Why should Edwards' Senate record be ignored?

[cali]

Edward had a solidly centrist/conervative record in the Senate with regard to many issues In fact, he voted against the interests of the poor and working class when he voted for bankruptcy "reform". I like what he's saying now, but I'm not about to ignore his Senate record. It's one things to change some of your positions; it's another to change so many of them, and to change the fundamental of one's governing philosophy. Now he stands against corporations. Where was he from 1998-2004? Yes, I know he's from a conservative state, but most people here don't excuse DINOs wherever they're from, and there have been dem Senators from states just as, or more, conservative who have better voting records than Edwards.

I won't vote for any candidate in the primary who voted for the war, period. I made that committment in 2003, and apologies aren't enough to sway me: If I knew, if over half dem reps knew, and nearly half dem senators knew, there's really no excuse. But it's not just the IWR vote. Edwards voted for bad bankruptcy "reform" bills, and for Yucca mountain, etc. He's done a near 180 over the years, but that's just not enough for me.

Some voting record factoids:

2002 Edwards supported the interests of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce 55 percent in 2002

2003 Edwards supported the interests of the Arab American Institute 20 percent in 2003.

2001-2002 Edwards supported the interests of the American Civil Liberties Union 60 percent in 2001-2002.

2001 Edwards supported the interests of the American Civil Liberties Union 50 percent in 2001.

2002 Edwards supported the interests of the Eagle Forum 33 percent in 2002.

2001-2002 Edwards supported the interests of the Concerned Women for America 25 percent in 2001-2002

2002 Edwards supported the interests of the American Coalition for Ethanol 100 percent in 2002.

2003 Edwards supported the interests of the League of Conservation Voters 37 percent in 2003.

2001-2002 Edwards supported the interests of the League of Conservation Voters 68 percent in 2001-2002.

2001-2002 Edwards supported the interests of the American Land Rights Association 20 percent in 2001-2002.

2000 Edwards supported the interests of the Family Research Council 50 percent in 2000.

2003 Based on a point system, with points assigned for actions in support of or in opposition to U.S. Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation's position, Edwards received a rating of -1.

2003 Edwards supported the interests of the Peace Action 40 percent in 2003.

2002-2003 Edwards supported the interests of the Citizens for Global Solutions 53 percent in 2002-2003.

2002 Edwards supported the interests of the Peace Action 20 percent in 2002.

2001-2002 On the votes that the Jews for Peace in Palestine and Israel considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, a point system was established for both the Senate and the House. In the Senate, total possible points range from a high of +1 and a low of -5. In the House, points range from +6 to -6. The Jews for Peace in Palestine and Israel assigned Edwards a score of -3.

2000 Edwards supported the interests of the Council for a Livable World 63 percent in 2000.

2003 Edwards supported the interests of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers 50 percent in 2003.

2003 Edwards supported the interests of the Americans for Democratic Action 65 percent in 2003.

2002 Edwards supported the interests of the Americans for Democratic Action 70 percent in 2002.

1998-2002 Edwards supported the interests of the Center for Security Policy 50 percent in 1998-2002.

2001-2002 Edwards supported the interests of the CATO Institute--Center for Trade Policy Studies 17 percent in 2001-2002.

1999-2000 Edwards supported the interests of the CATO Institute--Center for Trade Policy Studies 40 percent in 1999-2000.

http://votesmart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=2...

* Yes, I cherry picked. Edwards has a fine record on choice, and by and large supported Unions in his career, but I'm trying to make the point that he was not a liberal for the 6 years he served.
** If Edwards in the nominee, I absolutely will vote for him, and work to get out the vote for him.

*** cross posted in GD, because I meant to post it here, and I haven't had enough coffee.

[sam sarrha]

1. you never know when a bill has been poisoned by the ReThugs, and this tactic is only

fair if the other candidate's histories on the same subjects are also posted

[cali]

2. I disagree. First of all, there are ratings by various liberal and

conservative organizations. They may be imperfect, but they give one a rough idea. And it's hardly a secret that Edwards voted for a lousy bankruptcy bill and Yucca Mountain, as well as co-sponsoring the IWR and having a very pro-Israel stance.

[sam sarrha]

3. if you dont compare.. it's an agenda.. no better than the ReThugs

[cali]

4. Oh, please. I'm not touting any other candidate here.

So there's no reason I have to compare. Don't like the truth? Call it a rethug agenda. I call bullshit. You're just being defensive.

[progpen]

31. "there's no reason I have to compare."

I call bullshit too. Most of us here understand that proposed legislation gets poisoned. It's a shitty fact of life in DC. I agree that Edwards has voted badly in some cases, but without some comparison your article doesn't hold water. Unless of course you want to go into detail for each and every piece of legislation including amendments.

[cali]

32. Do your own comparison

make your own argument in defense of his Senate record. I don't need to wipe your... nose. This is perfectly legitimate, and people can take from it what they will. Personally, I find his Senate record disturbing in that he regrets so many votes. But you, obviously are free to reach your own conclusions.

[mtnsnake]

8. Gimme a break. That's nothing but a copout

Go check out all their records for yourself and you'll quickly learn that Edwards voting record in the Senate was more closely alligned to centrist Republicans than it was progressive Democrats by any means. He was one of the more conservative Democrats by a long shot. The neocons in the Senate loved him.

[karynnj]

12. What she put together is fair in that it gives a stand alone

view. It is impossible to do what you are asking for if you want to compare Obama and Edwards. There is not even a day of overlap in their Senate careers. The same thing, for the same years, could be compiled for Clinton, but she is not claiming to be the liberal, progressive candidate. (Biden and Dodd could be looked at too.)

The point I get from the work that she did is that if you are looking at economic issues, Edwards does not look like I expect Harkin or Kennedy does. It is a valid point. He seems to almost get angry when his Senate record is brought up. I understood why Biden went after him at the labor debate.

[KittyWampus]

10. Well, then we also have Edwards' positions as POTUS candidate last time around.

But I guess we should ignore that too?

[mtnsnake]

5. I've pointed out his conservative Senate record several times with great concern

because what he actually did is not even close to what he's claiming to be now.

This guy is as phony as they come. He knows his only chance of winning the Democratic nod is by schmoozing over the base of the Party and sucking up to it by making believe he's this born-again Progressive. Gimme a break. His record proves he is anything but that. If by some unfortunate miracle, he got the nod, this guy would revert back to a centrist/conservative theme for purposes of competing in the general election. At least with Obama and Clinton, we would have a better idea of what we'd be getting because their records more accurately reflect the same personnas their taking on now as they campaign. I can't believe 12% of the Democratic population is getting fooled by this phony.

Thanks for this thread!

[cali]

7. I don't know that he's a phony, and you don't either.

I'm not saying his rhetoric now is the result of an election conversion are genuine belief. In fact, I'm willing to accept that it's genuine, but that still doesn't mean his Senate record should be excused or swept under the rug. It's worth noting that John Edwards is running against John Edwards. To be fair though, he was stressing the two Americas theme in 2004.

[mtnsnake]

9. Yeah, I do know, and so should you

People like Edwards love to grill and belittle other candidates about how they're so wrong about a certain issue, and then when you do a little research you come to find out that Johnny Boy's past positions were no different from those of the person he's grilling. There are enough examples to write a term paper about it. For anyone who doesn't think Edwards is a phony, just watch the look on Edwads face the other night at the debate when Kucinich made it obvious to everyone just what a phony this guy is. It shouldn't even take something like that for anyone to realize just what a schmoozer he is, though.

[geek tragedy]

6. Has Edwards admitted that he was in the Senate yet? n/t

[cali]

11. I'm not surprised that Edwards supporters aren't

commenting about his Senate record. The only reason I've ever seen given, is that he was from a conservative state.

[cali]

13. kick

because no candidate should get a pass on his/her past.

[Czolgosz]

14. It shouldn't be ignored, It should be understood like Kucinich's old anti-choice votes and Gore's

votes against alternative fuels and tax cuts for the wealthy and school prayer.

Edwards' Senate votes which he now says he'd vote the other way should be understood in the same way that Wes Clark's many statements in favor of Bush and Republicans should be understood.

The real question is "how shall we understand Hillary's advocacy of a good health care program in 1993 as contrasted with a mediocre program now?"

Here is a key difference between Edwards, Kucinich, Gore, and Clark on one hand and Hillary on the other:

Edwards, Kucinich, Gore, and Clark have moved to the left as they have evolved as people and politicians; Hillary has moved to the right as she gets older.

What more do you need to know?

[cali]

15. I need more than words

and aside from Kucinich's votes on choice, he has been very consistent about major issues. Edwards switched on many major issues. This isn't about Hillary for me- I'm not voting for her in the primary. And Hillary gets called on her words and actions plenty here. Even Kucinich regularly gets called on his switch from pro-life to pro-choice. Edwards stands on progressive issues were largely lousy for six years. That holds more weight with me than his words now.

[Tom Rinaldo]

16. I understand the point you arte making but...

...you don't have to throw accuracy out the window in order to make it. Wes Clark has never made "many statements in favor of Bush", I don't think you can find even one that accurately fits that descritpiton. He gave two speeches in Little Rock shortly after he retired from the military ; one to Republicans and one to Democrats. At the speech to Republicans he said some nice things about Republicans he knew who had just been appointed to the new Bush Administration in his introductory first few sentances of a speech that laid out a foreign policy vision dramatically opposed to the direction that the newly installed Bush Administration actually took.

It is more accurate to your intended point to say that Wes Clark in the past voted for some Republican Presidents (prior to Clinton). And you can point out that James Webb once served in the Administration of a Republican President.

[Cameron27]

17. He was also voting to the right of HRC on Iraq issues.

His record shouldn't be ignored, although it's clear that he's uncomfortable whenever it's brought up. Since he's staked a claim on corruption in Washington and the influence of special interest groups, and he's not shy in pointing fingers at everyone else, he should expect that his own record on those particular issues isn't going to be overlooked. I thought Rachel Maddow expressed this point so well yesterday, that I put it in my sig line. It applies to everyone, not only Edwards.

[Adelante]

18. The often overlooked S.900: Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999

This bill repealed the New Deal Glass-Stegall Acts which had protected consumers from financial predators, when Edwards sat on the Banking Committee, voted in favor of and supported. I won't go as far as to say this bill is responsible for the current economic crisis, but it went a good ways in making it easier for the credit crisis to happen. I believe 2008 is going to be a huge year for economic security, which may overtake the war as the primary campaign issue in the GE.

The question is being asked, but not of the candidates:

Would Glass-Steagall save the day from credit woes?

SANTA MONICA, Calif. (MarketWatch) — Time was when banks and brokerages were separate entities, banned from uniting for fear of conflicts of interest, a financial meltdown, a monopoly on the markets, all of these things.

In 1999, the law banning brokerages and banks from marrying one another — the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 — was lifted, and voila, the financial supermarket has grown to be the places we know as Citigroup, UBS, Deutsche Bank, et al.

But now that banks seemingly have stumbled over their bad mortgages, it’s worth asking whether the fallout would be wreaking so much havoc on the rest of the financial markets had Glass-Steagall been kept in place.

Diversity has always been the pathway to lowering risk. And Glass-Steagall kept diversity in place by separating the financial powers that be: banks and brokerages.
Glass-Steagall was passed by Congress to prohibit banks from owning full-service brokerage firms and vice versa so investment banking activities, such as underwriting corporate or municipal securities, couldn’t be called into question and also to insulate bank depositors from the risks of a stock market collapse such as the one that precipitated the Great Depression.

But as banks increasingly encroached upon the securities business by offering discount trades and mutual funds, the securities industry cried foul. So in that telling year of 1999, the prohibition ended and financial giants swooped in. Citigroup led the way and others followed. We saw Smith Barney, Salomon Brothers, PaineWebber and lots of other well-known brokerage brands gobbled up.

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/would-glass-steagall-save-day-credit/story.aspx?guid=%7B3AA33D85%2DAD38%2D41B4%2DB300%2D033235B5734A%7D

The bill was the culmination of years and years of lobbying by financial services firms such as Citigroup:

Citigroup: The standard in political corruption

Citigroup played the lead role in ushering the “Financial Services Modernization Act” through the US Congress, in the process joining with the rest of the financial services industry to set a new standard in legalized bribery. The Act will tear down the regulatory walls between banks, and insurance companies and securities firms, paving the way for a massive concentration of financial wealth and a future of industry bailouts, weakening the Community Reinvestment Act and permitting huge intrusions on consumer privacy.

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2000/01/fotc16.html

Apparently, Edwards was helpful in this regard:

Several weeks after testifying to two subcommittees of the Senate Banking Committee, Fed Governor Laurence Meyer received a letter from eight senators admonishing the Fed for its stance on merchant banking and demanding a more lenient approach.

But only the Merchant Banking Eight have so wholeheartedly aligned themselves with the grievances of Chase, Wells Fargo and the largest financial conglomerates.

Dear Governor Meyer,

On behalf of the Securities and Financial Institutions Subcommittees of the Senate Committee on Banking Housing and Urban Affairs, thank you for appearing as a witness on June 13 to discuss the Board’s Interim and Proposed regulations concerning merchant banking activities.

Your testimony was helpful in clarifying your intent to consider carefully the views of members of Congress, the financial services industry and other interested parties concerning your proposed regulations. Your assurances that the Board’s goal is to encourage Financial Holding companies (FHCs), bank holding companies and banks to engage in innovative and progressive private equity investment activities while preserving the safety and soundness of the financial services system is welcome….”

MERCHANT BANKING EIGHT
Jack Reed (D-RI)
Charles Schumer (D-NY)
Mike Crapo (R-ID)
Robert Bennett (R-UT)
Rod Grams (R-MN)
Jim Bunning (R-KY)
Chuck Hagel (R-NE)
John Edwards (D-NC)

http://www.fmcenter.org/atf/cf/%7BDFBB2772-F5C5-4DFE-B310-D82A61944339%7D/sept00.pdf

Molly Ivins wasn't talking about Edwards, but this is what she had to say on the Financial Services Modernization Act itself and its sponsor:

As a member of the Senate Finance Committee and the recipient of enormous banking contributions, Gramm did an even bigger favor for the financial industry in 1999 when he sponsored the Financial Services Modernization Act allowing banks, securities firms, and insurance companies to combine. The bill weakened the Community Reinvestment Act, which requires banks to help meet the credit needs of low- and moderate-income neighborhoods. Gramm described community groups that use the CRA as “protection rackets” that extort funds from the poor, powerless banks. The bill is also a disaster for the privacy of bank customers and weakens regulatory supervision. As Gramm proudly declared, “You’re not going to find a single bank, insurance company, or securities company that will say they were hurt financially by this bill.”

http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/power_plays/2002/03/mean.html

PBS did a documentary called "The Wall Street Fix" which covers the demise of Glass-Steagall:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/wallstreet/weill/demise.html


I will say a lot of good Democrats did vote for this legislation, not just Edwards, but once again we have Edwards on the critical Senate committee and voting for a bill that has had serious repercussions.

NAYs —8
Boxer (D-CA)
Bryan (D-NV)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Feingold (D-WI)
Harkin (D-IA)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Shelby (R-AL)
Wellstone (D-MN)

http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c106:2:./temp/~c106cx5u0N::

[FrenchieCat]

19. Interesting......

My problem isn't that one might change one's mind over time on some specific issues....my problem is one who has changed his mind on just about every issue. That troubles me, and makes me question if John Edwards really stands for anything in reality beyond wanting to win an election and saying whatever he believes at the time will get him where he wants to go.

In addition, his "changed mind on so many issues" fodder will provide his opponent with much too many opportunities to knock him off message and paint him as an untrustworthy political opportunist. With his blinking and unappropriately timed grins are seen on TeeVee as he tries to explain himself and his not-so distant past record, he will not go over well. Further, his lack of real national security credentials also worries me. When the fact that he won't have the dollars required to fight the GOP Noise Machine and its media accomplices(due to his accepting public financing) is added to the mix, an Edwards nomination is worrisome, considering that the presidency will be the Democrats to lose.

[info being]

20. At this point, I'm just happy to see....

...a front-running even *telling* the truth. He isn't perfect, but I'll vote for somebody who at least "gets it".

Do you think Edwards would have been able to raise the money he has if he had a record as pure as DK? Do you think he'd have a chance of winning?

[info being]

21. And why should we overlook this important fact:

1) In the current political system, a candidate needs a certain amount of "establishment" money to compete.
2) In the current media environment, a pure Progressive will be completely ignored
3) It is impossible to raise funds and get any coverage without appearing to be non-threatening to the powers that be, at least at the beginning stages of a campaign.

If you want to get real, let's get real.

[FrenchieCat]

26. If you want to get real, let's get real.....is what you said, and so I shall be just that.....

and I will not be voting for someone who appears to stand strong for stuff only when running for office....and each run made by the same candidate reveals various different stand on the same issues....consistently.

In otherwords, I am not comfortable voting for the "I will say what I need to say now to get elected now" candidate.

When I look at Edwards' political career over time, I'm not sure that what he is now saying isn't politically motivated. I know that what he was saying back in 1998, 2003, 2004 was for that very purpose; winning elections. Why should I think that now is any different? :shrug:

[info being]

28. If you are assuming that DK can win, I'm behind you

I'm assuming he can't, and so I'm thinking of what else we can hope for.

[FrenchieCat]

30. You are into making an awful lot of assuming, hey? That's is what is "real" to you?

You assume that DK can't win.....before any votes are even cast....(guess the media keeps telling you that DK is "unelectable" and you believe it) and therefore you are willing to participate in self fufilling prophecies by not voting for someone in a primary race simply because you want to side with a winning horse?

and then you assume that John Edwards' conversion is based on pure motives just cause of what he now says....regardless of what his record shows?

Assumptions are no better than guesses....and guesses are not the same as reality.

Guess you're one of those who also assumes that a woman and/or a Black man could never be president because you assume that America is "not ready" for such a thing; right? :shrug:

[info being]

34. Correct

[info being]

36. You are assuming he can win?

[neutron]

22. Please post this

as a diary in Daily Kos. They are in a fantasty land.

[Cameron27]

27. lol

yep they are.

[Armstead]

23. Edwards should address this directly

I like where Edwards currently stands on the major issues.

But I agree that his record can't be ignored.

If I were advising him, I'd suggest he make a major speech that directly addresses the discrepancy between his views now and his votes then. Explain whatever has changed to make him so different than he was in the Senate, stated honestly.

Similar to what he has already done on his Iraq War support.

For my part, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. But that disparity does open him up to charges of opportunism or hypocracy. The best thing he could do would be to address it head on, to reassure those who are suspicious of his motives or plans.

[info being]

25. What if he did it to fool the establishment and get a platform?

Should he foolishly admit that at this point, thus wasting the progress he made on that front?

come on.

[Adelante]

29. What if he's doing it now to fool the anti-establishment and get a platform?

He wouldn't admit either, I'd say.

[info being]

35. exactly

[mrfixit]

24. I cherry picked, too.

Talks like a Democrat, walks like a REPUBLICAN.

from Edwards' voting record:
http://votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=21107

02/02/2000 Bankruptcy Reform bill - Voted Y
11/19/2002 Homeland Security Act of 2002 - Voted Y
05/21/2004 Condemning Iraq Abuse of Prisoners resolution - DID NOT VOTE
10/11/2002 Use of Military Force Against Iraq - Voted Y
10/06/2004 National Intelligence Reform Act of 2004 - DID NOT VOTE
10/25/2001 USA Patriot Act of 2001 - Voted Y
09/14/2001 Military Force Authorization resolution - Voted Y
09/16/2003 FCC Media Ownership bill - DID NOT VOTE
09/19/2000 U.S.-China Relations Act of 2000 - Voted Y

Conversely, he has good teeth and a really nice haircut. Period.

[frogmarch]

33. Every Senate vote is yea or nay, with no nuances

- nothing in between. Often senators vote nay when they find something objectionable buried in a particular bill, and sometimes they vote yea, despite finding something objectionable buried in a bill. A candidate's voting record shouldn't be ignored, but his or her voting record shouldn't be judged solely by the yea/nay standard either.

I recall when John Kerry was accused of voting against body armor for the troops, higher combat pay and healthcare benefits for reservists when he voted against a bill that was full of crap, but that happened to include those measures (which amounted to only 1 % of the $87 billion price tag). When Kerry said he voted for the $87 before he voted against it, he was talking about a measure (which was rejected) that he himself had co-sponsored to authorize the $87 billion while taking away tax cuts for people who made $400,000 and over. Kerry was labeled a flip-flopper, a view that was accepted by the Notoriously Stupid.

Before attacking Edwards's voting record, let's find out why he voted the way he did on the contentious issues.

[SaveElmer]

37. Right on target...

He is attempting a complete makeover...pretending his Senate career doesn't exist, yet criticizing others for theirs...