About Edwards and his lack of substance (link in other thread, but since Kick keeps on trashing him in different threads, I'll post this here too).
The point of this editorial is that Edwards has been substantive, and much more substantive than others on that particular issue, but the media has ignored it. It wouldn't surprise me if the NC press is against a Democratic politician in an extremely conservative state, but that doesn't mean NC knows something the rest of the country doesn't - it could simply mean the NC press is biased in its own way.
Um... I think you're missing my point.
He did the same thing here for his Senate seat, then walked out on the job in the middle of it.
He said he'd fight for the little guy - that was his catchphrase - and he walked out in the middle of it.
This has nothing to do with media bias. It is simply that he walked out of the job he was elected to do, to represent the people of NC in the Senate, because he saw something a little more glittery he wanted instead.
He gave up on the people who elected him, and walked away - but without even the decency of giving up his seat so a replacement that *would* represent his constituency could be elected.
There's no bias here from media in the formation of my opinion. It is based solely on his decision to walk away from the job he was elected for, and breaking the trust of the people who voted for him.
Yes, he does indeed have published pamphlets, and a book. And he did the same thing for the Senate run, then turned his back on everyone. *THAT* is why I can't stand him, and think he's a poor representative of the people who vote for him... because he turned out not to represent anyone but himself in the end. And that's not what elected officials should do, in my opinion.
He did the same thing here for his Senate seat, then walked out on the job in the middle of it.
He said he'd fight for the little guy - that was his catchphrase - and he walked out in the middle of it.
This has nothing to do with media bias. It is simply that he walked out of the job he was elected to do, to represent the people of NC in the Senate, because he saw something a little more glittery he wanted instead.
He gave up on the people who elected him, and walked away - but without even the decency of giving up his seat so a replacement that *would* represent his constituency could be elected.
There's no bias here from media in the formation of my opinion. It is based solely on his decision to walk away from the job he was elected for, and breaking the trust of the people who voted for him.
Yes, he does indeed have published pamphlets, and a book. And he did the same thing for the Senate run, then turned his back on everyone. *THAT* is why I can't stand him, and think he's a poor representative of the people who vote for him... because he turned out not to represent anyone but himself in the end. And that's not what elected officials should do, in my opinion.
You may feel differently. It's your vote.
Let's try to catch you in an obvious logical trap: should George W. Bush have fulfilled *his* term before running for office? Should all candidates fulfill their term before running for another office? (excluding maybe the last year of office of course)
Let's try to catch you in an obvious logical trap: should George W. Bush have fulfilled *his* term before running for office? Should all candidates fulfill their term before running for another office? (excluding maybe the last year of office of course)
Yes, they should. If they choose to pursue another course, they should *at least* step down officially so a replacement can be elected ASAP. Not this namby-pamby kinda sorta being there but not really.
Why did you assume that this would be a logical trap for me?
I got your point, you don't like him because he's running for president. You're trying to present as objectively true that he's a horrible Senator, a bad person, or whatever, and that you're just informing us uninformed folks of this fact.
But the fact is he didn't give up his job as Senator. I happen to know for sure that he voted against the 87 billions for Iraq and Bush's Medicare proposals. And it's pretty typical to not give up your seat when you're in a primary, but to do so in the general election. I just think you're trying to present something as fact that actually has very little substance.
I have a theory that Dean's wife is responsible for his popularity drop.
She is maybe a little, uhm, what's the word I'm looking for... downtrodden.
Yes, definitely the right word. In fact I turned off the TV when Chris Matthews asked, "Where is Dean's wife?" It's as if the notion of a woman who refuses to be subserviant to her husband is foreign to people. She's no Laura Bush for that matter. She's not even Hillary Clinton. In fact Judith Steinberg Dean is the antithesis of the oppressed woman. She chooses to have her her own life and make her own career, and she's getting pilloried for it.
Kerry would never win: his lame atempts at ingratiating himself to some image of liberals has made him do idiotic things: swearing in interviews, taking joke-tokes while singing with a buncha ex-folk singers etc . . . he seems a phony . . . striving after Dean's younger voters and alienating people with integrity
besides his lame arse record with cow-towing to this administration . . .
Clark is the only candidate that stands a chance and his foriegn policy experience as head of NATO is real experience beyond that of any of the other candidates . . . .
Yes, they should. If they choose to pursue another course, they should *at least* step down officially so a replacement can be elected ASAP. Not this namby-pamby kinda sorta being there but not really.
Why did you assume that this would be a logical trap for me?
I didn't, which is why I *announced* it beforehand. Interesting point of view, but I can't say I agree.
I disagree. You list a couple of large items that he voted for that you agree with. That's great. He did vote on a few things, indeed.
What upset people down here is that he *didn't bother to vote* on many other issues that they cared about. His voting percentage was quite low compared to the rest of the Senate. And that was *before* he decided to run.
How can you expect him to do his job well when he's a bit, um... distracted?
I think it was unfair of him to do this to the people who trusted him with their vote.
And it may be normal to keep the seat during the primaries, but I still say it's unfair to the constituency. Slimy even, no matter *who* does it, I don't like it. If he'd been in year 6, or even 5, it would be almost alright... we'd have gotten at least 4 years out of him, but no. The Senate seat here was just a personal gain stepping stone for him.
I don't like him as a person. I think he's deceitful, and more than willing to turn his back on the very people that voted for him and trusted him. And I have no doubt that he'll do it again when it is convenient for him.
So much has been made about Bush lying, with possible proof being put forward... yet here's a pretty clear cut case in my mind. "I will fight for you!" Well no, no you didn't. You turned your back on us when something else caught your eye. Thanks for nothing, Mr. Edwards.
I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. You're looking at his stated positions, I'm more familiar with his record for this state. *shrug*
Kerry would never win: his lame atempts at ingratiating himself to some image of liberals has made him do idiotic things: swearing in interviews, taking joke-tokes while singing with a buncha ex-folk singers etc . . . he seems a phony . . . striving after Dean's younger voters and alienating people with integrity
besides his lame arse record with cow-towing to this administration . . .
Clark is the only candidate that stands a chance and his foriegn policy experience as head of NATO is real experience beyond that of any of the other candidates . . . .
harumph . . .
pfflam you and I are thinking exactly the same with this.
Actually I disagreed with his vote on Iraq. I just happened to remember it and the Medicare vote, because I've heard him talk about it. I'm just saying that he still is voting on issues, whereas you've suggested that he's really not a Senator from NC any more, that he quit his job. That's just not true. Most of their votes are crap anyway - they're quorum calls and sense of the senate and other nonsense.
Eh, people make political decisions based on weird things like hair and sweaters, so if you want to make it on the basis of something like running for president as a senator, I suppose that's better than most of the "swing voters."
You're right, I assumed you agreed with his votes. My apologies, bad on my part.
What I'm afraid of is that his charisma *will* be the main reason that he gets votes... CNN has called him 'the Golden Boy' of this election no less than six times in the past 90 minutes, and has likened him to JFK four times. Luckily, they also had a political analyst on there who stated that his biggest supporters are young women and soccer moms, and that they think he's not a serious contender long-term.
Yes, he does still vote on some issues. But if you check his record, you find that he almost always votes on the ones that get national media attention. Several have slipped by him that were directly related to his state... funny that.
Does anyone know where to find a good synopsis of a representative's votes by representative, and not just by bill? I've checked senate.gov, THOMAS, C-SPAN, etc, and I'd have to go through them all manually to compile his voting record. :P Bleah!
Tim Russert badgered Kerry to ask if he was going to drop out and Kerry refused....this win will take him to Michigan, but perhaps no farther. Ask me again later.
Dean's not dead, but he's been whacked. Watch for him to straighten up from here on out. He's still the number one to a lot of people.
Edwards really pissed off some voters (see Kickaha's posts) but he's awful purty! He could really surprise people now that he's made a mark.
Clark? I don't care how reliable he is, the vision of a General in charge of the Executive Branch scares a lot of people. We've all seen too many crazy general movies from Dr. Strangelove to the present. I'll be surprised if he makes it past the next few rounds.
Clinton? Sorry ast3r3x, you'll have to like his presidency without me. He might be a swell guy, but not my favorite President. That would the Napoleon of the Stump...that guy's got a catchy theme song.
Comments
Originally posted by BRussell
About Edwards and his lack of substance (link in other thread, but since Kick keeps on trashing him in different threads, I'll post this here too).
The point of this editorial is that Edwards has been substantive, and much more substantive than others on that particular issue, but the media has ignored it. It wouldn't surprise me if the NC press is against a Democratic politician in an extremely conservative state, but that doesn't mean NC knows something the rest of the country doesn't - it could simply mean the NC press is biased in its own way.
Um... I think you're missing my point.
He did the same thing here for his Senate seat, then walked out on the job in the middle of it.
He said he'd fight for the little guy - that was his catchphrase - and he walked out in the middle of it.
This has nothing to do with media bias. It is simply that he walked out of the job he was elected to do, to represent the people of NC in the Senate, because he saw something a little more glittery he wanted instead.
He gave up on the people who elected him, and walked away - but without even the decency of giving up his seat so a replacement that *would* represent his constituency could be elected.
There's no bias here from media in the formation of my opinion. It is based solely on his decision to walk away from the job he was elected for, and breaking the trust of the people who voted for him.
Yes, he does indeed have published pamphlets, and a book. And he did the same thing for the Senate run, then turned his back on everyone. *THAT* is why I can't stand him, and think he's a poor representative of the people who vote for him... because he turned out not to represent anyone but himself in the end. And that's not what elected officials should do, in my opinion.
You may feel differently. It's your vote.
Originally posted by Kickaha
Um... I think you're missing my point.
He did the same thing here for his Senate seat, then walked out on the job in the middle of it.
He said he'd fight for the little guy - that was his catchphrase - and he walked out in the middle of it.
This has nothing to do with media bias. It is simply that he walked out of the job he was elected to do, to represent the people of NC in the Senate, because he saw something a little more glittery he wanted instead.
He gave up on the people who elected him, and walked away - but without even the decency of giving up his seat so a replacement that *would* represent his constituency could be elected.
There's no bias here from media in the formation of my opinion. It is based solely on his decision to walk away from the job he was elected for, and breaking the trust of the people who voted for him.
Yes, he does indeed have published pamphlets, and a book. And he did the same thing for the Senate run, then turned his back on everyone. *THAT* is why I can't stand him, and think he's a poor representative of the people who vote for him... because he turned out not to represent anyone but himself in the end. And that's not what elected officials should do, in my opinion.
You may feel differently. It's your vote.
Let's try to catch you in an obvious logical trap: should George W. Bush have fulfilled *his* term before running for office? Should all candidates fulfill their term before running for another office? (excluding maybe the last year of office of course)
She is maybe a little, uhm, what's the word I'm looking for... downtrodden.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Let's try to catch you in an obvious logical trap: should George W. Bush have fulfilled *his* term before running for office? Should all candidates fulfill their term before running for another office? (excluding maybe the last year of office of course)
Yes, they should. If they choose to pursue another course, they should *at least* step down officially so a replacement can be elected ASAP. Not this namby-pamby kinda sorta being there but not really.
Why did you assume that this would be a logical trap for me?
But the fact is he didn't give up his job as Senator. I happen to know for sure that he voted against the 87 billions for Iraq and Bush's Medicare proposals. And it's pretty typical to not give up your seat when you're in a primary, but to do so in the general election. I just think you're trying to present something as fact that actually has very little substance.
Originally posted by Ganondorf
I have a theory that Dean's wife is responsible for his popularity drop.
She is maybe a little, uhm, what's the word I'm looking for... downtrodden.
Yes, definitely the right word. In fact I turned off the TV when Chris Matthews asked, "Where is Dean's wife?" It's as if the notion of a woman who refuses to be subserviant to her husband is foreign to people. She's no Laura Bush for that matter. She's not even Hillary Clinton. In fact Judith Steinberg Dean is the antithesis of the oppressed woman. She chooses to have her her own life and make her own career, and she's getting pilloried for it.
besides his lame arse record with cow-towing to this administration . . .
Clark is the only candidate that stands a chance and his foriegn policy experience as head of NATO is real experience beyond that of any of the other candidates . . . .
harumph . . .
Originally posted by Kickaha
Yes, they should. If they choose to pursue another course, they should *at least* step down officially so a replacement can be elected ASAP. Not this namby-pamby kinda sorta being there but not really.
Why did you assume that this would be a logical trap for me?
I didn't, which is why I *announced* it beforehand.
What upset people down here is that he *didn't bother to vote* on many other issues that they cared about. His voting percentage was quite low compared to the rest of the Senate. And that was *before* he decided to run.
How can you expect him to do his job well when he's a bit, um... distracted?
I think it was unfair of him to do this to the people who trusted him with their vote.
And it may be normal to keep the seat during the primaries, but I still say it's unfair to the constituency. Slimy even, no matter *who* does it, I don't like it. If he'd been in year 6, or even 5, it would be almost alright... we'd have gotten at least 4 years out of him, but no. The Senate seat here was just a personal gain stepping stone for him.
I don't like him as a person. I think he's deceitful, and more than willing to turn his back on the very people that voted for him and trusted him. And I have no doubt that he'll do it again when it is convenient for him.
So much has been made about Bush lying, with possible proof being put forward... yet here's a pretty clear cut case in my mind. "I will fight for you!" Well no, no you didn't. You turned your back on us when something else caught your eye. Thanks for nothing, Mr. Edwards.
I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. You're looking at his stated positions, I'm more familiar with his record for this state. *shrug*
Originally posted by pfflam
Kerry would never win: his lame atempts at ingratiating himself to some image of liberals has made him do idiotic things: swearing in interviews, taking joke-tokes while singing with a buncha ex-folk singers etc . . . he seems a phony . . . striving after Dean's younger voters and alienating people with integrity
besides his lame arse record with cow-towing to this administration . . .
Clark is the only candidate that stands a chance and his foriegn policy experience as head of NATO is real experience beyond that of any of the other candidates . . . .
harumph . . .
pfflam you and I are thinking exactly the same with this.
Fellows
Actually I disagreed with his vote on Iraq. I just happened to remember it and the Medicare vote, because I've heard him talk about it. I'm just saying that he still is voting on issues, whereas you've suggested that he's really not a Senator from NC any more, that he quit his job. That's just not true. Most of their votes are crap anyway - they're quorum calls and sense of the senate and other nonsense.
Eh, people make political decisions based on weird things like hair and sweaters, so if you want to make it on the basis of something like running for president as a senator, I suppose that's better than most of the "swing voters."
What I'm afraid of is that his charisma *will* be the main reason that he gets votes... CNN has called him 'the Golden Boy' of this election no less than six times in the past 90 minutes, and has likened him to JFK four times. Luckily, they also had a political analyst on there who stated that his biggest supporters are young women and soccer moms, and that they think he's not a serious contender long-term.
Yes, he does still vote on some issues. But if you check his record, you find that he almost always votes on the ones that get national media attention. Several have slipped by him that were directly related to his state... funny that.
Does anyone know where to find a good synopsis of a representative's votes by representative, and not just by bill? I've checked senate.gov, THOMAS, C-SPAN, etc, and I'd have to go through them all manually to compile his voting record. :P Bleah!
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Gephardt dropped out. (NYT)
Yeah, listening to his speech now and he basically dropped out in that speech.
Originally posted by ast3r3x
Gore would have been better.
Not to open a long buried can of worms, but IMO Gore had about as much personality and character as George W. Bush had at the beginning, i.e. none.
[This isn't an attempt to start a Bush v. Gore debate, so lets leave it at that. Please.]
Gephardt just tapped out. Buh-bye.
Tim Russert badgered Kerry to ask if he was going to drop out and Kerry refused....this win will take him to Michigan, but perhaps no farther. Ask me again later.
Dean's not dead, but he's been whacked. Watch for him to straighten up from here on out. He's still the number one to a lot of people.
Edwards really pissed off some voters (see Kickaha's posts) but he's awful purty! He could really surprise people now that he's made a mark.
Clark? I don't care how reliable he is, the vision of a General in charge of the Executive Branch scares a lot of people. We've all seen too many crazy general movies from Dr. Strangelove to the present. I'll be surprised if he makes it past the next few rounds.
Clinton? Sorry ast3r3x, you'll have to like his presidency without me. He might be a swell guy, but not my favorite President. That would the Napoleon of the Stump...that guy's got a catchy theme song.
Originally posted by drewprops
My 2¢:
So who do you think will get the nomination?
It seems that each one of them have still some issues left to overcome.
Originally posted by job
So who do you think will get the nomination?
Clark
Fellows