Is Edwards a conservative or a liberal? Evidence?

[cryofan]

Anyone have any evidence of where Edwards is on the conservative-liberal scale? Progressive taxation? Anyone know what his record is there? How chummy is he with the corporations? I know he has a lot of big donors.....

[wyldwolf]

1. He's a left of center moderate democrat

and a politician. Politicians are chummy with corporations. At least, successful ones are.

[La_Serpiente]

2. I'd think that trial lawyers would be the ones

that would give him the most money. Heck, he would probably scare the shit out of all the corporations if he was president.

[chimpymustgo]

4. Edwards' battle against corporations is a centerpiece of his campaign.

He did it for 20 years as a trial lawyer, representing victims of corporate neglect. He tells many stories of being alone at his table in the courtroom, facing a team of fat-cat corporate lawyers.

He also plans to tackle corporate malfeasance, tax corporations, cut out loopholes and off-shore tax havens, give tax breaks to companies that keep jobs in America.

Please read up on Edwards' ideas to help "regular people", to value work over wealth (why should a secretary pay a higher rate in taxes than her boss who's making money sitting by his pool?).

Lots of wonderful proposals, and great pictures at;

www.johnedwards2004.com

[blm]

51. One of the reasons I wanted Edwards on the ticket.

I saw Kerry as best going after government corruption and Edwards as best going after corporate corruption.

That would be a whole NEW America, in my book.

[bearfartinthewoods]

5. 94% positive rating from both the AFL-CIO AND NAACP

his tax plan hits the top one percent of taxpayers and has a host of loophole closings including ending the disgusting walmart, life insurace scam.

doesn't seem very moderate to me.

there is a website that listed him slightly less liberal than DK.
i'll see if i can find it.

[AP]

13. His tax plan can't simply be described as 'hitting the top 1%'

Albeit that I, personally, would like it to hit the top 1%, Edwards's plan bascially helps people who work for living, from the lowest paid employee to the top paid athlete. If you EARN your money, Edwards helps you. If your income comes from passive sources, Edwards is going to ask you to pull a little more of your weight. (If you own a small business, Edwards's plan is going to help you too.)

[cryofan]

27. Hmm...I may have to move Edwards back into my top ranks

It never occured to me that Edwards's large donors were trial lawyers. That is a lot different from corporate donors.

I know from your posts here that you are a true lefty, AP. So I am going to move Edwards into my 2nd choice pool. Kucinich is still my 1st choice, but realistically, I am going to need a 2nd choice, as it is becoming more and more obvious that most people either cannot or will not do the research to understand Kucinich, and his campaign seems unwilling or unable to use conventional tactics to get him noticed.

Therefore, Edwards will join Clark, Kerry, and Gephardt in my 2nd choice pool. Which one will get my vote when the Texas primaries come around (if Kucinich is not a player by then), we will just have to see.

I tell you, though, I am very impressed with his speaking and debating skills and persona. He would absolutely demolish Bush in a debate!

As for progressive taxation, it is SO important to the leftist liberal agenda. Most DUers do not even realize that it is absolutely the foundation of liberalism.

THey do not remember that up until the early to mid 80's, the rich people were taxed at 70% or more. To get out of that kind of taxation, they had to develop all sorts of small business and investment schemes. That provided many many jobs here in America. And the taxation rate provided much more social spending. People simply do not appreciate how social spending has dropped. In the early 80's in California, the state offered to send me to college for free, and would let me draw unemployment while I was doing it!

And the jobs were far more plentiful....Does anyone here remember how almost every retail outlet or small business had a Help Wanted sign out permanently? I tell you, that is an uncommon sight here in Houston these days....

[bearfartinthewoods]

75. iirc, Edwards wants to punish corps that move jobs off shore

and structure taxes to reward job creation here. the classic carrot and stick to protect US jobs.

[MrB]

68. Slight Correction

Edwards' lifetime AFL-CIO voting record is 96%. The only other candidate for Prez with a higher lifetime AFL-CIO voting record is the "leftist" Dennis Kucinich, with a 98%. Among other candidates running, Gephardt, "labor's best friend in Congress" scores a somewhat unimpressive 88% lifetime from the AFL-CIO (Gephardt opposed a higher minimum wage and some labor law reforms and supported Reaganomics in his early years in Congress); Kerry scores a 90%; and Lieberman scores a 82%, only marginally worse than the 83% Carol Mosely Braun had when she left Congress in disgrace in 1998 (Braun was actually a big backer of big business in the U.S. Senate, thoroughly supporting NAFTA and other trade globalization themes, a fact which is unknown to many on the Left who assume she is as left-wing as Kucinich and Sharpton). In fact, Edawrds's liftime AFL-CIO voting record of 96% is actually higher than the 95% achieved by Sen. Paul Wellstone before his death in 2002. (AFL-CIO voting records can be found at: http://www.aflcio.org/issuespolitics/votes/vr_rep.cfm ). And Edwards has accrued this voting record reprenting one of the most thoroughly anti-union, "right-to-work" states in the country, where public employees such as teachers and firefighters are specifically prohibited by state law from collectively bargaining. Sen. Edwards is arguably the most progressive Senator ever elected from the South, with the possible exceptions of Sen. Fred Harris of Oklahoma in the 1960s and 1970s or Sen. Claude Pepper of Florida in the 1940s.

Had the Iraq conflict not emerged as the central issue in the Democratic Presidential primary jockeying in 2003, it would have been interesting to see who populists and progressives would have rallied around and what issues would have emerged as exciting the Democratic base. Alas, the Dean phenomenon seems to be evidence of Rove's grand strategy; a governor who was known as a laissez faire backer of big business, arguably as conservative as Lieberman, during his governorship has emerged as the "soul of the Left" while a candidate like Edwards who could potentially reshape the way alienated working-class voters see the Democratic party for the better is thrown by the wayside or ignored by so many self-described progressives.

[cryofan]

70. fascinating! I had no idea CMB was such a corporate lackey

Are you a political reseacher or author, or just an Edwards supporter? I will have to really look at Edwards more.

I agree totally with you about Dean--he is not even a centrist. He is a right winger who has glommed onto a couple of relatively minor, token liberal social positions and the Iraq war in order to make himself over as a leftist. And what is fascinating is how he has used the media to generate a cloud of liberal references to himself while never actually claiming to BE a liberal. And of course the fact that the media has played along with it, that shows them up for the corporate lapdogs they are.

[MrB]

73. A Little of Both

I've got a political science degree, and I'm a political junkie. Haven't written any books yet, though.

I've really gotten to like Edwards, especially after reading his book "Four Trials." It's really a shame that he doesn't get much of any media coverage (we don't have cable, so I have to follow the Edwards campaign almost exclusively on the net, as the big networks and print media barely mention him at all). I'm hoping for a splash in Iowa (15% or more), which I think has a good chance of happening.

[bearfartinthewoods]

72. wow....i'd pay big money to be able to write like this!

sorry for the errors.

[Aunt Eunice]

3. Edwards has been invaluable..

..on the Senate Judiciary Committee in keeping conservatives off of the Federal bench.

[spooky3]

25. welcome, Aunt Eunice, and good point you make!

[JohnLocke]

6. He's a great liberal.

[OhioStateProgressive]

7. i don't know, but he's filthy rich, so I would never vote for him(nt)

[AP]

15. You know how he earned his money, don't you?

He earned it by working his ass off for people who had nothing but were injured by wealthy, negligent corporations.

For every dollar he has, some person who suffered terribly has 2, 3 or 4 dollars.

I whish Edwards was even wealthier (which would make people like Cheney poorer).

As Al Sharpton said in the AZ debate, his success is a great lesson for a kid who's growing up in the ghetto and wants to achieve beyond the limited horizons he can see. It's a fantastic, powerful symbol.

[OhioStateProgressive]

20. I disagree

millions work their asses off everyday and don't see the same returns

it is time those people stood up and said "no more of the wealthy ruling our lives"

[spooky3]

22. do you feel the same about Ted Kennedy?

I think it's admirable that Edwards is working for people as he does when it would be much much easier to sit back and enjoy a comfortable life and generous Bush tax breaks. It gives him a LOT of credibility in my book.

[OhioStateProgressive]

32. YES!, I do

Rich people are people I don't vote for

I vote for people who actually represent me and my beliefs...not ones who just talk about them

[AP]

35. All progressives should support the idea that people who work hard should

be rewarded for their labour. Not only is that true about Edwards, it's what Edwards's campaign is founded upon.

Ready. Exhale.

Notice that Kucinich and Edwards aren't very different.

[OhioStateProgressive]

37. different?

John Edwards, worth between 10-15 million dollars, with investments

Dennis Kucinich, worth 30,000 dollars, and no investments

I know who represents me

[AP]

39. Exhale.

[AP]

40. You'd rather people work hard and not get paid for their labors?

That's a recipe for oligopoly. Only the Republicans benefit from that world. In fact, that's the world they're trying to creat.

[OhioStateProgressive]

42. i rather all people get paid the same

call me a commie

[AP]

45. Well, then there's no point in taking this any further.

I think people should get a fair cut of the wealth they create, that there should be a social safety net, and that earned icome earners should be encouraged more thant unearned income earners.

[OhioStateProgressive]

47. and that is how we have what we have today

I would prefer what is correct, instead of the system of compromises we have today

instead of putting lip service to the idea of all being equal, we should make it a reality

[AP]

48. Kucinich wouldn't agree with you

The problem with America isn't that everyone doesn't makes the same low wages. It's that we have an America in which, if you work hard, all the wealth you have flows into the pocket of someone else (who is usually Republican, and much wealthier).

Edwards and Kucinich want you to keep more of the wealth you create.

[OhioStateProgressive]

55. maybe so

i don't believe everyone should earn the same "low wages"

but if you are doing a job, you should be makign the same as the person doing the same job in teh next town

[AP]

56. What if the next town over has a lower cost of living?

I don't think even Kucinich is with you on this issue.

[OhioStateProgressive]

65. so what?

i don't care if Dennis doesn't agree with...im not that vain

but I agree with him on enough to support him

Dennis is the closest thing to a Socialist as we will get

and I support him

[AP]

76. If the cost of living is lower, then two people making the same salary are

not making the same salary.

Kucinich is closer to Edwards than you are to Kucinich.

[OhioStateProgressive]

77. no, he isn't

I have probably said it before, but I guess I need to again

[AP]

88. He has more $ in his pocket. He or she is wealthier. Meanwhile

the person in the more expensive city has to struggle more.

There are obviously a host of variables which determine how much someone gets paid.

The point is, the government shouldn't be legislating to DRIVE DOWN wages, which is what Republicans do.

To demand some kind of parity across the country based on arbitrary factors is like the flip side of the same coin the Republicans have in their pocket. You may be lifting some people up who live in very poor areas of the country. But you're going to kill workers who live in NYC or BOS or SF.

[bearfartinthewoods]

60. commie

if you think someone who stands nose to nose with the big corps and backs them down should not be paid for that skill and determination,
welll,,,,,exhale

[OhioStateProgressive]

67. hehehe

if you can tell me someone who sweats and grinds and works as hard as they can, deserves less than someone else who does the same?

[AP]

78. Should the person who sweats and grinds HARDER get paid MORE?

I think so.

So do Edwards and Kucinich.

[OhioStateProgressive]

82. you tell me a lawyer works harder than a steelworker(nt)

[AP]

83. Some steel workers make better money than many lawyers.

Have you read Four Trials? Edwards worked hard as a lawyer.

[OhioStateProgressive]

84. I don't care if he worked hard

my dad worked hard, he isn't wealthy

my uncles worked hard, they aren't wealthy

fuck wealthy people

[chimpymustgo]

85. Not sure we can solve your issue on a discussion board.

Too bad a good discussion about a great American was nearly hi-jacked by this "f*ck rich people" bs.

[AP]

89. Edwards if running so that your dad and uncle can be wealthy...

...basically, so that you can say fuck them too.

Edwards wants you to hate everybody in the middle class and everyone who works for a living.

You're going to hate that kind of America, aren't you?

[JohnLocke]

69. If Edwards is the nominee, will you vote for him?

[OhioStateProgressive]

74. NO(nt)

[AP]

28. Dozens were seriously injured and thanks to Edwards they did see those

numbers.

He's not a wealthy guy ruling your live. He's a guy using his wealth to snatch the opportunity to run for president on a message that flows economic, political, and cultural power downward and outward.

Here's an intersting contrast between Edwards and Kucinich. Both have fought corporations. When K. was mayor of Cleveland he fought privatization of the electric company. He won the battle, but lost his job. He went off into the political wilderness and came back years later.

Edwards has fought corporations and with every battle he won, became stronger and moved on to a bigger battle. Yes he got compensated financialyl every time (a fraction of what he got for the people he was helping), but that allowed him to fight bigger battles. That's good.

Here's another way to look at this. Edwards has won about a quarter of a billion dollars for his clients (which is a bigger transfer of power than most politicians can claim). He's worth something like 10 or 15 million I think. So that's 235 million that he made for other people. You have a problem with that? Really? He has made more money for other people in his life than most successful medium to large size businesses have made for their employees and owners.

[OhioStateProgressive]

33. Dennis is a TRUE Corporation fighter

Dennis did it because it was right, and it cost him his career

Dennis Kucinich would have already BEEN President of the USA if the Muny light situation enver happened

John Edwards may have fought Corporations in Court, but don't give me this altruistic crap, he knew he was earning a shitload of money doing it

[AP]

34. Read Four Trials. It'll correct your misimpression of Edwards's motives.

Edwards would have made more money, and more guaranteed money, if he had been a corporate lawyer.

The average salary of a partner in a big corporate law firm in NYC is over a million dollars. Edwards has made 10 or 15 million.

He has nothing to be ashamed of in terms of what he has, what he has done with his life, and what he's doing with his life. And the fact that he has gone from success to success is a great symbol and a great sign.

And you do know that Kucinich said on the Daily Show that he likes Edwards the most of all the candidates.

[OhioStateProgressive]

36. i know Dennis said that

but I believe in class war

and a wealthy person is a greedy person

Dennis fought corporations and lost his job, lost his future, lost his political prodigy status

Dennis lost his fast track towards the Presidency

Dennis nearly lost it all

[AP]

38. No. A person who DIES rich is a greedy person.

That's the point made by the rich man-camel-eye of needle thing.

[OhioStateProgressive]

41. i disagree again

to truly be of the people, one must live his personal life in the same fashion as those he is of, or represents

[AP]

44. Bush wants 99.999% of America to be poor.

I want a world with social justice and where people who work hard and do the right thing are rewarded (not punished) for their efforts. I like K. But Edwards is the true symbol of that, and it's reflected in the policies for which he fights.

[OhioStateProgressive]

46. I disagree

Edwards represents the idea that some can be wealthier than others

even though others work just as hard

f*ck capitalism

[AP]

49. No. Bush represent the idea that only a few should have access to huge

amounts of wealth and power.

Kucinich and Edwards stand for the idea that everyone should have the opportunity to realize more of the wealth they create. They shoudn't be entitled to MORE wealth then they create (which is what Bush thinks). They should just be entitled to a more fair proportion of what they do create.

[chimpymustgo]

53. Kucinich said Edwards was his best friend among the candidates.

That's good enough for me.

[mmonk]

8. Conservative on some issues

such as national defense issues. He is a DLC democrat also. Liberal concerning an individual's right to sue corporations.

[AP]

16. DLC doesn't like Edwards at all. He's ran in '98 AGAINST Nafta.

He protects jobs against globalization. DLC doesn't like him very much.

[mmonk]

62. They list him

http://www.ndol.org/new_dem_dir_action.cfm?viewAll=1

[AP]

64. Dan Schorr said on NPR that they don't like him.

So that must not be a list of people they like.

[mmonk]

66. Its their list of New Democrats

Means he is a member. Maybe they should kick him out?

[AP]

79. Dean was on the list too when he was Governor.

Being a member is a choice of the politician.

Voting for their policies is another matter.

Getting the DLC behind the candidate is third matter dependant on the previous.

Edwards chose to be a member. However, he has also chosen not to vote the DLC way. As a result, the DLC has not gotten behind him.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

9. One source:

Edwards




Dean and Kerry




Clark




Kucinich




And the Chimp






http://www.issues2000.org/default.htm

[mmonk]

10. Early in his campaign

an unquestionable supporter of the conquest of Iraq. Yes, social issues, a liberal.

[AP]

19. Edwards has said the same thing Clinton has said about Iraq:

there was intelligence which justified some action. Bush has executed the action extremely poorly. The most important thing now is to allow Iraq to benefit from Iraq -- to turn it into a middle-class wealth producing country governed by a democracy. THAT will be the measure of US success. And the US should investigate intelligence failures.

That is a sort of liberal internationalism that makes sense.

It's also absurd to think that if Edwards were president he would have invaded Iraq or engage in the sort of global imperialism in which Republicans are engaging.

[TexasSissy]

11. Edwards has second to worst environmental record of all the

Dem. candidates, according to the League of Conservation Voters. The worst record belongs to Gephardt, who failed to vote on most of the major environmental bills in his time in Washington (incl. the Arctic Wildlife Refuge drilling bill). Gephardt did manage to vote on the bill to increase fuel efficiency....but he voted NOT to require increased fuel efficiency (he voted with the Repubs).

Edwards' lifetime conservation record is just a tad above Gephardt's. That makes him extremely conservative, in my book, and on the side of big corporations and unions.

If it's left up to corporations, there won't be left on earth one square inch that doesn't have an oil well on it or that has a centuries old tree left (ala Soylent Green). A great economy and preserving the natural beauty of the country are not mutually exclusive.

[AP]

21. LCV needs to do a head check. Edwards doesn't want to give corporations

free reign over society, but he has voted to help produce jobs. I learned here that he voted for money for an airport expansion in NC which is opposed on environmental grounds. He also voted to help pig farmers, or something like that, because THOUSANDS of NC workers would have been displaced.

If LCV is basing their rankings on, like, 4 votes, and they're claiming that Edwards is going to let corporations run the world because of those votes, then I'm going to have to say that single-issue progressive organizations need to think more expansively.

You know the HRC (gay rights) endorsed Al Damato over Chuck Schumer because of a single-issue litmus test?

[TexasSissy]

29. The LCV score is a "lifetime" voting record score.

How the legislator voted on environmental bills. Gephardt - 66%. Edwards - 76%. Kerry - he's in the +90% area. Lieberman is close to Kerry, I think.

Clark and Dean don't get numerical scores, since they don't have national voting records.

Bush gets an "F", of course. The worst grade of any President in the history of the U.S.

I like Edwards. I'm just reporting the facts on his voting record on a predominantly Democratic issue, the environment.

[AP]

31. Do you have a link.

I'd like to see wich votes their measuring. And I repeat my caveat re single issue liberal groups. The problem for the environment is corporations running America unregulated. I can't see how Edwards, who puts this issue front and center, should be considered unfriendly to the environment.

Furthermore, all left interest groups should be worried about political, economic and cultural power flowing up and more narrowly. It seems odd that someone who fights for higher wages and the downard and outward flow of those things, who would voted to protect people's jobs, would be deemed as unsatisfactory to environmentalists. It's absurd. Closing the democratic defecit is only going to help the environment, because it'll mean that profits for large corporations is no longer the North Star for all policy making.

[jfiling]

57. How would Bush even have a score?

He's not a legislator. This looks like pure partisan crap to me, which doesn't help expose Bush at all.

By the way, most environmental bills need to be looked at individually. For example, I'm sure someone who voted for the Endangered Species Act would get credit for being an environmentalist, even though after 30 years that bill has done nothing to save endangered species, and in fact hurt them by giving landowners a reason to kill off species before regulators find out that the species is located there.

[AP]

12. I think he's the most liberal candidate running.

I think you have to ask yourself, 'what's the biggest problem with America today?' The answer is the 30 year project to shift all the benefits of society to the richest individuals and corporations and all the burdens to everyone else.

Edwards has put fighting this at the center of his campaign (and the center of his professional life since he left his first job in private practice and moved to Raleigh). Everything else revolves around this.

Think of it this way: who was the most successful liberal president ever? It's FDR. Why? Was the guy great on race? Sexuality? Gender? No. (His wife was, but he wasn't.) Why was he the greatest liberal ever? Becaus he fought the biggest threat to America democracy ever -- fascism at home, perpetrated by people like Prescott Bush -- and won.

I'm not so bothered that many American look at him and wonder if he's a moderate, because you need that to win. But I expect DU'ers to be a little more perceptive.

[mmonk]

14. nice but

he wasn't there when we needed him to fight the greatest threat to our democracy, the lies and spin concerning Iraq and the PNAC.

[AP]

17. A greater threat: a Bush second term, which he WAS fighting when he made

that vote.

And that isn't the greater threat. Iraq is tool by Republicans which falls under the umbrella of the transfer of wealth from the middle class to the super wealthy, and Edwards has that threat in his sites, and he didn't let the IWR distract him.

IWR was a set-up by Bush-Cheney-Rove. If Clark gets nominated, you'll see how Bush uses Clark's sometimes-for (his opinion pieces in the London papers, his quotes on CNN) sometimes-against attitude against him. Of course, it'll be worse if Dean gets nominated.

[mmonk]

18. lending credit to PNAC ideals is the greatest threat.

Its where bushco and the repubs get their most influence and power.

[AP]

24. Great, but he didn't do that. Is Clinton lending credibility to PNAC?

No. Edwards is against American imperialism and that's good enough.

Dean would probably lose a general election because of his opposition, and Edwards was smart to go down that path. And that Clark avatar suggests that you think this is the single issue that will get Clark elected, but Clark has a record that's going to make him look wishy washy on PNAC himself.

And I'm going to say it again: PNAC falls under the umbrella of the transfer of wealth from people who work for living to people who don't -- the super rich. Edwards's campaign is aimed for the heart, and it's not being derailed by things like the IWR.

[AP]

30. Another thing, PNAC isn't driven by credibility. It makes no sense, yet

Perle and company persist. They don't need credibility to do it. They just need control of the media and of the white house to do it. They didn't even need that IWR. They would have done it regardless. Trying to tar candidates who voted yes on the IWR might superficially help a few candidates who didn't have to make that decision, but it's an absurd way to frame a candidates' liberalism.

[mmonk]

58. He said he saw

what was necessary from intelligence and the White House and stands that the invasion was necessary. Clark has disputed the PNAC, its aims and claims, on the radio and in his book, "Winning Modern Wars". He says its was an elective war. Edwards maintains it was a necessary war. The issue is unrelated to what Clinton thinks or thought.

[AP]

61. Clinton said the same thing. Is Clinton a PNAC-enabler and a threat to

democracy? Edwards hasn't said the war, the way Bush did it, was necessary. He said that, on an up or down vote, there was enough there to vote up, which many Democrats did, and which Clinton said he would have done.

As for Clark, I remember the first 15 minutes of the AZ debate, and I think there was enough there to suggest that Clark has been on both sides of the issue of whether this thing was justified.

[mmonk]

63. I'm not anti-Edwards

I was just trying to answer the original question whether he was liberal or conservative. I was trying to show he's a mixed bag (like many Americans). He is my Senator and I helped elect him. If he were to become the nominee, I will vote for him as I did as Senator. In the primaries though, I'm for Clark (obviously). Concerning Clinton and Iraq, when the PNAC sent their letter to Clinton, he bombed, but didn't invade as he thought it was too radical of an idea.

[spooky3]

23. why not go to Edwards.com and make up your own mind

about what he is proposing? Why let others put a label on him for you that you might disagree with?

He has a very well laid out platform for the future. He has also voted against the Bush positions on issues more than any other Senator in recent times.

[AP]

26. Good point. Of all congressp. running, Edwards has voted against Bush most

What contrast could be more important in distinguishing left from right?

[blm]

50. Hey, AP, I heard the opposite last night on CNN.

They were talking about Hillary voting with Bush more than any of the candidates and then said Edwards was the highest at 57% and Kerry had the lowest percentage of 30%.

Didn't someone at the Edwards blog use that 57% figure to say he had the lowest figure? What's the story?

[AP]

52. Hmm. Yeah. Sounds like a mix up. Time to hit the books.

I know that Edwards has the record (or is in 2nd place) for voting the opposite of the other Senator from the same state, so it seems odd that he'd have a high % votes the same as Bush.

[AP]

54. From the Edwards blog:

A little re-run...
Posted by MN
06:45 PM -- Wednesday January 07 2004

I don't usually make a practice of re-posting my comments from other threads, but I think the message in this one is completely relevant and worth re-posting for anyone who missed it yesterday. Please pass this along to anyone who needs some convincing that John Edwards has the guts to stand up to George Bush.

Far too often people make light of John Edwards' relative inexperience and his voting record in Congress - he voted for the Iraq resolution, and for the No Child Left Behind act - as reasons why they won't vote for him. That angers me more than anything and I'd like to do my part to set the record straight.

Former Governor Dean this weekend proclaimed in the Des Moines debate; "What has happened to so many Democrats in Congress is that they've been co- opted by the agenda of George Bush, who came into office with 500,000 fewer votes than Al Gore. And what we need is a Democrat who's going to stand up to George Bush."

Gephardt in the same debate tried to lump all of his congressional colleagues into one large group when he said they had voted for NAFTA and other trade agreements when he didn't. Edwards did the right thing at that debate and with his "truth-o-meter", he set the record straight. In fact, Senator Edwards wasn't even in Congress to vote for NAFTA and has votedagainst numerous other trade agreements that have come before the Senate.

Well, today I have found the best factual evidence against Dean's statement that those Democrats in Congress have been "co-opted" and don't "stand up to Bush". The well-respected Congressional Quarterly publication company did a study for this week's CQ Weekly - their "Presidential Support Vote Study". One very outstanding part of that study proves that Senator John Edwards does indeed stand up to Bush and hasn't been co-opted by his agenda. CQ proved that Edwards has the highest rating of senators in opposition to Bush's agenda, with a score of 58.7%. In the study, opposition stood for those who voted most often against his position. Here is the list of the top 11 democratic senators opposed to President Bush's legislative agenda:

Democrats
Edwards, N.C. 58.7%
Graham, Fla. 58.3
Corzine, N.J. 56.8
Lautenberg, N.J. 56.3
Mikulski, Md. 56.0
Boxer, Calif. 55.6
Reed, R.I. 55.2
Durbin, Ill. 54.5
Biden, Del. 54.1
Harkin, Iowa 54.1
Sarbanes, Md. 53.9

Please note that Lieberman and Kerry don't even fall into the top ten in the Senate and in the House, Gephardt and Kucinich don't make the top ten either. That's not to say that they are not good Democrats - THEY ARE! What I am trying to convey is that only one candidate stands out head and shoulders above all the rest - John Edwards - and Howard Dean is wrong when he says the things he says about the good men and women who WE elected to the United States Congress to fight on our behalf. He makes me think we should be ashamed of Democrats for not balancing 11 budgets or not providing universal health care - but I am not ashamed, I am proud of them. They have done a wonderful job, and continue to do a wonderful job. He - Dean - should not attack them relentlessly, but recognize that Democrats in Congress helped balance the budget for the first time in decades under President Clinton, helped eliminate the deficit under Clinton, and continually lead the fight against the special interests that keep us from getting better health care legislation passed in Congress.

I've been long winded here, but I hope my point is clear. Howard Dean is WRONG and John Edwards has PROVEN that he is right - right for you, right for me, and right for America!



Travel to Iowa, New Hampshire or South Carolina and help John Edwards

MN: Custom Blog
Add MN As Your Friend

[JNelson6563]

43. I like Edwards

I'd vote for him (and work too!) if he got the nom or I'd be glad if he were a VP choice to the nominee OR if he were appointed AG. He'd be great!

Julie

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

59. Edwards is a true populist and a good anti-corporate candidate

The Wall Street Journal hates him, since trial lawyers are the number one enemy of corporations. Edwards is "moderate" and "centrist" but his power base is pretty much 180 from the corporations. I'd vote for him.

[Freddie Stubbs]

71. He had a more conservative voting record than Lieberman last year

He is a moderate.

http://acuratings.com/acu.cgi?ACT=3&STATE=NC&YEAR=2002

http://acuratings.com/acu.cgi?ACT=3&STATE=CT&YEAR=2002

[cryofan]

80. umm..no, Lieberman scored more conservative than Edwards 20 to 15

But I am quite surprised Lieberman scored that low....

[AP]

81. Digging in to the numbers

Firstly, I've never heard of the American Conservative Union rankings before. By every reputable measure, he scores as very liberal.

The page you cited compares Edwards to Helms, and gives Helms a lifetime 99, and Edwards a 15. Last year Edwards had a 30.

Lieberman had a 20 last year and a lifetime 20. Kerry had a 20 last year.

Here are the votes that gave Edwards the +'s:

Government Discrimination in Farm Regulation. S. 1731 (Roll Call 15)
0000-00-00
The amendment would discriminate against large cattle and dairy farms in obtaining environmental quality incentives to construct animal waste treatment facilities. The vote was 44-52, on 6 February 2002. ACU opposed the amendment.
ACU opposed this bill.

This bill was: defeated
The vote was: 44-52

Reasonable SUV Requirements. S. 517 (Roll Call 48)
2002-03-13
The amendment would forbid the national government from setting fuel efficiency standards for pickup trucks or sports utility vehicles at any higher than 20.7 miles per gallon. Excessive MPG requirements have made cars lighter and more dangerous, so ACU supported this amendment to forbid unreasonable standards that would make it more difficult to own SUVs. It passed 56-44 on 13 March 2002.
ACU supported this bill.

This bill was: passed
The vote was: 56-44


Trade Promotion Authority. HR 3009 (Roll Call 130)
2002-05-23
The bill would renew the president's traditional authority to negotiate trade agreements with other countries and extend trade benefits on certain goods to Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru. ACU supported this bill, which passed 66-30 on 23 May 2002.
ACU supported this bill.

This bill was: passed
The vote was: 66-30


Caps on Government Spending. HR 4775 (Roll Call 133)
2002-06-05
The motion would extend for five years caps on federal spending and establish other procedural controls on federal spending. ACU supported this budget discipline measure, which failed on a 49-49 vote (60 votes were required) on 5 June 2002.
ACU supported this bill.

This bill was: defeated
The vote was: 49-49

Use of Force Against Iraq. S.J.Res. 114 (Roll Call 237)
2002-11-11
The resolution authorized the use of force against Iraq in the event of a failure of diplomatic efforts. ACU supported this resolution, which passed 77-23 on 11 November 2002.
ACU supported this bill.

This bill was: passed
The vote was: 77-23


Union Bargaining On National Security. HR 5005 (Roll Call 247)
2002-11-19
The amendment would continue the president's traditional right to exclude collective bargaining among federal employees in the new Department of Homeland Security when he judges that the agency duties are directly or indirectly related to national security; but it would also allow unions a role in the process. ACU preferred the House version of the bill but accepted this as superior to other alternatives in the Senate. It was adopted by a vote of 73-26 on 19 November 2002.
ACU supported this bill.

This bill was: passed
The vote was: 73-26

[thebigthink]

86. His ADA "Liberal Quotient" is pretty high.

If you average their "Liberal Quotients" from Americans for Democratic Action (the great granddaddy of liberal interest groups in the US) for the past 5 years, here's how all the presidential candidates currently serving in congress stack up.

Average LQs for 1997 - 2002:

Kerry: 93
Gephardt: 91
Kucinich: 86
Edwards: 85
Lieberman: 84

To put that in perspective, Jim Jeffords, moderate independent Senator from Vermont scores 56 for the same period. Tom Delay and Trent Lott (who need no introduction, I'm sure) score 0 and 2, respectively.

Note that the period above covers the entire congressional careers of Edwards and Kucinich. Career LQs for Kerry, Gephardt and Lieberman through 2000 were:

Kerry: 93
Gephardt: 83
Lieberman: 76

That's a little more in line with my expectations for the three. Also note that Gephardt's voting record on a woman's right to choose is the worst of the three, but that if Kucinich had Gephardt's record on choice, he would probably have Paul Wellstone's lifetime LQ (99). Not sure what the deal was with Denny and Choice, but he's been a good hippy otherwise.

http://www.adaction.org

On the financing front, percentages of their war chests that came from PAC contributions in their each of their last elections were:

Kucinich: 47% ($242,899)
Gephardt: 25% ($1,464,704)
Lieberman: 23% ($989,094)
Edwards: 0% (spent $6 million of his own money)
Kerry: 0% (raised $15 million in individual contributions)

Kerry's report does show about $22,000 in PAC contributions in 2002, but he's always made a practice of returning their checks on principle. So the fact that they showed up on the FEC reports doesn't necessarily mean he actually accepted those contributions.

http://opensecrets.org

[goodhue]

87. liberal

most certainly liberal