Edwards win South Carolina

[Dont Hurt Me]

Cnn is reporting as is everyone else that John Edwards has won South Carolina's Primary. I think its pretty cool since he has kept to a positive message even from the begining when Dean and the others where attacking each other. Way to go John.:cool:

[zimv20]

my personal opinion is that edwards is gunning for the VP spot. it'd be a nice southern counterpart to kerry's (e.g.) NE roots.

[Sayhey]

The best part of yesterday's results was Lieberman's withdrawal. I can easily support Kerry, Edwards, Clark, or Dean. It does look like Dean needs to win a primary in order to make it to Super Tuesday.

[jelloshotsrule]

i don't think i could support clark... i mean, ultimately, i would support him over bush, but something about his two facedness doesn't sit right with me

i could support any of the other three

i have liked kerry from the getgo... he was more outspoken about the war than the others prior to the whole primaries thing... of course, dean wouldn't have really been in the news back then, so that's part of it

anyways, dean can be a little nutty at times, though i like that he looks out of place... makes him more real. down to earth. and kerry has that scary nader like appearance.... which didn't keep me from voting for nader, so who knows. hah

kerry/edwards would be pretty sweet

what's encouraging is the numbers about kerry, clark, edwards... all vs bush... from what i saw, any of them would win as it is right now...

one can hope

[Dont Hurt Me]

I think we will see a Kerry Edwards ticket, cant tell you how dissappointed i have become with the Republicans. seems like all they care about is Big business,HMO's and the Defense Dept. What a let down. well we voted them in we can vote them out.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
I think we will see a Kerry Edwards ticket, cant tell you how dissappointed i have become with the Republicans. seems like all they care about is Big business,HMO's and the Defense Dept. What a let down. well we voted them in we can vote them out.

Well don't get too excited over the Democrats either, they'd be spending like the proverbial drunken sailor if they had the White House, both houses of Congress, and the Supremes on their side. The best way to stop the spending spree is to have a divided government. Between the WH and Congress, each side has to have control over at least one of them or we get too much of this no-consequences BS.

[IJ Reilly]

What do you know, somebody agrees with me on the divided government thing!

[wordmunger]

The worst deficits have come with a republican president/democratic congress: Reagan and Dubya. The best situation (imho) is to have a democratic president and a republican congress. That way the congress won't pass atrocious spending bills and the president can veto atrocious social legislation.

[zimv20]

most people think bureacracy is a bad thing, but it does serve a purpose: to slow down decision-making.

had the iraq pre-war crap gone through a proper bureaucracy, we probably could have avoided the whole thing. a rush to judgement is not a good thing. especially in a democracy. doubly-especially when the administration might have a hidden agenda.

[Dont Hurt Me]

True it seems a divided Govt is the only way to keep these clowns in check with our money. Republicans had a good opportunity to do some things but they ended up spending like drunken sailors, and still have done nothing about our illegal Mexican freinds sneaking across the border. But they are looking out for those Haliburton executives and those big Pharmaceutical companies and the Oil companies are happy. Meanwhile more and more jobs going overseas. Even the other day i heard someone who had to contact apple on a problem and where talking to someone in India. Seems like they are for everybody except the American worker. Vote their butts out along with George.

[mactastic]

Sadly the days of government inaction seem better than the alternative.... But keeping the government divided is a band-aid solution at best.

[IJ Reilly]

The real cure is serious campaign finance reform and a multiparty system -- but for now, I can live with a band-aid.

I would like to see control of the houses of Congress divided again. Not only would spending be more in hand, we wouldn't have this miserable situation where one party controls the entire legislative agenda. The Democrats can't even call for a Congressional hearing as things stand now, if the results might not be favorable to the Republicans. This is subversive to the cause of democracy.

[Dont Hurt Me]

As i said before keep this crap up and we will vote all you bastards out. I urge everyone to register and let their vote be heard. Our Govt isnt for the people anymore, its for the special interest and the lobbiest contributing to your campaign or backpocket. Something that i liked about Edwards is when you listen to him he really comes across as careing about people and wanting to put America's people first not the big corporations that are moving our manufactoring base overseas.

[Don't panic]

Originally posted by zimv20
... a rush to judgement is not a good thing. especially in a democracy. doubly-especially when the administration might have a hidden agenda.

Hidden???

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Don't panic
Hidden???

some people don't seem to see it, so yeah.

[wwworry]

I think Edwards is more electable than Kerry so I'm voting for him. Plus he is a very good speaker though any of dem would be fine with me.

[Dont Hurt Me]

I voted for him, when he talks it sounds like its from the heart, not political spin,party propaganda,etc. when Kerry was attacking Dean when Dean was the leader Edwards was talking a positive message and didnt go down that road. after the Dean screaming Kerry and all the others changed their face but Edwards didnt have to. I like Kerry but he seems like such a darn politician and i hate that crap. Kerry has taken more special interest money then half of congress so this means he is a insider. I would rather an outsider run the Whitehouse. Edwards seems down to Earth.

[Sayhey]

Edwards is the best public speaker I've heard since Clinton at his best. It is easy to see how he was a very effective trial lawyer. I'm very impressed how he connects to average working people and speaks to issues of jobs and economic dislocation on a almost personal level.

That's the good side of Edwards. I do have some concerns. I don't like his position on Iraq (his vote for the resolution and he says little of what he will do to end the war.) I'm very uncomfortable with his position on the Patriot Act (as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, he authored part of it.) And lastly, his lack of foreign policy experience and military service make me wonder about his ability to take Bush on about foreign policy questions.

I agree Kerry is an "old style" politician. He has spent an awful lot of time on Capitol Hill and that is never a plus with many voters. He maybe the best compromise candidate for the Democrats and I will happily support him warts and all.

For me Clark is the most intriguing of the candidates, but he has shown his flaws as a new politician. Being an outsider to politics is good as long as you don't show you don't know how to play the game. He has done that too many times and that might cost him a shot at the nomination. He must win Tennessee or Virginia and make a strong showing, if not win, in Wisconsin. Unfortunately for the Democrats, he maybe the candidate with the best chance of defeating Bush, but an increasingly small chance at getting the nomination.

Dean's campaign is in such a shambles it is hard to see how he can turn it around. Saturday's race in Washington and Wisconsin will show a lot about whether he can right the ship and get through to California. He has a chance to win here if he does well in the the former two races.

edit: triva question for today - Kerry would be the first person in a long time to win the White House (assuming that he is succesful) to do so as a sitting Senator. Who was the last person to do so?

[wwworry]

we've seen mixed results from Senators from MA. 1960 was a win. '68 (transplanted to NY) ended in tradgegy though he was in the lead and 1980 was a bust. [spelling]

I think Edwards/Clark would be a can't lose ticket. That's what I most care about at this point. I'm an ABB. Let's all decide to vote for Edwards!

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by Sayhey
edit: triva question for today - Kerry would be the first person in a long time to win the White House (assuming that he is succesful) to do so as a sitting Senator. Who was the last person to do so?

JFK. And what do you know, he was from Massachusetts. Does lightening strike twice in American politics?

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
JFK. And what do you know, he was from Massachusetts. Does lightening strike twice in American politics?

25 brownie points IJ! I hope lightning does indeed strike twice if Kerry is the nominee.

[mactastic]

Now that Gephardt's out of the race, my sister has managed to get her bad self down to Virginia where she is now employed by the Clark campaign. Her impressions of it are not good. Apparently is is highly disorganized, with tons of money being wasted left and right. She's getting paid to go to bars and hand out Clark material for pete's sake. Anyway, regardless of how you feel about Clark as a candidate, her opinion is that his ship is sinking fast, and he won't be around much longer. It looks to me like his late entry into the race has been a major problem, even with the blessing of the Clintons and a large number of Clinton's staff working at high levels of his campaign, many of the top organizational people had gone to different campaigns already, and Clark was left to some extent with a 'B' team.

[wwworry]

Originally posted by Sayhey
25 brownie points IJ! I hope lightning does indeed strike twice if Kerry is the nominee.

maybe I was too subtle.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Not as subtle as the Republicans are going to be when they tear into his long record. They have a lot of things to bring up on his voting record and defense. In fact Kerry wanted to kill almost every major weapon system the pentagon has wanted. Im not for the Defense Dept running everything but they have needed some of these weapons that Kerry voted no on. He is a greasy politician but no less greasy then George.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
He is a greasy politician but no less greasy then George.

"No less" greasy? I can't think of a man that defines greasy sleaze as much as GW Bush. You can't listen to anything he says, because it's invariably the opposite of what he does or will do.

[Dont Hurt Me]

I agree, George is for corporate welfare. But as to Kerry he was against the F14,F15,F16 the Harrier and more. I guess he thought we could defend ourselves with sopwith camels. Those were all very much needed aircraft. Kerry is special interest guy so he isnt going to be able to run against George and his special Interest. The Republicans are going to have a lot of Ammo to throw at Kerry.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by wwworry
maybe I was too subtle.

Yes, you were too subtle, and I was too obtuse to see you were answering my trivia question. Twenty-Five points to you too and virtual page of green stamps to boot (do they still make those things?)

[wwworry]

I really think Don't hurt me has a point. Kerry is too easily peged. There is a reason goveners have been winning presidential elections lately. Anybody But Bush.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by wwworry
I really think Don't hurt me has a point. Kerry is too easily peged. There is a reason goveners have been winning presidential elections lately. Anybody But Bush.

I agree as well. Kerry has some very easy weaknesses for the Republicans to attack. None of Democrats are ideal, but I think Clark is the best suited by history to win against Bush (how about a Clark/Richardson ticket?) But that is most likely dreaming, because I also agree with mactastic that it looks like he may not be long for the race. I think in all likelyhood I will get a choice between Kerry and Edwards on March 2nd and I don't know yet who I would choose. I hope I'm wrong and I get more choices.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Sayhey
I hope I'm wrong and I get more choices.

You think Sharpton will still be in it Super Tuesday?:p

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by mactastic
You think Sharpton will still be in it Super Tuesday?:p

Yes, I think Sharpton and Kucinich both will still be running and getting less and less of the vote. Hey, I hope the Clark campaign figures out how to use your sister better than handing out flyers - organizers should be used to organize. Not that Clark hasn't hurt himself, but as a first time politician some one in his senior staff should have steered him clear of some of his self-inflicted mess. And who made the decision to skip Iowa?

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Sayhey
Richardson

who?

[AngryLawnGnome]

I'm an idiot for this, but I like Edwards for announcing his candidacy on The Daily Show. I can't vote by the way, and don't plan to vote like that when I can. It's just a thought - a very stupid thought.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by zimv20
who?

Governor of New Mexico Bill Richardson - former Cabinet Officer in the Clinton administration and the only Latino Governor in the country. He would help carry states like Arizona, New Mexico and maybe Nevada. That assumes a southerner like Clark or Edwards at the top of the ticket. It doesn't make as much sense if Kerry is the nominee. He will need a southerner. Unless he really is going to write off the South.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Sayhey
Governor of New Mexico Bill Richardson

ah, of course. i wondered what happened to him.

when he was an ambassador to the UN, a friend of mine happened upon his office phone number on a publicly available federal webpage. my friend was having a bit of trouble w/ his passport, so he called up bill and bill took care of it, after asking "how did you get my number?"

the number was quickly removed from the site.

[Sayhey]

I think Arizona and New Mexico are states that a Democrat must win and Richardson would help. He is certainly qualified and it would also have a great impact on Latino voters. Probably won't happen. Glad your friend got his passport straightened out, but I would love to have a picture of Richardson's face as he answered the call. :p

[Dont Hurt Me]

Originally posted by wwworry
I really think Don't hurt me has a point. Kerry is too easily peged. There is a reason goveners have been winning presidential elections lately. Anybody But Bush. a very left Kerry might not be the shoe in you think, after living years in washington he will have such a history of slime that the republican party with all its millions will be able to slaughter this guy. Just look at all those weapons systems he has voted against? like we didnt need a one? what do you think brought down the USSR? they couldnt keep up. John Edwards is a man of the Heart and has those real qualities of compassion rather then polish & spin. Kerry has a very long liberal voting record. Democrats pushing a far left liberal may not get those votes they think they will. Kerry isnt a moderate by any stretch. Bill Clinton was. Joe Lieberman was and the party didnt even see him. this might be a mistake by all those hard core democrats. I still Like Edwards much better then Kerry. Edwards is Real, Kerry is more spin,polish and a Kennedy look alike and i cant stand Kennedy.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
a very left Kerry might not be the shoe in you think, after living years in washington he will have such a history of slime that the republican party with all its millions will be able to slaughter this guy. Just look at all those weapons systems he has voted against? like we didnt need a one? what do you think brought down the USSR? they couldnt keep up. John Edwards is a man of the Heart and has those real qualities of compassion rather then polish & spin. Kerry has a very long liberal voting record. Democrats pushing a far left liberal may not get those votes they think they will. Kerry isnt a moderate by any stretch. Bill Clinton was. Joe Lieberman was and the party didnt even see him. this might be a mistake by all those hard core democrats. I still Like Edwards much better then Kerry. Edwards is Real, Kerry is more spin,polish and a Kennedy look alike and i cant stand Kennedy.

All of the Democratic candidates have weaknesses. Kerry is indeed an old fashioned liberal. That doesn't make him "far left." He is anything but that. I would disagree with you about Kerry being all "polish and spin" and Edwards being a "man of the heart." I would say that Edwards is so good at his polish and spin it doesn't show as much as Kerry's. Now it is certainly true that Edwards has a working class background and Kerry comes from wealth, but I would not believe for a second that all of what Edwards does is just speaking from the heart. Don't get me wrong, that is not a knock on the guy. For a politician to be successful he must be part actor or in the case of Edwards a very skillful trial attorney. It is a skill that certainly helps with the job.

Don't Hurt Me, if you look at the two of them, I would be willing to bet you find an awful lot more that they have in common than what they disagree on. As I've already said, I will support either one against Bush.

[Dont Hurt Me]

It bothers me that Kerry voted against the F14 tomcat when they were flying 20 year old phantoms and the Navy needed a air superiority aircraft for carrier defense. M1 tank? we needed a new tank after the M60 how old was that? voted against F15 and f16 for the airforce? what did he want them to fly? and this goes on and on. B1 and B2 I guess he thought those 30 year old B-52s were all we needed? call it whatever but I dont like it. a strong defense is a good way to keep peace. Reagan got the USSR to tear down the stupid wall by strength not by weakness? Like i said the Republicans are going to tear this liberal left and right. he does flip flop on issues and they will use that. You cant defend a nation with words the military has to have the the tools i should know i have served.

[IJ Reilly]

I've learned almost nothing about Edwards so far. It seems like every time he's covered on TV, he's making his "my back yard" stump speech. I hope he's got another, and I expect he does -- I just haven't heard it yet.

[Dont Hurt Me]

go here for morehttp://www.johnedwards2004.com/home.asp edit hope this link works

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
It bothers me that Kerry voted against the F14 tomcat when they were flying 20 year old phantoms and the Navy needed a air superiority aircraft for carrier defense. M1 tank? [chomp]

w/o further information on why kerry voted the way he did, it's difficult to make a complete judgement. maybe the bills were loaded w/ pork, maybe he thought the units were too expensive.

i think it may be an oversimplification to label his voting anti-military -- but that's exactly what the GOP want you to do.

instead, consider kerry's military service vs. bush's and cheney's.

[Dont Hurt Me]

I guess you dont know much naval history but the navy needed a shoot over the horizon fighter to protect those carriers that are vulnerable. Phantom couldnt carry the phoenix but tomcat could and was designed around it. even now 20 years later they are using tomcats. I could care a less why he voted aginst this or 20 some odd others but you dont defend a nation with out the tools when a cold war is going on. this was piss poor. maybe his vietnam experience clouded his judgement? How the Heck would we have won the cold war without many of these systems? this bothers me a lot. in otherwords he has voted against every major weapon system? WTF? when we had the soviet union breathing down the worlds neck and trying to force their will everywhere? Imagine the soviet union not having to worry about any of these? Kerry is weak on defense and you will be hearing this.

[Sayhey]

Don't Hurt Me,

Do me a favor and post a link to the information you are talking about concerning Kerry's voting record. From what I can see from a quick search it seems to be about votes in 1984 around a defense spending freeze. This is well after the Tomcat came on line if I remember the time period correctly. It is certainly after the initial funding of the program. So what we may be talking about here is additional funding for more F14s in that given year. Anyway post what you can please, because you are right the RNC is putting out this stuff already. I'd like to know if there is any basis for their argument or it is a distortion of his voting record.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
I guess you dont know much naval history but the navy needed a shoot over the horizon fighter to protect those carriers that are vulnerable.

well, i know something of the industry. i worked on F-15 and B-2 programs.

[Dont Hurt Me]

well i have been trying to dig up his voting record but mostly a lot of rhetoric and bs, you would think they would have these guys voting record on issues in a clean and easy to see format somehwere but they dont. Its almost like they want this stuff hidden? pisses me off. all i want to find is how he has voted since day 1 on major weapon systems is that to hard? I found a few recent items but i want a clear list. if anyone has a good history on votes please link i dont want to have to go through each congress year by year.

[pseudobrit]

IIRC, the F14, F15, and F16 were all designed and introduced in the 70's.

I hate it when I see political attack ads that oversimplify a singe issue and a singe vote from a candidate.

"John Incumbent voted against emergency care for seniors... how can you support someone who wants the elderly dead? Vote Sam Challenger on Tuesday"

No background, no context. You could even attack a Senator or Representative on a bill that 90% of the others approved too if you spin it right.

John Kerry voted in 2001 to eliminate your civil liberties, stripping your first and fourth amendment rights away... vote Bush in '04

Of course, this would be the PATRIOT Act that was given token opposition and gladly signed by Bush.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Kerry has voted against some major systems as of late but my earlier comments are wrong about those fighter planes. Looks like a lot of spin and people quoting people quoting people quoting a phrase he may have said years ago or recent and then taken out of context. Inotherwords Shawn Hannity and some news sites spilling pure BS. please disreguard earlier posts about this and John Kerry by myself. Im going to send Fox a E-mail.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
Kerry has voted against some major systems as of late but my earlier comments are wrong about those fighter planes. Looks like a lot of spin and people quoting people quoting people quoting a phrase he may have said years ago or recent and then taken out of context. Inotherwords Shawn Hannity and some news sites spilling pure BS. please disreguard earlier posts about this and John Kerry by myself. Im going to send Fox a E-mail.

Dont Hurt Me,

Thanks for the effort and the honesty.

[Neserk]

Originally posted by wordmunger
The worst deficits have come with a republican president/democratic congress: Reagan and Dubya. The best situation (imho) is to have a democratic president and a republican congress. That way the congress won't pass atrocious spending bills and the president can veto atrocious social legislation.

I would agree with that. So long as it isn't *too* Republican!

[Neserk]

Originally posted by Sayhey
All of the Democratic candidates have weaknesses.

*faints*

[Sayhey]

I wanted to update this old thread because Slate (http://slate.msn.com/id/2096127/) has an article on the topic raised in it about Kerry's record on defense spending and votes on specific weapons programs. It is very useful in clearing away some of the RNC and Rove's nonsense.

Looking at the weapons that the RNC says Kerry voted to cut, a good case could be made, certainly at the time, that some of them (the B-2 bomber and President Reagan's "Star Wars" missile-defense program) should have been cut. As for the others (the M-1 tank and the F-14, F-15, and F-16 fighter planes, among others), Kerry didn't really vote to cut them.

The claim about these votes was made in the Republican National Committee "Research Briefing" of Feb. 22. The report lists 13 weapons systems that Kerry voted to cut—the ones cited above, as well as Patriot air-defense missiles, Tomahawk cruise missiles, and AH64 Apache helicopters, among others.

It is instructive, however, to look at the footnotes. Almost all of them cite Kerry's vote on Senate bill S. 3189 (CQ Vote No. 273) on Oct. 15, 1990. Do a Google search, and you will learn that S. 3189 was the Fiscal Year 1991 Defense Appropriations Act, and CQ Vote No. 273 was a vote on the entire bill. There was no vote on those weapons systems specifically.

On a couple of the weapons, the RNC report cites H.R. 5803 and H.R. 2126. Look those up. They turn out to be votes on the House-Senate conference committee reports for the defense appropriations bills in October 1990 (the same year as S. 3189) and September 1995.

In other words, Kerry was one of 16 senators (including five Republicans) to vote against a defense appropriations bill 14 years ago. He was also one of an unspecified number of senators to vote against a conference report on a defense bill nine years ago. The RNC takes these facts and extrapolates from them that he voted against a dozen weapons systems that were in those bills. The Republicans could have claimed, with equal logic, that Kerry voted to abolish the entire U.S. armed forces, but that might have raised suspicions. Claiming that he opposed a list of specific weapons systems has an air of plausibility. On close examination, though, it reeks of rank dishonesty.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Thank you, more lies distortion and spin from the otherside. They will be looking to talk about anything but the main issues where George has failed. I would say Kerry looks like he may be the nominee and I hope he gets Edward to run with him. He and Edwards looked pretty good on Larry King but he did seem to be the more ( presidential) of the 4 remaining. Kerry will be getting my vote.:)

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
Thank you, more lies distortion and spin from the otherside.

:confused: :confused:

What about Kerry's votes in the Slate article is a lie?

[mactastic]

I think he's talking about the lies, spin etc. from the RNC, not Slate.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by mactastic
I think he's talking about the lies, spin etc. from the RNC, not Slate.

Thanks, mac, you made me go back and read Dont Hurt Me's post in a different way. Sorry, DHM, if I read you wrong.

[IJ Reilly]

I watched most of the debate last night, and the person that looked the least "presidential" to me was Larry King. Good God that man is embarrassing. He was actually booed by the audience at one point, and rightly so.