View Full Version : Nader Backs Edwards
Could his endorsemt tip the 3-way tie in Iowa?
I believe this will do Edwards a ton of good.Source (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/01/nader-backs-edwards_n_79023.html)
Nader Backs Edwards
Politico.com | David Paul Kuhn | January 1, 2008 09:13 AM
---------------------------------
MUSCATINE, Iowa -- Ralph Nader unleashed on Hillary Rodham Clinton Monday - criticizing her for being soft on defense spending and a chum of big business - and expressed his strong support for John Edwards.
In an 11th hour effort to encourage liberal Iowans to "recognize" Edwards by "giving him a victory," the activist and former presidential contender said in an interview that Clinton will "pander to corporate interest groups" if elected.
Nader specifically accused Clinton of failing to challenge military spending because "she is a woman who doesn't want to be labeled as soft on defense and she doesn't want to be shown as taking on big business."
Click here (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1207/7647.html)to continue reading over at the Politico.
Finuzzo!
01-01-2008, 09:43 PM
John Edwards is a fraud :)
Kevin67
01-01-2008, 10:01 PM
This is not going to make a significant difference in the overall election picture.
bishop
01-01-2008, 10:14 PM
supporting a politician who supported the iraq war powers act... i guess nader's really desperate these days when it comes to anti-war politicians..
A lot of congress members were fooled by the bush admin lies.
The president should be trustworthy.
Edwards admitted he was wrong and apologized to the American people.
I respect that.
Very few Dems have done that.
Let alone republicans [hr]
John Edwards is a fraud :)
You have Romney in your sig....
Mitt Romney is a creepy mormon racist who drives across country with his dog strapped to the roof, and lies. Lots of lies... (Liars go to the same place as murderers.)
Mitt lied about seeing his dad and MLK march together.
Mitt lied by saying Saddam didnt let the inspectors in.
He is a Mexican Nationalist.
His religion is Crap.
Thats just for starters.
You really shouldnt be casting stones at better men.
Name calling? gimme a break.[hr]Not just Romney is a racist.... Romneys idiot GOD is a BIGOT.
bishop
01-01-2008, 11:52 PM
been a long time since we've had a trustworthy president.. i wonder if we've ever had such a president..
a lot of congress members place votes for bills they've never bothered to read. edwards was a staunch war monger at the time and when looking at his record in office, he's indiscernible from a bushista.. the guy's rhetoric obviously can fool some people - but i'm not buying the bull. fool me once, shame on you. fool me twice, shame on me.
You did not substantiate your claim that "Edwards is a fraud".
Heres documentation that Mitty is a fraud:
Source (http://www.redstate.com/stories/the_parties/republicans/mitt_romney_lies_about_abortion)
"I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time when my Mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years that we should sustain and support it, and I sustain and support that law and the right of a woman to make that choice."
-Mitt Romney in a 1994 Senatorial debate
"I respect and will fully protect a woman's right to choose. That choice is a deeply personal one, and the women of our state should make it based on their beliefs, not mine and not the government's."
-Mitt Romney in a 2002 GOP acceptance speech
"I've never called myself pro-choice."
-Mitt Romney in a 2006 Redstate interviewI too, think abortion should be safe and legal (and rare).... He is willing to buy votes with his lies .... thats FRAUD![hr] edwards was a staunch war monger at the time and when looking at his record in office, he's indiscernible from a bushista.. You mean at the time in the lead up to war when bush gave his mushroom cloud, SOTU address?
And, when "the honorable" Colon Powell was ramping up the case for war at the UN?
washington post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/11/AR2005111101623.html)
The Right Way in Iraq
By John Edwards
Sunday, November 13, 2005; Page B07
I was wrong.
Almost three years ago we went into Iraq to remove what we were told -- and what many of us believed and argued -- was a threat to America. But in fact we now know that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction when our forces invaded Iraq in 2003. The intelligence was deeply flawed and, in some cases, manipulated to fit a political agenda.
It was a mistake to vote for this war in 2002. I take responsibility for that mistake. It has been hard to say these words because those who didn't make a mistake -- the men and women of our armed forces and their families -- have performed heroically and paid a dear price.
The world desperately needs moral leadership from America, and the foundation for moral leadership is telling the truth.
While we can't change the past, we need to accept responsibility, because a key part of restoring America's moral leadership is acknowledging when we've made mistakes or been proven wrong -- and showing that we have the creativity and guts to make it right.
The argument for going to war with Iraq was based on intelligence that we now know was inaccurate. The information the American people were hearing from the president -- and that I was being given by our intelligence community -- wasn't the whole story. Had I known this at the time, I never would have voted for this war.
George Bush won't accept responsibility for his mistakes. Along with Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, he has made horrible mistakes at almost every step: failed diplomacy; not going in with enough troops; not giving our forces the equipment they need; not having a plan for peace.
Because of these failures, Iraq is a mess and has become a far greater threat than it ever was. It is now a haven for terrorists, and our presence there is draining the goodwill our country once enjoyed, diminishing our global standing. It has made fighting the global war against terrorist organizations more difficult, not less.
more... (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/11/AR2005111101623.html)
You and I knew it was the wrong choice going in. Especially when the presidunce was inserting "911" into Iraq scare speeches.
People STILL think Iraq had something to do with 911.... just because the goddamned presiturd connected them.
The republicans are still gullible when it comes to this simplest fact.
There were no terrorists in Iraq until dumbya said "Bring em on".
He hates the troops. He is a traitor.
John Edwards is a fine Statesman from the cloth of Thomas Jefferson... who said:
"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country."
- Thomas Jefferson
edwards was a staunch war monger at the time and when looking at his record in office, he's indiscernible from a bushista.. You mean at the time in the lead up to war when bush gave his mushroom cloud, SOTU address? And, when "the honorable" Colon Powell was ramping up the case for war at the UN?
That justification is pathetically flimsy given that the UN inspectors were in Iraq and it was as yet undetermined that there would be a genuine need for the application of military force.
Edwards succumbed to political cowardice, as did almost all of the Dems. They abrogated their responsibility to hold the Executive Branch accountable, and the fact that Bush employed fraudulent Intelligence does not excuse there disgraceful actions.
pogo said:
"That justification is pathetically flimsy ...."
I am sure the Captain of the Titanic would do things different, had he another chance.
G Dumbya is still going headstrong down the wrong road....
At least Edwards has the decency to admit his support for the war was wrong.
And he will end this god forsaken fuck-up.
In hindsight every last goddamned politician in DC should be against the war by now.
Hindsight is impeccable, in fact it should be flawless.
Yet Hillary has yet to admit her mistake.
Dennis Kucinich never voted for the war. Neither did Ron Paul... but neither of them have even a slight chance of winning. Time for a reality check. Which Neo-Con will end the war?
Everybody's a monday morning quarterback.
Lets look at the solution and quit dwelling on what could have been.
pogo said:
"That justification is pathetically flimsy ...."
I am sure the Captain of the Titanic would do things different, had he another chance.
G Dumbya is still going headstrong down the wrong road....
At least Edwards has the decency to admit his support for the war was wrong.
And he will end this god forsaken fuck-up.
In hindsight every last goddamned politician in DC should be against the war by now.
Hindsight is impeccable, in fact it should be flawless.
Yet Hillary has yet to admit her mistake.
Dennis Kucinich never voted for the war. Neither did Ron Paul... but neither of them have even a slight chance of winning. Time for a reality check. Which Neo-Con will end the war?
Everybody's a monday morning quarterback.
Lets look at the solution and quit dwelling on what could have been.
Hindsight has nothing whatsoever to do with holding the executive Branch accountable and resisting their desire for what amounted to a preauthorization to go to war. Regardless of the bogus Intelligence, at the time Edwards voted, the UN inspectors were in place and had yet to reach a determination as to Iraq's status re WMD. There was no compelling need to bypass the UN inspection process, and in voting to authorize war, Edwards helped to enable Bush to flout international law.
Regardless of the bogus Intelligence, at the time Edwards voted, the UN inspectors were in place and had yet to reach a determination as to Iraq's status re WMD. There was no compelling need to bypass the UN inspection process, and in voting to authorize war, Edwards helped to enable Bush to flout international law.
Actually, many of those who waived their congressional war powers, did so, in good faith, with the understanding that the inspections would be completed. That the UN would reach a decision on the existance of WMD's, based on the report. That that decision would be honored.
You are trying to blame Edwards for being lied to. Why not put the blame where it belongs; on the presitard.... this makes you guys look silly. Is this a comedy act?[hr]The inspections were testing compliance with UN resolutions.
It was starting to look like those sanctions were going to be lifted... if Iraq tested clean.
Cheney would not stand for that.... he NEEDED that oil.
The minority congress really didnt have much say in the matter.
Again, try to put the blame where it belongs.[hr]RAW STORY (http://rawstory.com/news/2005/House_Judiciary_Democrats_issue_report_alleging_12 20.html)
<snip>
In brief, we have found that there is substantial evidence the President, the Vice President and other high ranking members of the Bush Administration misled Congress and the American people regarding the decision to go to war with Iraq; misstated and manipulated intelligence information regarding the justification for such war; countenanced torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and other legal violations in Iraq; and permitted inappropriate retaliation against critics of their Administration.
There is at least a prima facie case that these actions by the President, Vice-President and other members of the Bush Administration violate a number of federal laws, including (1) Committing a Fraud against the United States; (2) Making False Statements to Congress; (3) The War Powers Resolution; (4) Misuse of Government Funds; (5) federal laws and international treaties prohibiting torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment; (6) federal laws concerning retaliating against witnesses and other individuals; and (7) federal laws and regulations concerning leaking and other misuse of intelligence.
While these charges clearly rise to the level of impeachable misconduct, because the Bush Administration and the Republican-controlled Congress have blocked the ability of Members to obtain information directly from the Administration concerning these matters or responding to these charges, more investigatory authority is needed before recommendations can be made regarding specific Articles of Impeachment. As a result, we recommend that Congress establish a select committee with subpoena authority to investigate the misconduct of the Bush Administration with regard to the Iraq war detailed in this Report and report to the Committee on the Judiciary on possible impeachable offenses.
<snip>Of course we all know this went nowhere... the minority did not have the subpoena powers to expose the frauds on the throne.
But they did try.
You bashers seem to think the dems had more power than they really did.
Actually, many of those who waived their congressional war powers, did so, in good faith, with the understanding that the inspections would be completed. That the UN would reach a decision on the existance of WMD's, based on the report. That that decision would be honored.
You are trying to blame Edwards for being lied to. Why not put the blame where it belongs; on the presitard.... this makes you guys look silly. Is this a comedy act?[hr]The inspections were testing compliance with UN resolutions.
It was starting to look like those sanctions were going to be lifted... if Iraq tested clean.
Cheney would not stand for that.... he NEEDED that oil.
The minority congress really didnt have much say in the matter.
Again, try to put the blame where it belongs.
I am putting the blame where it belongs. To act on the assumption that the president would abide by international law was an abrogation of both moral and congressional responsibility. I don't dispute that the Bush administration used fraudulent Intelligence to support their desire to go to war, but the inspectors were in Iraq at that point in time and there was no good purpose served in authorizing war prior to the UNSC reaching a determination that Iraq posed a serious threat to international peace and security.
Try to get it through your head that this was a situation where we didn't have to rely solely on Intelligence -- there were people on the ground in Iraq and it was only a matter of time before the facts would become known. In voting to authorize war prior to the inspectors finishing their task, Edwards helped Bush to circumvent international law.
So the president should be assumed to be a LIAR??
I mean, everybody knows that now. But 4 or 5 years ago only half of the world knew it.
So the president should be assumed to be a LIAR??
I mean, everybody knows that now. But 4 or 5 years ago only half of the world knew it.
No, Edwards needn't have assumed Bush to be a liar, though I think there was considerable evidence at that time showing that he was.
The morally and congressionally responsible course of action would have been, knowing that this was a situation where all or most of the cards were going to be on the table in a matter of time, to vote against authorizing war and recommend that the matter be brought up for consideration after the inspectors had completed their task or reported that the Iraq gov't was preventing them from doing so.
I agree.
I dont know what the big rush was either.
Except, I think they were trying to err on the side of caution (not knowing how aggressive bush/cheney would be.)
I am justifying them doing it... I am trying to see what they were thinking.
Monday quarterback.
I have been against the war from day one. Supposedly Congress had been provided fabricated intelligence from the WH, that wasnt released... top secret stuff (John Conyers said they made one helluva case for war.... but it was all lies.)
firefox
01-02-2008, 04:13 AM
been a long time since we've had a trustworthy president.. i wonder if we've ever had such a president..
a lot of congress members place votes for bills they've never bothered to read. edwards was a staunch war monger at the time and when looking at his record in office, he's indiscernible from a bushista.. the guy's rhetoric obviously can fool some people - but i'm not buying the bull. fool me once, shame on you. fool me twice, shame on me.
Exactly! That's why they need to be forced to read the bills (http://www.downsizedc.org/read_the_laws.shtml).
AlonzoMourning23
01-02-2008, 04:19 AM
If they read all the bills we'd still be voting on legislation from 1993. It's simply impractical to require legislators to read every bill, from page 1 to the end. They get summaries which usually suffice. I'm not saying that they shouldn't ensure they actually know what they're voting on, but you can't expect them to read everything entirely that they vote on.
Though, as for nader, I'm glad he decided against fucking up this election and instead threw his support behind someone else.
Though, as for nader, I'm glad he decided against fucking up this election and instead threw his support behind someone else.
Yeah, the a**hole should have been locked up for putting a gun to the head of the people who voted for him. The man's obviously a terrorist.
AlonzoMourning23
01-02-2008, 04:39 AM
Though, as for nader, I'm glad he decided against fucking up this election and instead threw his support behind someone else.
Yeah, the a**hole should have been locked up for putting a gun to the head of the people who voted for him. The man's obviously a terrorist.
Now you're seeing things my way!
edwards was a staunch war monger at the time and when looking at his record in office, he's indiscernible from a bushista.He voted against CAFTA,
Voted against Ashcroft for AG,
He Voted against funding the war in Sept, 2004:link (http://votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=V3330&can_id=21107)
Emergency Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan
Roll Call Number: 400
Bill Passed (Senate)
How members voted (http://votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_member.php?cs_id=V3330)
How many "bushistas" did THAT?
Hint?
NONE[hr]
If you ask Nader, he'll tell you he didnt steal any votes from Gore. Gore stole votes from HIM! :clapper::madlaugh::clapper:
With Nader out of the equation this time around, there won't be a Liberal gadfly to pull votes away from the Democratic nominee. THAT'S the importance of this announcement. Ralph has given up being a spoiler because he sees what it did to us the first time he did it. Now let's hope Bloomberg runs and takes Joe Lieberman with him...
Why do you think Bloomburger would choose a republicon for a running mate?
With Nader out of the equation this time around, there won't be a Liberal gadfly to pull votes away from the Democratic nominee. THAT'S the importance of this announcement. Ralph has given up being a spoiler because he sees what it did to us the first time he did it. Now let's hope Bloomberg runs and takes Joe Lieberman with him...
Is the Democratic party so weak that it has to blame Nader for it's abject failure?
For those who have head buried deeply in sand, this is indeed a rhetorical question.
Why do you think Bloomburger would choose a republicon for a running mate?
Politically, they are very close in viewpoints and Bloomy "used" to be a Democrat, just like Joe. Neither has the support of their claimed party. They are a perfect match.
With Nader out of the equation this time around, there won't be a Liberal gadfly to pull votes away from the Democratic nominee. THAT'S the importance of this announcement. Ralph has given up being a spoiler because he sees what it did to us the first time he did it. Now let's hope Bloomberg runs and takes Joe Lieberman with him...
Is the Democratic party so weak that it has to blame Nader for it's abject failure?
For those who have head buried deeply in sand, this is indeed a rhetorical question.
No, I blame the vote stealers in Florida for the 2000 loss but Nader took enough votes away so that it was close enough to steal. I may be a lot of things, but having my head in the sand isn't one of them.
Is the Democratic party so weak that it has to blame Nader for it's abject failure?
For those who have head buried deeply in sand, this is indeed a rhetorical question.
No, I blame the vote stealers in Florida for the 2000 loss but Nader took enough votes away so that it was close enough to steal. I may be a lot of things, but having my head in the sand isn't one of them.
Sure sounds like you're blaming Nader, even though you're trying to come off as though you aren't.
Perhaps the Dems would be better served by not taking any votes for granted and start learning how to earn them. I can assure you that the only votes that Nader pulled away from Gore were from people who are disillusioned with the Democratic party. Are you of the opinion that they shouldn't have an alternative to vote for?
bishop
01-02-2008, 12:00 PM
And he will end this god forsaken f_ck-up.
no... that's just campaign rhetoric. it's no different than bush sr. going "read my lips, no new taxes".. someone who never supported this bully, imperialist approach to resolving international issues is who i'd prefer placing my trust in, rather than the opposite.
You are trying to blame Edwards for being lied to. Why not put the blame where it belongs; on the presitard....
bush didn't force edwards to either vote the way he voted, or to spew his own war mongering rhetoric. edwards support, in point of fact, lended an aura of bipartisanship to bush's little crusade - it's less likely that he would've gotten his war had jellyfish like edwards not been so hasty to campion the war.
If they read all the bills we'd still be voting on legislation from 1993. It's simply impractical to require legislators to read every bill, from page 1 to the end. They get summaries which usually suffice. I'm not saying that they shouldn't ensure they actually know what they're voting on, but you can't expect them to read everything entirely that they vote on.
perhaps that speaks to the stunning inefficiency of our great government then, eh? saddling each and every bill with loads of pet projects and amendments..
And he will end this god forsaken f_ck-up.
no... that's just campaign rhetoric. it's no different than bush sr. going "read my lips, no new taxes".. .His voting record shows he is not willing to throw good money after bad in Iraq. Thats not just rhetoric, that took balls and risked being called a troop hater and unpatriotic with that vote.
.... someone who never supported this bully, imperialist approach to resolving international issues is who i'd prefer placing my trust in, rather than the oppositeHe admitted it was a mistake (at risk of broken record syndrome)That would be either Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich.... Ron Paul just admitted on "The Ed Schultz Show" 5 minutes ago; that the majority of his supporters are DEMOCRATS!
At what point will the republicans start shunning him as an imposter?
It is bound to break down eventually. I believe Paul will do twice as good as Rotten Rudy (in Iowa)... but the Red wing will fly with the Huckster. The repugnants will once again have to do a lot of OVERLOOKING and nose holding when they vote f.. Huck. As governor Huck committed 2 very grave crimes.... one involved turning an investigation away from his son for the torture and killing of a dog... the other was letting the convicted rapist of a Clinton family member go free, only to rape and murder another.
You are trying to blame Edwards for being lied to. Why not put the blame where it belongs; on the presitard....
bush didn't force edwards to either vote the way he voted, or to spew his own war mongering rhetoric. edwards support, in point of fact, lended an aura of bipartisanship to bush's little crusade - it's less likely that he would've gotten his war had jellyfish like edwards not been so hasty to campion the war. bush painted a false scenario with bogus intel. Based on that, Edwards wanted to defend America.
At least he woke up and smelled the coffee. About 1/2 of America still believes the lie.
The people want to believe they have a "christian" leader.
John Edwards knows better. It was an expensive lesson... but he gets it now.
bishop
01-02-2008, 07:16 PM
like i said dan, fool me once, shame on you.. fool me twice.....
edwards wasn't planning on running for the senate again, and switched to an anti-war position for political reasons as far as i'm concerned.. you are definitely entitled to buy into his b.s., but i am not persuaded by him at all.
i will say, though, that i would happily have him over clinton - not that that's really saying much. i'd take another 4 years of bush over clinton to be honest.
Is the Democratic party so weak that it has to blame Nader for it's abject failure?
For those who have head buried deeply in sand, this is indeed a rhetorical question.
No, I blame the vote stealers in Florida for the 2000 loss but Nader took enough votes away so that it was close enough to steal. I may be a lot of things, but having my head in the sand isn't one of them.
Sure sounds like you're blaming Nader, even though you're trying to come off as though you aren't.
Perhaps the Dems would be better served by not taking any votes for granted and start learning how to earn them. I can assure you that the only votes that Nader pulled away from Gore were from people who are disillusioned with the Democratic party. Are you of the opinion that they shouldn't have an alternative to vote for?
In all truthfulness, I blame the corporate chumminess that Bubba brought to the table with the DLC which steered the Democrats away from serving the people and into serving the corporate masters. We already have one party that does that. We don't need another. I blame the Democrats for not co-opting some of Nader's positions (Gore could have pulled it off) and neutralizing his effect on the election. Then, I blame the Democrats for not wanting to fight like motherf***ers to keep Bush from stealing the election they knew they won and then trusting Bush to govern from the middle instead of from the far right. Don't get me started on what to blame Bush for.
The fact that Nader is taking himself out of the race by backing Edwards is good news all the way around but I don't think it will have much effect. Endorsements are newsmakers but not vote takers.
Sure sounds like you're blaming Nader, even though you're trying to come off as though you aren't.
Perhaps the Dems would be better served by not taking any votes for granted and start learning how to earn them. I can assure you that the only votes that Nader pulled away from Gore were from people who are disillusioned with the Democratic party. Are you of the opinion that they shouldn't have an alternative to vote for?
In all truthfulness, I blame the corporate chumminess that Bubba brought to the table with the DLC which steered the Democrats away from serving the people and into serving the corporate masters. We already have one party that does that. We don't need another. I blame the Democrats for not co-opting some of Nader's positions (Gore could have pulled it off) and neutralizing his effect on the election. Then, I blame the Democrats for not wanting to fight like motherf***ers to keep Bush from stealing the election they knew they won and then trusting Bush to govern from the middle instead of from the far right. Don't get me started on what to blame Bush for.
I agree that the DLC is bad news but the Democratic party really isn't a grassroots party and that, IMO, is what allowed them to pull it to the right.
Americans, by and large, are spectators, whereas democracy requires active engagement of the citizenry, and it is this discrepancy that has caused the corruption of our politics. In my opinion, both parties have had a hand in seeing that the people behave like sheep rather than responsible citizens.
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.