in Universal Health Care, Global Warming, economic inequality, etc.