to hear a presidential candidate say the three magic words that'll get my vote, but i am afraid i am about as likely to hear them as i am to win the lottery:

"war. crimes. trials."

*sigh* - i guess i'll settle for "truth and reconciliation" or something like that.

President Edwards's formula: Guantanamo * 0
President Romney's formula: Guantanamo * 2

I find it interesting that a man who is so outraged by the domestic spying voted for the very legislation that made it possible (The Patriot Act) without even reading it. Now he says it needs to stop? He also voted in favor of using military force in Iraq. He has been quoted as saying, "We were attacked by Osama Bin Ladin, not Saddam Hussain". So why should we use military force in Iraq again? And where was the war declaration by congress? Someone who claims to support a defense of our civil liberties sure wasn't thinking about how many of them we have lost in this whole process.

Instead of responding to the question asked above, he gave a sound bite about how important the Constitution is and went on about his campaign promises.

Another issue that he didn't bring up is how he is part of an organization (Council on Foreign Relations) that is supprting this NAFTA Texas corridor that is a prequel to the formation of the North American Union where the U.S., Mexico, and Canada will all be combined. A new constitution is being drafted right now by the NAFTA dept. that is based on the constitution of the former Soviet Union. Who will defend our civil liberties then?

John Edwards has some very nice speeches and I would like to think he is sincere, but for too long I have voted for the person I disagree with the least and it is apathy like that, which has allowed the "people at the top" to gloss over the American people who the government is supposed to be accountable to. As a teacher, a citizen of this country, and a human being I will not allow it any more.

I am continuing to educate myself on what the issues are in this campaign and what is at stake. I recommend you do the same and make an informed choice based on issues, not on soundbites.

yerownseff...
me? dahlin, i been doin' this hyar politicin' shit since before y'likely were born.

I think this must be a Ron Paul troll, Woody. The combination of the Texas Corridor and the Russian Constitution....

Too foily, even for me.

We. Are. Going. To. Die. We must restore hope in the world. We must bring forth a new way of living that can sustain the world. Or else it is not just us who will die but everyone. What have we got to lose? Go forth and Fight!—Xan

We need to hear from them how, specifically, they will roll back Presidential power as stolen by the Bush/Gonzales cabal.

Blue Gal
http://bgalrstate.blogspot.com
http://ristocrats.blogspot.com
http://www.crooksandliars.com

that the man grew up in a conservative Baptist household, and it's hard for him to personally embrace gay marriage as well as abortion (don't think he's actually come out against the stem cell research, but I didn't delve that far). But what he did say was that his conscience pushed him to think and decide differently on policy matters than religious matters.
Struck me, at the time, as the greatest reason in the world to think he's the guy I want in the White House.

Now, let me add something. I want Wes Clark at his right elbow.

We. Are. Going. To. Die. We must restore hope in the world. We must bring forth a new way of living that can sustain the world. Or else it is not just us who will die but everyone. What have we got to lose? Go forth and Fight!-- Xan

Jello, though possibly a troll, is correct.

John Edwards did vote in favor of the Patriot Act - as did every Senator except Russ Feingold.

By the time of its reauthorization in 2005, Senator Edwards was out of the spotlight, in a position to snipe without political repercussions.

The Bill of Rights is a born rebel. It reeks with sedition. In every clause it shakes its fist in the face of constituted authority. . . . it is the one guaranty of human freedom to the American people. - Frank Irving Cobb

Except possibly Dodd, and Edwards taking a bigger risk than Dodd by doing so, as a top-tier candidate. And Elizabeth is saying the same.

Now, granted, good sentiments are not a plan, but Edwards seems ahead of the others. No? So, "sniping" seems a little harsh to me.

We. Are. Going. To. Die. We must restore hope in the world. We must bring forth a new way of living that can sustain the world. Or else it is not just us who will die but everyone. What have we got to lose? Go forth and Fight!—Xan

I'll not spout the cliche.

It is easy for Edwards to criticize - after leaving the Senate. Voting is more difficult - and we know his voting record in the Senate -- no matter how much he apologizes for it. Even easier for his wife to snipe - YES SNIPE from that comfortable "higher" ground.

But then again, he's up against the "if I knew then what I knew now candidate" and the "I told you so candidate."

Yes, Edwards is saying what "needs to be said" - but aren't they all? The whole trick is not in SAYING "it", but in figuring out what "it" is. That's why they pay fools like Bob Shrum the big bucks.

Maybe we all should look elsewhere and stop letting polls and pundits tell us which candidates are in the "top tier."

The Bill of Rights is a born rebel. It reeks with sedition. In every clause it shakes its fist in the face of constituted authority. . . . it is the one guaranty of human freedom to the American people. - Frank Irving Cobb

On this issue, they are not.

And as far as polls and pundits.... I'm for apple pie, too. Your point?

We. Are. Going. To. Die. We must restore hope in the world. We must bring forth a new way of living that can sustain the world. Or else it is not just us who will die but everyone. What have we got to lose? Go forth and Fight!—Xan

A tag team? The phrase "I find it interesting..." is a trollish lead-in, because the troll then need never engage with actual words in the post...

We. Are. Going. To. Die. We must restore hope in the world. We must bring forth a new way of living that can sustain the world. Or else it is not just us who will die but everyone. What have we got to lose? Go forth and Fight!—Xan

And nail him, Sarah! (or add vodka - speeds the decay...)

I see little wrong with Apple Pie (and please, play that funky music, white boy) - sometimes my cynicism can only be cured by pure optimism.

It is pie in the sky - sometimes I just feel the need to look up.

The Bill of Rights is a born rebel. It reeks with sedition. In every clause it shakes its fist in the face of constituted authority. . . . it is the one guaranty of human freedom to the American people. - Frank Irving Cobb

Seriously.

I will take Edwards, and Elizabeth, saying the right thing as a good start. Let's remember that in the discourse normalized and permitted by the Overton Window is so far top and right that restoring Constitutional government is a radical position, suitable only for DFHs. And I sure God don't hear Hilbama talking about it.

"The first day that I’m president I will close Guantanamo." I'm hearing a clear and direct statement I can hold the man accountable for. This is a problem?

Also--not to throw gasoline on the pie, or the pie on the flames, or whatever--I see restoring Constitutional government as even more important than the war, because we also need to think about preventing the next war, and the next war, and the next. The problem is systemic.

We. Are. Going. To. Die. We must restore hope in the world. We must bring forth a new way of living that can sustain the world. Or else it is not just us who will die but everyone. What have we got to lose? Go forth and Fight!—Xan

I have no clue what that means - I apologize for my ignorance on all "matters blog."

Restoring the Constitution - YES - is the most important (I believe) Litmus test for any candidate.

Let's ask them all - and not by hypotheticals or through politically-charged issues such as Gitmo. We've also seen accountability go by the wayside. (Read My Lips, No Nation-Building - need I go on?)

If anyone has the chance - ask the candidates:

Given the seeming irresistible impulse to retain power once gained, what would you do, as President, to restore the basic tenants of Our Constitution and reestablish the balances of power both within the Federal government and between the Federal government and the States?

If the foundations of the Constitution were not so deteriorated and corroded as they are at this point, the war - and future wars would not be issues.

The Bill of Rights is a born rebel. It reeks with sedition. In every clause it shakes its fist in the face of constituted authority. . . . it is the one guaranty of human freedom to the American people. - Frank Irving Cobb

... is a post about posting. Comment policy, thread policy, troll policy, "Kos is a dictator..." et cetera, et cetera...

This comment is, itself, meta.

Can we return to Edwards, now?

We. Are. Going. To. Die. We must restore hope in the world. We must bring forth a new way of living that can sustain the world. Or else it is not just us who will die but everyone. What have we got to lose? Go forth and Fight!—Xan

edwards' people should, and should be able, to defend him (edwards) with links and words.

can we?

that's the question. i'm not afraid of what SO is bringing up. is edwards? we'll find out.

bottom line: no dem pol is "perfect." accept that, and choose one, for such is your only and unsatisfactory option.

record, like voting records, are concrete proof of past behavior.

but as they say in the stock markets, 'past behavior is not a guaranteed predictor of future success.' that's true in a lot of things in life.

trust edwards? don't make me laugh. believe in edwards personal sentiments? sorry, i don't do 'faith.' but i will follow him, in the now and the future, and compare and contrast both his words and his record, and assess those who support him. so far, that latter is an impressive list of folks, who not infrequently add up to a majority in polls against any republican candidate.

people are always telling me, "stop saying 'revolution.' it makes you look unserious. politics is about compromise. quit complaining and pick someone, and pressure them to keep them honest." etc. so this is what i do when i speak of 'mainstream' politicians.

i would expect edwards to fail to enact 90% of the policy that i would choose, were i his most trusted advisor, even if he had solid dem majorities in both houses. i'm not ignorant of history, or of the forces that are aligned against us. i'm making a cold, rational judgement about which of the major contenders i'm most likely to hold some sliver of influence with, and who seems the most likely to prod this nation back down the path of constitutional democracy.

you are welcome to submit another, better plan of action. as always, we welcome criticism of the candidates we like, as well as those we don't. that's what this gods-damned extended primary season is all about, right?

Though often they are, sometimes they are not. (This is the notion of "performatives." For example: "I do." Said in the right context, that "hot air" has real consequences!

Similarly with putting material "on the record."

I think part of our job is turning our the rhetoric of our representatives into performatives. It's like a "macaca" moment over time. The extended play version, you might say.

We. Are. Going. To. Die. We must restore hope in the world. We must bring forth a new way of living that can sustain the world. Or else it is not just us who will die but everyone. What have we got to lose? Go forth and Fight!—Xan

Maybe we can get Los del Río back together for it?

Probably listening to the Petraeus testimony has made me overly irritable, but I just requested the Fellows to purge the thread of useless bits, and they obliged. Sorry if there's any mess on the floor.

Now, a case can certainly be made that Edwards has a voting record that is at variance with his words. (msteacher, supra, attempts to make it, although without links).

However, such a case needs to be made, with the old fashioned tools of evidence and reasoning, as opposed to simply being mentioned or alluded to.

If I want to be teased, I can go look at my collection of Fred Thompson non-announcement announcement YouTubes.

Over and out.

We. Are. Going. To. Die. We must restore hope in the world. We must bring forth a new way of living that can sustain the world. Or else it is not just us who will die but everyone. What have we got to lose? Go forth and Fight!—Xan

[This is actually Jello; I moved Jello's comment to the appropriate thread.

something about debating in a civil manner. twasn’t me who called people trolls before they were finished making their arguments. this suggest anybody who makes an argument you don’t like or is criticial of your candidate is, right off the bat, assumed to be a troll, no matter their argument. ok, fine. it’s your blog. you’re entitled. call me anything you please. but then don’t pretend to seize the moral high ground when you were resistent to hear counterarguments to begin with.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/ro…
l_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00249

the basis of this thread is your ballyooing what your preceived to be edwards commitment to civil liberties. edwards’ support of what amounted to tort reform shows this not to be the case, when the right to sue is protected by the constitution. see also aclu’s critique of the legislation and department edwards voted into being.

We. Are. Going. To. Die. We must restore hope in the world. We must bring forth a new way of living that can sustain the world. Or else it is not just us who will die but everyone. What have we got to lose? Go forth and Fight!—Xan