Skidmore
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Feb-25-04 04:44 PM
Original message |
Okay, Edwards denisons, explain to me why Edwards |
|
is an outsider. I just don't get that angle, and I don't buy it either.
|
JohnLocke
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Feb-25-04 04:47 PM
Response to Original message |
|
He's only held elective office for six years, but he knows everything Kerry does about how Washington works. He's a happy medium - not a total "outsider" to the process, but also not a long-time "insider" someone who's entrenched in Washington politics.
|
bearfartinthewoods
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Feb-25-04 04:47 PM
Response to Original message |
2. denisons.............how droll......... |
EXE619K
(717 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Feb-25-04 04:49 PM
Response to Original message |
3. I'm not an Edwards supporter but, |
|
One could argue that since Edwards is new(less experience on the Hill) to the political scene, he is "more" of an outsider than John Kerry.
No?
|
sangh0
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Feb-25-04 04:50 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
|
Less of an insider, but an insider nonetheless.
|
EXE619K
(717 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Feb-25-04 04:53 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
|
But, like I said, One could argue that merit.
|
nothingshocksmeanymore
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Feb-25-04 04:51 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
6. Good argument...one could argue that since Rick Santorum and Bill Frist |
|
got to Washington after Kerry, they are more outsiders and one could argue that the Gingrich revolution brought a WHOLE bunch of outsiders to Washington...now the benefit is?
|
EXE619K
(717 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Feb-25-04 04:54 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
|
That the original post was looking for the after effects of a outsider vs. insider intervention in politics.
I've just stated a possibility, where one could state this case.
|
robbedvoter
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Feb-25-04 04:50 PM
Response to Original message |
5. here's a fresh angle (not quite answering you question) |
Bombtrack
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Feb-25-04 04:56 PM
Response to Original message |
9. He is the strongest and most credible democrat on the party's winning |
|
Edited on Wed Feb-25-04 04:57 PM by Bombtrack
issue, or what should be it's greatest winning issue, the reform and regulation of big bussiness on behalf of the interests of the common man. Independant Americans haven't heard a real great articulation from the democratic party of all the different things that could have been done and can be done to keep the corporate oligarchy from screwing them, all threw the Clinton years, and from democrats like Kerry who's records don't reflect there rhetoric when it comes to people being a pushover for these interests.
But Edwards platform is all about this kind of populism and he's the perfect kind of person to campaign for these policies and implement them as president
|
Shanty Oilish
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Feb-25-04 05:06 PM
Response to Original message |
10. It's a spin on 'newcomer' |
|
He's very new to national politics. He obviously has a lot of talent, else the use of 'outsider' would be a joke.
|
AP
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Feb-25-04 05:11 PM
Response to Original message |
11. Becaue the NC Dem party is run by an ex-Republican and Edwards still won. |
|
Edited on Wed Feb-25-04 05:12 PM by AP
Because he owes his success to nobody, no machine, no industry (not even lawyers).
Because he's never made a compromise other than the ones demanded by legislation which always throws in a little bad with the good.
Because he doesn't take PAC money, and he can't be bought by lobbyists.
Becuase he's not interetested in hanging out in washington and playing the power game. He's letting it all hang loose and running in 04 so that he can represent the people.
Because a lobbyist from the NC banking industry -- the most powerful industry in NC -- says Edwards doesn't answer his calls.
The real issue here isn't that Edwards should have to prove what's plainly obvious. It's, 'do you even have one iota of evidence that the person you see is not the person you get with John Edwards?'
|
SangamonTaylor
(537 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Feb-25-04 05:19 PM
Response to Original message |
12. he's been in DC long enough to know exactly what's wrong with it |
|
but not long enough to be tied down by the system and the washington interests.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Fri Apr 19th 2024, 02:25 PM
Response to Original message |