MyDD :: Edwards less liberal than Lieberman

Edwards less liberal than Lieberman

by BrionLutz, Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 10:23:30 PM EST

Edwards' actual voting record during his six years in the Senate comes out to 75%.

This is less than Lieberman's 85% and much lower than Obama and Clinton's 96%+ ratings.

This from Media Matters research into Edwards voting record: "As Cohen wrote, "From 1999 to 2002, Edwards had ranked among the more conservative Democratic senators. In 2002, only 11 of the 50 Senate Democrats voted more conservatively."

So why do Edwards supporters claim he is "progressive"?

Edwards' claim to being "progressive" is entirely rhetorical.

When he had to walk the walk, he walked a very conservative path. Now that he is talking the talk, he makes vague statements but offers no specifics as to what he would do to make anyone think he would behave any differently as president than he did as one of the most conservative Democratic senators.

In regard to Edwards' current rhetoric, his saber rattling about attacking Iraq is crazier than Bush Jr's.

Edwards was one of the most conservative Democratic senators.

Edwards voted for Iraq war.

Edwards advocates expanding the war to Iran.

It is a puzzle.

Tags: Edwards conservative 2008 (all tags)

Permalink :: 52 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: Edwards less liberal than Lieberman (none / 0)

Yet they called him one of the most liberal senators during the 2004 election. Weird.

by bizzizz on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 10:37:51 PM EST

Re: Edwards less liberal than Lieberman (none / 0)

By the way, I do realize that 99% of stuff said during campaigns is utter BS.

by bizzizz on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 10:38:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards less liberal than Lieberman (none / 0)

Well, that was based on National Journal's annual ideological rankings, but at least one of their authors has admitted a right-leaning bias. And if, like me, you've spent lots of time poring through the weeds of The Bible, officially titled The Almanac of American Politics, I think you'll find a fairly consistent, if not large, conservative bias. As I recall, their rankings in 2004 weren't released until it was clear that the Democratic ticket was going to be Kerry/Edwards. (I doubt they changed the timing of their 2004 release, but they did have time to choose votes that would end up making Kerry look most liberal and Edwards #2--I think you'd find different results for those 2 senators in NJ's rankings for any other year)

These quantitative rankings are inherently a bit slippery because what comes up for a vote varies from year to year, and can be controlled by the majority. And because groups have to be subjective to some degree in deciding which votes to score members on. I find Americans for Democratic Action's voting scorecards very useful, but they pick 20 votes per house every year. Yet some years have more votes than others, and clearly the number of important votes can't always be the same number every year in both houses.

I'm not even clear whose score the diarist is referring to here, but I've tried before strenuously to document Edwards' voting record and expose him for the phony progressive he is. I think the only rational response I've gotten, and not on this site, was to point out that RFK held a number of bad positions in the 50s and early to mid-60s before evolving into the real liberal he ran for president as in 1968. Can Edwards evolve? Can the other candidates? Has Edwards evolved into a more progressive politician, or do less noble motives underlie his façade of a leftward shift? At this point, based in no small part on working in the Senate for the majority of Edwards' time there, I don't trust his progressive claims.

Give to Redistricting Project candidates for Democratic maps 2011-2021! http://www.actblue.com/page/redistrictin gproject

by Sandwich Repairman on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 06:13:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards less liberal than Lieberman (none / 0)

"I'm not even clear whose score the diarist is referring to here"

www.mediamatters.org

Ironically, a progressive group that does fact checks on the conservative media.

In this case it was debunking claims by Bush Jr that Edwards was "liberal".

Bush Jr lied, Edwards was, as Media Matters concluded, one of the most conservative Democrats in the Senate.

by BrionLutz on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 12:15:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards less liberal than Lieberman (none / 0)

No, you appear to have some reading comprehension problems. The Media Matters piece to which you link (so one would think that you might have read it), refers to the National Journal's rankings, which were the rankings that were under discussion at the time.

In fact, the words "National Journal" appear in italics throughout that piece, something you would have noticed had you not been so busy playing bullshit gotcha games.

Media Matters does not, to the best of my knowledge, do rankings.

by jsw on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 01:37:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards less liberal than Lieberman (none / 0)

"The Media Matters piece to which you link (so one would think that you might have read it), refers to the National Journal's rankings, which were the rankings that were under discussion at the time."

Media Matters piece refers to several rankings, National Journal among them.

That Edwards shows as more conservative than Lieberman, Clinton and Obama was also noted in the Americans for Democratic Action and the other ranking mentioned by one of Edwards defenders.

Edwards himself vigorously defended himself from charges of being a "liberal" during the 2004 election.

His record says he's conservative. Edwards says he's conservative. But his blinded by the light supporters refuse to admit it.

Edwards pitch is as a conservative DLC candidate which is why his label in the blogosphere as a "progressive" is so puzzling.

by BrionLutz on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 01:53:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards less liberal than Lieberman (none / 0)

Really? Here's your link.

http://mediamatters.org/items/2004071200 04

Find another source cited in that post. I can't even find one indirectly cited.

Perhaps your command of the English language is more creative than mine.

Perhaps you're thinking of a place other than the one you linked to.

Or perhaps you're just a liar.

by jsw on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 02:00:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards less liberal than Lieberman (none / 0)

If you don't like the Journals, the other sources for the ratings noted were ADA (Americans for Democratic Action), which is the one I cited with the 75% for Edwards and 85% for Lieberman.

The MediaMatters defense of Edwards from claims he was liberal was based on the Journal.

We also had someone post a UCAL site that ranked Lieberman ahead of Edwards.

So you've got three solid sources plus Edwards plus Edwards' voting record.

by BrionLutz on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 10:27:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards less liberal than Lieberman (none / 0)

I didn't say there weren't other sources. I said that you were lying when you said your link had other sources. If you had simply said, when challenged, that there were other sources, that wouldn't have been a problem. But you didn't say that, because you were too busy hacking at Edwards to go back and actually read your sources.

You are at best an unreliable narrator, and given your recent sourcing to the GOP, I'm beginning to think you're pretty much an anti-Edwards troll. I don't have a brief for any candidate at this point, but your behavior is really troubling.

by jsw on Mon Feb 05, 2007 at 02:55:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

So Many Ways To Spin (none / 0)

Brion, you are such the spinner...always trying to build a fire from smoke. Why not spin some things against your favored candidate, Barack Obama? Hmmm....let's see....these facts clearly show that Barack Obama is NOT a progressive...For example:

Obama endorsed Lieberman against Lamont in Connecticut. Ouch! That was the progressive position??

Obama voted against Feingold's motion to censure Bush over his felonious, illegal wiretapping. That was the progressive position?

Obama in 2005 and 2006 failed to vote against any funding for the Iraq war...which we are told he strongly opposes? Edwards had the guts to vote against funding for Iraq all the way back in 2004.

With respect to Iraq, Obama has been in the Senate for two years: 2005 and 2006. He has NEVER sponsored anything with respect to Iraq, or stopping the war. An opponent of the war?

In June of 2006, Kerry, of all people, sponsored an amendment to the military appropriations bill before the Senate. That amendment called for the President to begin withdrawing troops, and thereby force the Iraqis to solve their own problems in the very immediate term. Was Obama a cosponsor? Nope. Far from it: he voted AGAINST the amendment. Was that the progressive position?

In his two years in the Senate, Obama has VERBALLY (which is all we really have from him) tacked left, then right, then left with respect to Iraq. So for example, in January 2006, when asked on Meet the Press about the Murtha plan to withdraw troops from Iraq, he repeated the neo-con mantra: "It would not be responsible for us to unilaterally and precipitously draw troops down." These words really harmed Murth's efforts.

Obama voted to confirm Condeleeza Rice as our Secretary of State despite the fact that he KNEW that she was one of the main architects/salespersons for the Iraq disaster. That is the progressive position?

Obama, over the strenuous objections of civil rights and consumer watchdog groups, voted for the big business backed class action "reform" bill. When asked why he did this by Joan Claybrook, president of Public Citizen, Obama remarked "Sometimes you have to trim your sails." What? A few weeks later, Obama voted against a Democratic amendment that would have capped credit card fees at 30%. What?

Obama has apparently been a supporter of the Hamilton Project, an organization formed by Robert Rubin of Citigroup and other Wall Street Democrats to fight back against growing populist outrage within the Democratic party. That is the progressive position?

The interesting thing about Obama is that he represents one of the bluest of all blue states. He can represent his constituents and be as liberal as he pleases...He will never be voted out of office for being too liberal. Not one of his worries...

By contrast, Edwards represented the people of a red state (the state of Jesse Helms!) from 1998-2004. That made his task much more challenging as a Senator. Do you vote straight liberal if you represent a red state? Probably not. That would essentially be political suicide no matter how liberal you are...

Nevertheless, if you look at Edwards annual voting scores, you will see a very pronounced trend. With each passing year, he earns higher and higher progressive annual scores.

So...for example, in his first year in office in 1999, his annual score was very centrist, as you would expect for a Senator representing North Carolina.

In 2000, Edwards' annual score become a bit less centrist, and a bit more liberal. In 2001, his annual score trended higher still. In 2002, his annual score become even more liberal. In 2003, his annual score rose to the level of very progressive. And in 2004, his annual score was also very progressive. So Brion, when you take an average that includes 1999 and 2000, or that fails to consider 2003 and 2004, you can create all sorts of smoke and spin.

The fact is that Edwards began his Senate career by representing a red state, and he started off his career by voting more centrist. Then, from 2001 to 2004, Edwards got more and more progressive in his thinking, and voting. By 2002, 2003 and 2004, his last three years in the Senate, his annual voting records were progressive. Those are just the facts.

by Demo37 on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 04:33:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards less liberal than Lieberman (none / 0)

Conservative and progressive defined...how?

If progressive is defined by post-1970s social issues, Lieberman is as progressive as they get. If progressive is defined by pacifism, veganism, and viewing a certain John Lennon song as a serious formula for your political goals, Kucinich is your man and Lieberman is decidedly not.

And if progressive is defined by labor, economic fairness, and bread and butter issues, Edwards is the most progressive. But if you define progressive in one of those other ways, Edwards just might come out looking quite conservative. Some of the most progressive members of Congress on labor and economic fairness issues are in fact those with reputations as mavericks or with conservative backgrounds. Jim Webb comes to mind. So do Harry Reid and (arguably) Rick Boucher. Some of the most progressive on foreign policy have longstanding records as conservative Democrats: Robert Byrd and Jack Murtha come to mind.

And some of the most progressive on social issues are foreign policy hawks and economic free-traders and neoliberals. I don't need mention any names...

by Old Yeller on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 10:38:42 PM EST

Yes, But (none / 0)

You have a point, even though you don't know very much about Dennis Kucinich:

If progressive is defined by pacifism, veganism, and viewing a certain John Lennon song as a serious formula for your political goals, Kucinich is your man and Lieberman is decidedly not.

And if progressive is defined by labor, economic fairness, and bread and butter issues, Edwards is the most progressive.

Kucinich is a fire-breathing economic populist. His father was a trucker, and his family lived a hand-to-mouth existence, at one time even living in their car. He ran for mayor of Cleveland with opposition to the privatization of the city's electric utility as his main issue. When elected, he fought a consortium of banks as well as the private company that was trying to force the sale. It took more than a decade for people to realize that Kucinich had been right, which is what lead to his election to Congress in a previously solid red district. His first election was the only one that was close.

However, despite the differences you note about different types of progressives, it still turns out that Congressional roll call voting can be mapped onto two dimensions for its entire history, and onto one dimension in recent years. Of course, there are issues that never make it onto the floor for a vote, so I'm not using this fact to "refute" your contention--only to add to the complexity.

by Paul Rosenberg on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 10:49:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes, But (none / 0)

Actually I do know all this about Kucinich. But the issue most distinguishes himself from the pack with right now is peace, which I was using as a contrast to Lieberman.

by Old Yeller on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 07:15:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards less liberal than Lieberman (none / 0)

"Conservative and progressive defined...how?"

Using the Americans for Democratic Action vote rating.

The "Media Matters" research into Edwards voting record, showing him as one of the most conservative Democrats was ironic in that it was undertaken to defend Edwards from the Bush Jr campaign's claim Edwards was "liberal".

Edwards strongly denied being liberal (whoops!) during the 2004 campaign and he was telling the truth...then.

by BrionLutz on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 10:51:42 PM EST

Re: Edwards less liberal than Lieberman (none / 0)

Scorecards are useless. Some progressive issues are more important than others. Demonizing liberals as Liberman has done serves to demonize the issues those liberals hold dear making it tough to pass bill in favor of such issues. So what good is Lieberman's vote in some losing causes when his actions have served to make them losing causes?

ALso the timeframe in which you vote for someone is important. There are only so much crucial progressive issues that get top priority in a certain time frame. How the senators fair in those situations is what is important. You look strictly at your scorecard and you will see Edwards as bad as Lieberman. But when time came to help elect anti Iraq war candidates, guess who care through- Edwards.

Scorecards don't account for Lieberman rejecting hearings into Katrina because it doesn't count as a scorecard vote.

by Pravin on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 11:45:46 PM EST

Re: Edwards less liberal than Lieberman (none / 0)

I agree with your supporting point about votes not by a longshot being the only thing that counts or matters. Lots of important things can't be measured quantitatively. But, I think if you take all those things into account and apply them to all the 2008 candidates, you'll find Edwards is really toward the right end of the Democratic spectrum.

Give to Redistricting Project candidates for Democratic maps 2011-2021! http://www.actblue.com/page/redistrictin gproject

by Sandwich Repairman on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 06:21:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards less liberal than Lieberman (3.00 / 2)

What are you using to define "liberal" versus "conservative"? In your diary you refer to a three year period of his Senate term, what is the overall picture?

Show me a link where Edwards calls for invading Iran? That he thinks all options should be on the table is a stretch: any sensible candidate would keep all options on the table for everything. Are you saying Obama doesn't consider Iran to be a threat?

You seem to think politics exists in some kind of vacuum. That candidates are unable to change over time. Don't be so naiive.

The sharpest criticism often goes hand in hand with the deepest idealism and love of country. ~RFK

by Vox Populi on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 12:25:55 AM EST

How Many Times Do We Have To Do This??? (3.00 / 0)

Legislative scorecards are very good for the purposes of holding politicians accountable for specific votes. For any other purposes, their utilitiy is generally quite limited. For judging placement on a liberal/conservative scale, the superior method is DW-Nominate, which uses all role call votes with 0.5% or more voting on the minority side.

108th:
Edwards: 20.0
Lieberman: 33.0

107th:
Edwards: 38.0
Lieberman: 32.0

106th:
Edwards: 23.5
Lieberman: 39.0

Tot Avg:
Edwards: 27.17
Lieberman: 34.67

Of course, the problem with Lieberman isn't his voting record so much. It's (1) his triangulation, (2) his use of rightwing frames and (3) his public attacks on progressives and other Democrats.

While Obama is nowhere near as bad as Lieberman, he does show definite signs of (1) and (2), as well as repeated statements that come across as (3), though he has repeatedly denied that that's his intent.

by Paul Rosenberg on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 12:44:11 AM EST

Re: How Many Times Do We Have To Do This??? (none / 0)

As your source notes, Lieberman was consistently more liberal than Edwards.

In addition to your source we had Media Matters doing the election debunking of Bush Jr claims Edwards was a "liberal".

As they noted, this was false, Edwards was one of the most conservative Democrats.

The gold standard has been the ADA (Americans for Democratic Action) as to the liberal scorecard, as you see, they confirm your source with Edwards having an overall 75% liberal record vs. 85% for Lieberman and the 95% pluses for Clinton and Obama.

Edwards probably needs to retire to his 100 acre tree farm plantation, go into his 29,000 square foot mansion and rethink his life ;).

by BrionLutz on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 12:59:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Brion, You Ignorant Slut (3.00 / 1)

As your source notes, Lieberman was consistently more liberal than Edwards.

Edwards was more liberal in the 108th and 106th Congress, as well as cumulatively over the 6-year period they served together. Lieberman was more liberal in the 107th.

Your inability to acknowledge "unnaceptable" facts when they stare you directly in the face is all that anyone needs to know about you.

But there is more to know about the ADA scorecard, scorecards in general, and the constrasting methodology of DW-Nominate. The ADA scorecard is one of the oldest (if not the oldest) legislative scorecard around. But, as noted elsewhere in this discussion, it's based on a handful of votes. DW-Nominate is based on all roll-call votes. While scorecards are very useful for documenting records on specific votes--and some are more useful than others--even the best conceivable scorecard ("the gold standard") would be methodologically incapable of producing a reliable liberal-conservative scale.

DW-Nominate does produce a reliable scale because: (1) It includes all roll call votes with a non-trivial minority (>0.5%, that's all Senate roll calls), and (2) Roll call voting turns out empirically to be unidimensional. This is a relatively recent development, as roll call voting since the First Congress has generally been two-dimensional, however the second dimension has collapsed in recent years.

by Paul Rosenberg on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 10:17:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Brion, You Ignorant Slut (none / 0)

"Edwards was more liberal in the 108th and 106th Congress, as well as cumulatively over the 6-year period they served together. Lieberman was more liberal in the 107th."

Not according to Media Matters, not according to Americans for Democratic Action, not according to your own source.

Lieberman's rating over his time in office is 85% vs. Edwards 75% vs. Obama, Clinton 95+%.

No problem with that but it means Edwards is the least progressive candidate. Edwards should perhaps sell himself as what he is, a conservative Democrat.

by BrionLutz on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 12:09:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How Many Times Do We Have To Do This??? (none / 0)

G'day Paul. Don't suppose you would care to give us a couple of examples of statements that come across as (3)? As an Obama supporter it concerns me.

by Shaun Appleby on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 03:05:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How Many Times Do We Have To Do This??? (none / 0)

I'm thinking primarily about his repeated criticisms of secular progressives like myself.

Perhaps the most notorious example of this was his Call to Renewal keynote speech.

A very carefully-reasoned critique of Obama's whole speech is available at Street Prophets here. It goes well beyond criticizing Obama's criticism of secularists, revealing a whole set of contradictions in Obama's basic contentions.

by Paul Rosenberg on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 11:08:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How Many Times Do We Have To Do This??? (none / 0)

Thanks, Paul. I will have a read of it and respond in this dairy sometime tomorrow. I am going to reluctantly sign off as I am in a far distant time-zone. Cheers.

by Shaun Appleby on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 11:31:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How Many Times Do We Have To Do This??? (none / 0)

Sorry I took so long to get back to you. Enjoyed that thoughtful critique, thought Senator Obama did alright, really, considering that it was an exhaustive analysis of a very tricky subject. I guess I consider myself a humanist, given the definitions in that analysis, and though raised by athiests never realised the secular movement had such an established presence.

Curiously, I also really liked the original speech. I also had a cringe over the 'under God' comment in the pledge of allegiance remark as I can recall some awkward moments in my childhood on this point. I felt this was the most fundamental flaw in the Senator's thesis and was self-contradictory.

I won't go into the minor objections in the critique because the author didn't emphasise them particularly and actually gave Obama equal plaudits and even one standing ovation. However, the author's most significant objection, the Say what! moment actually seemed to be making an inference which is not in the original text, however:

Our failure as progressives to tap into the moral underpinnings of the nation is not just rhetorical, though.

Here it is - he just said that religion is "the moral underpinnings of the nation."

He didn't actually say religon is 'the moral underpinnings of the nation.' One may be forgiven for inferring that, I suppose, from previous statements in the speech where progressives are criticised for abandoning the field of religous discourse but I did not accept the author's conclusion from the juxtaposition of these two phrases.

Having said that I was glad to read it and thank you for the link. I respect Senator Obama for attempting to negotiate this tricky terrain and it didn't seem to me that he was taking the opportunity to criticise secular progressives. In fact it seemed to me he was acknowledging the religious, constraining the evangelical right and actually reaffirming that separation of church and state is an indelible part of our culture and the rights of the very secular progressives you claim he is attacking 'because I do not believe that religious people have a monopoly on morality, I would rather have someone who is grounded in morality and ethics, and who is also secular, affirm their morality and ethics and values without pretending that they're something they're not.

Sounds like he is on your side to me.

by Shaun Appleby on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 07:21:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards less liberal than Lieberman (none / 0)

"What are you using to define "liberal" versus "conservative"?"

I didn't, the non-partisan "Media Matters" examined Edwards voting record in regard to Bush Jr charges that Edwards was "liberal".

As Media Matters noted, Edwards was not liberal and had one of the most conservative Democratic voting records.

This per Media Matters and Americans for Democratic Action. ADA is a typical benchmark for liberal records.

The links were provided.

Denying Edwards conservative record is not going to wash.

"Show me a link where Edwards calls for invading Iran?"

"Let me be clear: Under no circumstances can Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons," Edwards said. "For years, the US hasn't done enough to deal with what I have seen as a threat from Iran. As my country stayed on the sidelines, these problems got worse."

"You seem to think politics exists in some kind of vacuum. That candidates are unable to change over time. Don't be so naiive."

As to think a very conservative Edwards is going to change...I'm not that naive ;). I'm suggesting those claiming Edwards was/is a "progressive" have to start facing the facts. He was never even a liberal by any non-partisan measure. The idea he is a now a "progressive" is not supported by the facts.

by BrionLutz on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 12:54:05 AM EST

Re: Edwards less liberal than Lieberman (none / 0)

"Scorecards are useless."

Facts are inconvenient aren't they. The funniest part is that the non-partisan media matters was debunking the Bush Jr claims that Edwards was "liberal".

As the record shows, he was very conservative.

"Demonizing liberals as Liberman has done serves to demonize the issues those liberals hold dear making it tough to pass bill in favor of such issues."

Discuss that with the blogosphere the demonizes Lieberman.

I'm just pointing out the fact that over the long haul, Lieberman has a better liberal record than Edwards.

"But when time came to help elect anti Iraq war candidates, guess who care through- Edwards."

Edwards voted for Iraq war...you must have him confused with some other candidate.

Now Edwards says US should go to war to prevent Iran from getting nukes...that's Bush Jr's claim to expand the Iraq debacle into an even wider losing war for the US.

by BrionLutz on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 01:04:49 AM EST

Give it up. (2.25 / 4)

Lutz, stop it. Stop attacking the candidates. This is ridiculous. Stop it. Stop. Stop. Stop it. Stop attacking Clark. Stop attacking Edwards. Stop attacking Hillary. I hope you realize that what you are doing goes against your candidate's "different kind of politics". You make me like Obama less. It seems like every time I see a comment by you, you are attacking someone else. The other times, it is praise for Obama. I get it. Obama is great, the others suck. Whatev. This is ridiculous. I'm going home.

"And so in the place of the palace of privilege, we seek to build a temple out of faith and hope and charity."-FDR

by jallen on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 01:22:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Give it up. (none / 0)

I agree with this. And I like Obama a lot. But there's a good way to make that case, and I'm not sure that constantly trying to spin everything and attacking the other candidates is the right way to go.

People want to be convinced that Obama is the real deal (me included) - that should be the project for Obama supporters.

by Baldrick on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 03:13:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Why do facts upset the Edwards supporters? (none / 0)

"But there's a good way to make that case, and I'm not sure that constantly trying to spin everything and attacking the other candidates is the right way to go."

Simply pointed out that Edwards record, per respectable progressive groups like MediaMatters and ADA is a conservative record, more conservative than Lieberman.

I'd suggest the spin is those who claim Edwards as a "progressive" when his record is clearly not progressive.

The mad dog response of personal attacks tells you that the facts strike a nerve.

by BrionLutz on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 08:37:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why do facts upset the Edwards supporters? (none / 0)

Look, I don't like Edwards very much, though I couldn't really explain why. The thing is, the more that I read from you, the more I worry that my own anti-Edwards feelings are as ungrounded and unhinged as yours.

I do not deny that you think you are making a persuasive case against him. I'm just telling you that, from my own perspective, you are making an anti-persuasive case.

It seems to me that you are far more concerned in bashing than in recognizing nuance. In fact, the thing it reminds me most of is someone with a limited set of talking points who never addresses any explanation or argument except by returning to the original talking points.

Maybe that's not fair and you really are making clear and complete arguments, but it certainly doesn't seem so from my perspective, and I can't imagine I'm the only one.

Do with that what you will.

by Baldrick on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 04:15:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why do facts upset the Edwards supporters? (none / 0)

" In fact, the thing it reminds me most of is someone with a limited set of talking points who never addresses any explanation or argument except by returning to the original talking points."

We call that staying on topic and sticking with the facts :)

1. Edwards actual voting record. Conservative Democrat per MediaMatters, FactCheck, Americans for Democratic Action and even per the "counter" source one of the Edwards supporters referenced.

2. "But Edwards is from a conservative state" which warrants a so what? He's a conservative Democrat and that's why he got elected. No problem with that but it confirms Edwards conservative Democratic record.

Current claims by many on the blogosphere that Edwards is a "progressive" are contradicted by Edwards record in government.

None more apparent than the Iraq vote.

Edwards claims he made a mistake but play it forward, what is Edwards now saying about Iran. He is making his Iraq mistake all over again.

That is why looking at someone's record is important and valid.

The emotional blasts from Edwards supporters is more a recognition of the cognitive dissonance of their support for a conservative Democratic candidate who, for reasons they can't quite explain, they have crowned as a progressive.

by BrionLutz on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 09:57:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why do facts upset the Edwards supporters? (none / 0)

I am not arguing with you about Edwards. I don't understand why you keep trying to prove to me he's not progressive. That has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

Let me repeat again - I am not arguing with you about Edwards. You can't win this argument by proving that he's conservative. You can however, completely demonstrate my point.

by Baldrick on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 12:43:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why do facts upset the Edwards supporters? (none / 0)

" I don't understand why you keep trying to prove to me he's not progressive."

"Trying"?

Dude he's got one of the most conservative ratings of any Democratic Senator. He voted for Iraq war. Said it was a mistake when Iraq went bad.

Now he he's out supporting another Bush Jr war with Iran. I do not want to hear his apology for starting a nuclear war in the Middle East.

Edward is about as "progressive" as Rumsfeld with good hair.

As for why do I keep replying to your messages? Because you keep asking me to.

by BrionLutz on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 07:51:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Stop presenting facts? (none / 0)

"Lutz, stop it."

Sorry...I have an affinity for facts, the actual historical record.

That you view presenting Edwards voting record as an "attack" probably says more about the suspension of belief that is part of Edwards' support in the blogs as a "progressive".

Edwards record in government is that of one of the most conservative Democrats in Congress in his time.

Edwards denied being a "liberal" during the presidential debates.

His records says it. Edwards says it. You chose not to believe it.

by BrionLutz on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 06:03:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Brion's Working AGAINST Obama (3.00 / 1)

I've concluded that the only possible explanation for Brion's behavior is that he's working against Barack Obama. No one posting at MyDD has done more to make Obama look bad than he has.

The only way that he makes Obama look good is the fact that he argues like wignut--endlessly repeating arguments that have been refuted over and over again. This suggests that he may be working for the GOP, rather than for Hillary.

by Paul Rosenberg on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 09:22:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Brion's Working AGAINST Obama (none / 0)

It occurs to me that I've never seen BrionLutz and NeuvoLiberal in the room at the same time.... Curioser and curioser.

Dennis Kucinich, Progressive Democrat for President in 2008

by hoose on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 09:44:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Brion's Working AGAINST Obama (none / 0)

"I've concluded that the only possible explanation for Brion's behavior is that he's working against Barack Obama."

Well you concluded that Edwards was "progressive" but facts proved that wrong also ;)

by BrionLutz on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 12:04:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Ignoring The Facts Doesn't Make Them Go Away (none / 0)

New-born infants think that objects cease to exist when they disappear from sight. At around 8-9 months, they come to realize that objects still exist when they are hidden from sight--whether hidden behind another external ojbect, or simply hidden behind the infant's own eyelids. This stage of cognitive development is called "object permanence."

We are breathless awaiting your attainment of object permanence. We've got the frozen yogurt all ready.

by Paul Rosenberg on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 01:58:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards less liberal than Lieberman (none / 0)

Did you even read what I wrote? I did not dispute the scorecard stats. Those are facts, but how relevant are those facts to the agenda Edwards or Lieberman would set if they become President? What is relevant is what are the big issues they are pushing. On that count, Edwards has spent more time pushing liberal issues than Lieberman.

Edwards was wrong on the war, but he has changed on it. I don't see Lieberman having the ability to saee the light. But according to your scorecard, they probably rate about the same on the war. A senator's ability to persuade others to vote his way is important too, not just his votes.

As far as Iran, guess what, Edwards has gotten flak for it, justifiably, on this blog. So no one is going to dispute that. As far as economic issues, Edwards is to the left of me and Lieberman.

When you elect someone for President, it is important to consider the ability to stump for your favorite causes and give importance to the ones that are crucial for a given time period(just some rough examples for the sake of illustrating my point-abortion in the 70s, gay rights in the 90s, Iraq war and terrorism in the 00s).

Lyndon Johnson nearly redeemed his Presidency with his timely support for the civil rights movements. I doubt a more liberal President of that time would have done any better.

by Pravin on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 03:30:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards less liberal than Lieberman (3.00 / 1)

In a primary vote especially, having voted against the war and then renouncing that vote 3 years later is hardly satisfactory to me. Do I take that to mean President Edwards would have gone to war in Iraq in March 2003? And let that moral abomination continue for some 2 years, with American soldiers and Iraqi civillians being killed and wounded, before deciding it was a mistake?

Sure, it's better than Lieberman or a Republican. But it's hardly good enough. We can do better. We don't need someone who casts politically expedient votes and then renounces them when the political winds shift. We need someone who had the courage and foresight to oppose this war in 2002 when it had overwhelming support, lest we get caught in another quagmire in another country.

Give to Redistricting Project candidates for Democratic maps 2011-2021! http://www.actblue.com/page/redistrictin gproject

by Sandwich Repairman on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 06:29:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Unfair Characterization (3.00 / 2)

You do realize, of course, that by the same standard, you would have rejected RFK in 1968:

Sure, it's better than Lieberman or a Republican. But it's hardly good enough. We can do better. We don't need someone who casts politically expedient votes and then renounces them when the political winds shift. We need someone who had the courage and foresight to oppose this war in 2002 when it had overwhelming support, lest we get caught in another quagmire in another country.

This is a great and noble sentiment... except for the fact that today, and for the last year, Edwards has had a stronger position against the war than Obama has had. Obama was great when he had no power. When he gained power, not so much. Extend this progression to what he would do with presidential power, and the prospects are grim indeed.

OTOH, Edwards seems to have learned from his mistakes. You cast it as mere opportunism: "We don't need someone who casts politically expedient votes and then renounces them when the political winds shift." This is unfair on two counts:

(1) The 2003 IRW was presented as giving Bush authorization to go to war, so that he would have maximum leverage to force Saddam to let the inspectors in, so that we wouldn't have to go to war. It was bogus, of course. But it was the dominant narrative at the time--particularly inside the Beltway--and few Senators doubted it. It may have been an expedient vote for some, but it could also have been a sincere, but mistaken one.

If you want a candidate who was in a position of power and did something about it at that time, then Dennis Kucinich is your only choice. He took the lead in organizing the House Dems against the IRW, and ended up with a majority of House Dems voting against.

(2) (a) It's not just that the political winds have changed. There's also the little matter of how the facts have shown that the IRW was a fraud (Elizabeth Dela Vega is excellent on this.) (b) But while Edwards has changed his position, and called his original vote "a mistake," very few other politicians have been so out front, and so clear-cut in calling for withdrawl.

Of course, you don't have to accept my reasoning. But you should realize that your's is a contestable interpretation as well, and hardly warrants the tone of moral certainty you deliver it with.

By all means, go ahead and criticize Edwards for his vote. But unless you're supporting Dennis Kucinich, don't for a minute imagine that any other candidate is going to deliver the clear and unambiguous purity you desire on the war.

by Paul Rosenberg on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 09:48:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Unfair Characterization (none / 0)

"It's not just that the political winds have changed. There's also the little matter of how the facts have shown that the IRW was a fraud."

I simply noted the facts of Edwards voting record.

You on the other hand characterize Edwards as changing with the political winds as far as Iraq.

He makes bad decisions initially but if they prove unpopular, he'll change them.

Interesting but not a big selling point.

by BrionLutz on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 12:01:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I Wasn't Talking To You (none / 0)

I was addressing a rational interlocutor.

by Paul Rosenberg on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 02:00:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards less liberal than Lieberman (none / 0)

"Those are facts, but how relevant are those facts to the agenda Edwards or Lieberman would set if they become President?"

Now facts are no longer relevant...that is probably Edwards punchline.

If Edwards actual record in government as a Senator is conservative as the facts note, it is fair to conclude that is how he would continue to behave as president.

For Edwards to reject his own record in government, as you suggest, is not credible. If he was so wrong for so long, then why elect him president?

More to the point here, how can anyone claim with any credibility that Edwards is "progressive". The historical record says this it not true.

by BrionLutz on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 05:58:11 AM EST

Re: Edwards less liberal than Lieberman (3.00 / 3)

John Edwards comes from a state which elected and reelected Jesse Helms 4 or 5 times. North Carolina last voted for a Democrat for President in 1976. Illinois and New York are considered base Democratic states and have voted for a Democrat for President in the last 4 or 5 elections. The percentage of voters in North Carolina who are union members is insignificant when compared to Connecticut, Illinois, New York, or Massachusetts. Edwards was narrowly elected to the Senate against an opponent whose ADA rating was either 0 or very close to 0. If Barack Obama had run for the Senate in North Carolina his ADA rating would be lower and he would sound more like Harold Ford. That doesn't make Obama a hypocrite, it makes him a realist. It takes more political courage to have a 75% progessive rating in North Carolina than to have a 95% progressive rating in Illinois or New York.

by darrow on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 08:03:33 AM EST

Sigh! (3.00 / 1)

There you go, bringing reality into the argument.

How dare you let reality get in the way of carefully orchestrated "facts"?

by Paul Rosenberg on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 11:13:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sigh! (3.00 / 1)

This is 100% true! North Carolina may even possibly, though the competition is rather fierce, be the most illiberal state in the nation. And even though I've taken ten tons of flack for showing that Edwards has not acted as liberal in the past as he is today, there are reasonable grounds to hope that he really would be much better today. One is the fact that North Carolina is so illiberal. Another is the sheer amount of liberal rhetoric. It probably can't all be BS. So I would have real reasons to give him a substantial benefit of the doubt.

Actually, his position on the war is rather convincing. I am becoming really tired of Hillary Clinton's inability to articulate any reasonable willingness to stop the war. She will surely find herself needing that just as soon as the American people wake up to the fact that this Middle East adventure is turning into a disaster of Vietnamese proportions.

by blues on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 01:10:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards less liberal than Lieberman (none / 0)

"John Edwards comes from a state which elected and reelected Jesse Helms 4 or 5 times."

You enumerate the reasons why Edwards has a conservative record. You confirm a fact that many of his supporters don't know or deny.

The problem is Edwards and his supporters are selling him, not as a conservative Democrat but as a "progressive" Democrat, which he clearly is not.

Edwards recent visit to Israel to honor Ariel Sharon (the illegal settlements, Shatila massacre fame,not the most savory of characters) was quite the bellicose trip in which Edwards threatens war with Iran.

This of course is the same threat we are hearing from Bush Jr.

It was over war in the Middle East that the "progressive blogosphere" rejected the more liberal Lieberman yet it embraces the more conservative, Middle East war supporting Edwards.

Are we going to have to listen to Edwards in four years saying his decision to support the Iran war was as wrong as his decision to support the Iraq war?

Hmmm.

by BrionLutz on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 11:56:14 AM EST

More On The Cognitive Impairment of BrionLutz (none / 0)

"John Edwards comes from a state which elected and reelected Jesse Helms 4 or 5 times."

You enumerate the reasons why Edwards has a conservative record. You confirm a fact that many of his supporters don't know or deny

No. This is an explanation of why his Senate record is almost certainly more conservative than it would be if he were from Illinois or New York, just to pick a couple of deep blue states out of thin air. It is not an endorsement of your counter-factual claims that Edwards has a conservative record.

by Paul Rosenberg on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 02:05:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Edwards vs. MediaMatters and ADA et al (none / 0)

"This is an explanation of why his Senate record is almost certainly more conservative than it would be if he were from Illinois or New York, just to pick a couple of deep blue states out of thin air."

Edwards rating is not going to change. His Senate record is written in stone.

His overall record was one of the most conservative of the Democratic Senators...this was per MediaMatters (a progressive fact check group), Americans for Democratic Action (the gold standard on liberal/conservative ratings for politicians based on their voting record) and your own source DW-Nominate, all had Lieberman more liberal voting record than Edwards.

by BrionLutz on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 08:17:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.