Edwards publishes sixty plus page issues booklet

http://www.johnedwards.com/media/real-solutions-for-america.pdf

Here is the story from the Raleigh News & Observer.

http://www.newsobserver.com/edwards/latest_all

EDWARDS ISSUES BOOK

(08/06/03) Starting Wednesday, the slew of policy proposals that U.S. Sen. John Edwards has been pushing on the campaign trail will be available in the form of a book.

"Real Solutions for America" spans more than 60 pages and includes 11 chapters on issues including health care, taxes and foreign policy.

''America deserves a president who will offer real solutions to the problems people face in their everyday lives. I have a responsibility to tell you not just what I'm against, but what I'm for,'' Edwards wrote in the booklet's introduction.

The book, reminiscient of candidate Bill Clinton's "Putting People First," will be distributed at campaign events in New Hampshire Wednesday and will also be available on Edwards' campaign web site.

--John Wagner

but how many people will take time and actually read through this 60 page book. Better to have a 10-15 page brochure.

is looking like the only one to be putting out a POSITIVE program and he seems like someone who could unite the party.

know little about Edwards. He is sliding easily to the bottom of the list of candidates, so he comes out w/a sixty page book that fer sure apathetic Americans will read?

This is a good move, why?

The little warmongering DLCer is going no where.

He has made almost no nosie so far. I think he is just going to let Lieberman kill his own campaign and let Dean and Kerry act liek 2 year olds and attack eachother everyday and when they are both battere dhe willl jump in and spend his money and say he can unite the party. Just a feeling I have and if he does that it would be genius. Dean agreed witht he DLC up until he decided to run for predient; so to insult Edwards for taking some of their advice is ridiculous. Besides the war issue Edwards is more progressive than Dean will ever be when it comes to workers rights and the economy in this country.

Edwards is NOT more progressive. Just look at his voting record

He:


voted for the Patriot Act

voted for a Judge D. Brooks Smith*** who is against the rights of women, minorities and the disabled

voted for Homeland Security

voted for Yucca mtn

voted for *'s war resolution**

voted for bankruptcy bill

voted to exempt fuel refiners from liability

voted against regulation of drinking water

did not even bother to vote on an Iraq investigation

In May, U.S. Sen. John Edwards (D-NC) told the San Francisco Chronicle he has no objection to the Justice Department's arresting patients.

http://www.talkleft.com/archives/003612.html

And he is a DLcer


***When D. Brooks Smith's nomination for U.S. Appeals Court came up, only three Democrats voted for him. John Edwards was among them. Not only was he among them, he missed the vote, but later got approval to be recorded as voting for Smith.

Smith is a RW misogynist that has threathened to further weaken the rights of people with disabilities. He has been described as a throwback to an era when disabled people were routinely warehoused and forgotten.

Source - www.aapd-dc.org

In casting his vote to promote Judge D. Brooks Smith to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, only one step below the Supreme Court, candidate Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., disregarded the extensive evidence of unethical behavior and discriminatory conduct that caused the Washington Post, New York Times and Los Angeles Times to oppose Smith's confirmation.

Sen. Edwards, hid out in his office across the hall from the
hearing, and didn't even have the courage to cast his "Yes"
vote in public.

http://www.now.org/press/05-02/05-23.html

If John Edwards' name was Tom Harkin, would you have a problem with him? He made most if not all of those same votes.

Also, I have no problem with the Justice Department arresting patients who are using marijuana either. Illegal drugs are...say it with me. Illegal. Howard Dean agrees with me. In the sentence right before Edwards' stance, it says: "Howard Dean, who worked to kill a medical marijuana bill in Vermont last year, has said he favors an FDA study but has refused to protect patients from arrest."

Dean also thought Yucca was a 'grand idea'.

It tickles me that you don't find Edwards progressive--do you find Dean to be?

If you don't like Edwards, fine. But he sure is progressive, in many areas.

that has been described as a throwback to an era when disabled people
were routinely warehoused and forgotten, is not my idea of progessive.

Hiding while other Congress people voted on the nomination, is again, not my idea of progressive.

Voting for *'s slaughter, is not my idea of progressive.

Continuing to support *'s slaughter, is not my idea of progressive.

Not even bothering to vote for an investigation into Iraq, is not my idea of progressive.

But hey! His daddy was a millworker! :wtf:

My grandpapa was a millworker for over 50 years and raised eight children.

So?

Thanks for reminding me.
The relevant amendment was Corzine's, to do an independent investigation of pre-war intelligence."To establish the National Commission on the Development and Use of Intelligence Related to Iraq." The only relevant vote was to table it, which Corzine AND EDWARDS voted against.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=1&vote=00284

And again--which is it? Did Edwards hide when making the Smith vote, or did he make extra certain his vote was recorded as yes? Your links are contradictory.

Again. Are you going to tell me Tom Harkin isn't a progressive when he voted almost IDENTICALLY to Edwards on most of the issues you talked about? Do you really care that a candidate is progressive when Dean supported Yucca and the Patriot Act and arresting people?

If this is all about the Smith vote and the war, just say so. If you just don't like the guy, fine. But painting him as some backwards DINO?? Not buying it.

Both:

Another Presidential wanna-be, Sen. Edwards, hid out in his office across the hall from the hearing, and didn't even have the courage to cast his "Yes" vote in public.


http://www.now.org/press/05-02/05-23.html

Edwards, who missed the vote but later got approval to be recorded as voting for Smith, said he believed Smith would not let his personal views affect his judgment.


www.jfanow.org

My links are NOT contradictory.

Edwards "missed" the vote because he was hiding out in his office across the hall from the hearing, and din't even have the courage to cast his "Yes" vote in public.

I am not painting him as some backwards DINO, he is doing fine by his lonesome.

www.jfanow.org has nothing on Edwards.

Also, here are some other Dems who voted for Smith when it was voted on in full Senate.

Robert Byrd
Fritz Hollings
Howard Dean's surrogate wife's husband, Evan Bayh
Mary Landrieu (is Mary Landrieu anti-woman as well?)

and a few others.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00202#position

are not running for president.

He voted the way he did when there was absolutely no reason (unless he was paid) for him to do so.

Just like his vote for the slaughter, he has not apologized for that vote either.

If, by some miracle, he does start to pick up votes, look out for Justice for All and NOW to begin protesting. LOUDLY and deservedly.

You have long since completely made up your mind on Edwards because you're convinced he is out to destroy and "warehouse" the handicapped.

Certainly, you have other issues with him, but this is THE ISSUE.

Dean can say what he would or would not have done, but he was not given the trumped-up intelligence reports that the legislature saw before having a vote forced on them right before an election. (Yes, I'm aware Edwards wasn't up for re-election at that point.) We also don't know how he'd have gone on any of the other votes. You just don't know. He probably doesn't even know, because he didn't have to make the decisions.

You still have presented NO PROOF WHATSOEVER that the D. Brooks Smith vote had anything at all to do with a deliberate attempt to destroy the hopes and dreams of the disabled. You have repeatedly made the connection and even said he "voted against" the handicapped. That is grotesque misrepresentation. You do not know what other influences brought forth this decision. You have also said that the door is firmly closed on him from your standpoint. You are not objective on the subject, and you are not willing to listen. You also repeatedly misrepresent him out of a perceived privilege to do so.

I'm not going to sit by and see the person who I believe has the best plan for the people just be endlessly slagged. The fact that you're in a wheelchair and I'm not does not make you more aware than me, it doesn't make you more understanding than me and it doesn't give you some blank check to vent without reproach. You know very little about me.

Prove that the D. Brooks Smith vote had anything to do with the disabled; you're the one who's repeatedly made the accusation. This isn't the Soviet Union; one is innocent until proven guilty.

comes up, you ask me to prove that the D. Brooks Smith vote had anything to do with the disabled. And everytime I do.

Yet, you never respond to my proof. Instead, you ignore my proof.

You are quite wrong when you state that it doesn't make me more understanding than you and it doesn't give me some blank check to vent without reproach. If you had read my many posts about how damaging that one vote was to any disabled person, you may have a tiny bit more understanding.

Having not lived the life of a disabled person, you have no fucking understanding of what it is like living in an abled bodied world, where some lawmaker makes it a point to vote to make it harder!


And Edwards answer as to why he voted for Smith?

Edwards, who missed the vote but later got approval to be recorded as voting for Smith, said he believed Smith would not let his personal views affect his judgment.

Affect his judgment?

"Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., disregarded the extensive evidence of unethical behavior and discriminatory conduct that caused the Washington Post, New York Times and Los Angeles Times to oppose Smith's confirmation.

snip-

"...cowardly votes betrayed the women of their states by recommending elevation of a judge whose repeated "ethical lapses" deserve censure, not promotion."

snip -

"To promote a judge who will have to decide on cases of discrimination, when that judge has himself cavalierly participated in discrimination and even ruled in favor of discriminatory practices, is the height of irresponsibility by those who are charged with that duty."

http://www.now.org/press/05-02/05-23.html

As I have said in other posts, Edwards was given this information long before the vote via phone calls, faxes, letters and emails.

He has stood up for organized labor and other populist issues as best he can considering the base he has. His state is socially right wing and has almost no organized labor, he has to work within his boundaries. The fact the he even won the seat is pretty impressive. I am not behind Edwards or any of the others but I am sure you can find some votes from any of the candidates that progressives will disagree with. That is politics not everyone in this country is as liberal as we are here at DU, those things about Edwards piss me off but all the candidates have cast votes in the past that I do not support. I am just saying he is putting out a clear and positive program while all the other are having childish arguements with eachother and that is not going to make our country a better place to live, they are all adults they need to start acting liek it!

He looked so relaxed and warm. Just wait - here he comes.