Ah, memories. George Romney, 1967:
On 31 August 1967 Governor Romney made a statement that ruined his chances for getting the [Presidential] nomination. In a taped interview with Lou Gordon of WKBD-TV in Detroit, Romney stated, "When I came back from Viet Nam [in November 1965], I'd just had the greatest brainwashing that anybody can get." He then shifted to opposing the war. ... Republican Congressman Robert Stafford of Vermont sounded a common concern: "If you're running for the presidency," he asserted, "you are supposed to have too much on the ball to be brainwashed."
I believe that my vote [for the AUMF] was wrong, I take responsibility for that. [WMDs aside,] I felt a great conflict then about giving George Bush this authority, because I didn't trust him. And I resolved that conflict on the side of voting for it. Now seeing what's happened, I would not resolve that conflict that way. This president should not have been given the authority to go into Iraq
To update Senator Stafford: "If you're running for the Presidency, you are supposed to have too much on the ball to trust George Bush."
This was after Bush stole Florida 2000, remember. And the entire Beltway must have known Bush was using the AUMF as a tool to win the midterms. So why on earth would anybody trust George Bush?
Much as I like John Edwards, and I do, I just don't think he's presidential timber. This latest tortured statement proves it.
UPDATE Again, What Digby said:
every day we are seeing more evidence that Bush is turning up the heat, creating an environment where they can claim a phony casus belli, it's all over the news --- and we're still hearing campaign cliches and counter-productive sabre rattling. C'mon.
It goes to deference Xan.
[Phil Agre writes that [T]he most central feature of conservatism is deference: a psychologically internalized attitude on the part of the common people that the aristocracy are better people than they are.
All the Beltway 500 code words--Civil, Dignified
, Ungracious
It's the same deal with Centrist
So, look at this statement from Edwards through the prism of deference:
I felt a great conflict then about giving George Bush this authority, because I didn't trust him. And I resolved that conflict on the side of voting for it.
There was no rational reason to "trust" Bush after Florida 2000, when the Republicans clearly showed they were capable of anything. And there was certainly no reason to "trust" Bush in 2002. So what was at play?
Deference. And no, I don't want somebody who offered Bush deference to be President. And I don't want to reinforce deference, which is fundamentally an anti-Democratic, aristocratic value.
UPDATE I cross-posted this to Kos, and was extremely disappointed with the quality of the argumentation displayed by the Edwards defenders--ahistorical, not on point, IM-style one-liners, ad hominem attacks, and, very troublingly, the tendency to attribute lack of confidence in Edwards to "hatred." Remind you of anything? (I'm not asking for deference, here, quite the reverse: beat the argument on the merits, ferggawdsake.) Amanda and Melissa have their work cut out for them.
- lambert's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- 1+[encrypted]+#b94+
Printer-friendly version
Front page
Comments
In defense of Edwards
(Formerly titled "Oh fuck this shit to hell" which I decided was too drastic for the sidebar column and might cause it to break again.)
I have had it about up to here with the Edwards-bashing I'm seeing around and about, and to find it here is particularly annoying. You want to take issue with his statements on the Israel trip? Fine. I was not pleased with that either and hope that the people who are using every opportunity to bring it up on EVERY SINGLE THREAD ON EVERY GODDAM BLOG are also taking the time to write to his website and to him personally (john [at] johnedwards [dot] com (mailto:john [at] johnedwards [dot] com)) about the matter.
But to now decide that this is a "George Romney moment"? How about a "Ed Muskie Moment" or a "Howard Dean Moment"--are there any other campaign-killing moments we can think of that any other candidate did we can pile on Edwards with too? This is just over the damn top.
The cicular firing squad is forming early it seems. Geez could we knock off some of the truly no-fucking-chance-to-stop-Hillary folks first, to free up the money they will otherwise be wasting over the next 3-12 months before the early primaries bury them for good?
I'm sorry as hell Gore isn't running, maybe he's annointed enough to satisfy everyone. Or Feingold, or Waxman, or St. Peter or the Angel Fucking Gabriel for that matter. Until such a Perfect One comes along every candidate is going to have some position on some issue that somebody is going to declare Too Icky To Allow This Person to breathe our air or something. Damn if I see why there should be such an effort to slam Edwards already though.
See here
This is why. Dammit, we're in the midst a Constitutional crisis and those lunatics in the White House put the carriers in the Gulf for a reason.
[Ack, "See here" sounds really wrong, like "Now see here." What I mean is.... I think I'm having a Shystee moment, because that Digby post really caused my head to explode.]
No authoritarians were tortured in the writing of this post.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
Careless talk costs lives
Edwards simply can't use that kind of language when Bush is president for nearly two more years, and has shown his absolute impunity towards Congress.
He can't give the incumbent any bright ideas. Or the rhetorical props to do any more damage to the nation. This isn't an 'icky' position; it's a position that makes it easier for Bush to do real damage.
Quoting Thomas Friedman does suggest brainwashing...
But remember this: on the day FDR took the presidential oath, he was a shallow, self-centered man whose campaign centerpiece was balancing the federal budget.
People elected to the presidency rise to meet the challenge. What you want are people with intelligence, pragmatism, and a sense of right and wrong. Edwards scores B, B, and A-minus on those things. The minus for contemplating illegal war.