John Edwards joins the 2008 race (1 Viewer)

[disneydude]

John Edwards joins presidential race By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer
9 minutes ago



WASHINGTON - Former Democratic vice presidential nominee John Edwards is running for president for a second time, his campaign said Wednesday.



The former North Carolina senator plans to formally announce his candidacy Thursday from New Orleans' 9th Ward, which was hard hit by Hurricane Katrina. But his campaign got a little ahead of itself Wednesday and announced his intentions online.

"Better a day earlier than a day late," said Jennifer Palmieri, Edwards' adviser.

On the eve of the formal launch of his candidacy, Edwards visited the site of his planned announcement Wednesday for a photo opportunity. He did yard work at the home of Orelia Tyler, 54, whose house was completely gutted by Hurricane Katrina and is close to being rebuilt.

Edwards' impromptu announcement was made in the wake of President Gerald Ford's death and after his campaign accidentally launched his campaign Web site a day early, then shut it back down.

The campaign Web site's logo is "John Edwards 08" and its slogan is "Tomorrow begins today."

"This campaign is about changing America," the Web site read, listing five priorities that fit neatly with Edwards' message of economic equality: "Providing universal health care for all Americans," "Rebuilding America's middle class and eliminating poverty," and "Creating tax fairness by rewarding work, not just wealth."

Edwards, 53, issued a statement on President Gerald Ford's death, saying he was deeply saddened by the news and calling Ford a "true leader."

"He called on us to never lose faith that we can change America," Edwards said.

Taking turns with about 30 young people shoveling loads of dirt in Tyler's backyard, Edwards declined to discuss the campaign, focusing instead on the slow recovery in New Orleans, where whole neighborhoods remain a wasteland.

"Anyone who's not concerned with the rate of recovery is not paying attention," said Edwards. He said finger-pointing is part of the problem, adding that the student volunteers he worked with provided an example of what can be accomplished through cooperation.

Edwards arrived promptly at 1:30 p.m., clad in jeans and a khaki work shirt. His aides kept more than two-dozen reporters and photographers at bay as he and the students prepared Tyler's yard for landscaping.

Tyler is still living in a Federal Emergency Management Agency trailer in her yard.

"I feel like a child with Santa Claus," Tyler said before Edwards arrived.

The son of a textile mill worker, Edwards has been on a fast track most of his life despite his up-by-the-bootstraps roots.

A standout law student who became a stunningly successful trial lawyer, Edwards vaulted from nowhere politically into the U.S. Senate and then onto the 2004 Democratic presidential ticket — all in less than six years.

In 1998, in his first bid for public office, Edwards defeated incumbent Sen. Lauch Faircloth, R-N.C., a leading advocate for impeachment of President Clinton.

Edwards began building support for his first presidential bid shortly after arriving in the Senate. He quickly made a name for himself in Congress, using his legal background to help Democratic colleagues navigate the impeachment hearings.

Edwards launched a bid for the Democratic nomination in 2003 and quickly caught the eye of Democratic strategists. Although he won only the South Carolina primary, his skills on the trail, his cheerful demeanor, and his message of "two Americas" — one composed of the wealthy and privileged, and the other of the hardworking common man — excited voters, especially independents and moderate-leaning Democrats.



Lets see how long it takes before Navy-Stinger-Aqua begin their character assignations with their right-wing radio talking points.

I suspect that they will start to try to label him as an "ambulance chasing money hungry trial lawyer".....any takers?????

 

[Skip]

What a surprise, Edwards is running. I wish him the best.

I'll take you up on the ambulance chaser, too. Let's see who gets here first.

 

[Caine]

What a surprise, Edwards is running. I wish him the best.

I'll take you up on the ambulance chaser, too. Let's see who gets here first.

Being from North Carolina, I like the guy personally.

I'll be sure to vote for him in the Primaries (unless I find that he is too liberal for me).

 

[Stinger]

"Providing universal health care for all Americans,"

So we go to a government run health care system with the government controlling your health care and access to it? How will he pay for it?


"Rebuilding America's middle class "

Why does he think the middle class needs or wants him to rebuild them into and why should we think HE can do it or we want him messing with us at all? What exactly is he going to rebuild?

"and eliminating poverty,"

The leading cause of poverty is single/teen motherhood and fatherless children. What is he going to do about it?

"Creating tax fairness by rewarding work, not just wealth."

Most people work for the wealth they have so what is he talking about? If he is going to increase taxes on those who work hard and earn wealth then where is the reward for working hard?

This guy is all populist talk with no plans, typical Democrat code words. Can anyone tell me why they would vote FOR him? What is it he says he is going to do, and not some vague populist rhetoric, that you want him to do. What has he ever done that qualifies him to run the executive branch of government?

"Anyone who's not concerned with the rate of recovery is not paying attention,"

So what would he as President do? Federalize New Orleans? OK we're all concerned but the STATE and the CITY are the ones who are screwing up in New Orleans. If Bush were to just send money down there now which would get eaten up in bogus deals, no plans, no leadership, no accounting he would be slammed for doing so. Until the STATE and the CITY get their act together there is little the federal government can do so what is Edwards talking about?

AND he never served in the military and avoided the draft. The left criticizes Bush who did serve in the military in a highly dangerous MOS. So how can they support Edwards, what if he has to send troops into harms way and he avoided service at all?

Let's see what the man has to say now he has to stand on his own two feet.

 

[Stinger]

Lets see how long it takes before Navy-Stinger-Aqua begin their character assignations with their right-wing radio talking points.

I suspect that they will start to try to label him as an "ambulance chasing money hungry trial lawyer".....any takers?????

Hey I'll listen to what he has to say but so far HE is issuing the talking points. But I do see you got yours from Air America this morning.

See my counterpoints above, but try this in the meantuime

Do you support Edwards on Iraq?

"Edwards continued: "Almost no one disagrees with these basic facts: that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a menace; that he has weapons of mass destruction and that he is doing everything in his power to get nuclear weapons; that he has supported terrorists; that he is a grave threat to the region, to vital allies like Israel, and to the United States; and that he is thwarting the will of the international community and undermining the United Nations' credibility." The war, he said, would not undermine U.S. efforts to get Osama bin Laden. "I believe this is not an either-or choice. Our national security requires us to do both, and we can."

John Edwards, Dove?

And before you say "oh that was just because Bush lied to him" that is what he and the Dems were saying before Bush ever got elected. He would have gone to war just a Bush did. How is he going to reconcile that?

 

[disneydude]

Personally....I'm not a huge Edwards fan. Like you....I will take a look at him, but I don't think he is the person I would support in the primary.

That said...as far as Edwards on Iraq. Its not the failed intelligence that I have an issue with. I don't think that Bush doctored intelligence reports.... (although I don't rule out Rumsfield/Cheney)...
The problem that I have with Bush on Iraq is the way in which they seized on 911 and twisted it to justify attacking Iraq.

Would Edwards have gone to war with Iraq? I don't know. I kind of doubt it, but that is just guessing. I say this because I don't think that even with the intelligence that there was, there was ever a time essence issue to attacking.
I think the Bush Adminstration saw an opportunity and took it.

 

[Stinger]

Personally....I'm not a huge Edwards fan. Like you....I will take a look at him, but I don't think he is the person I would support in the primary.

He's got a long way to go.

That said...as far as Edwards on Iraq. Its not the failed intelligence that I have an issue with.

Since 99% of it wasn't failed..............

I don't think that Bush doctored intelligence reports.... (although I don't rule out Rumsfield/Cheney)...

Since nothing has ever been shown to have been doctored..............

The problem that I have with Bush on Iraq is the way in which they seized on 911 and twisted it to justify attacking Iraq.

Since it wasn't twisted or "siezed" and the Dems includeing Edwards were in agreement, read the entire article and his others statements......

Would Edwards have gone to war with Iraq? I don't know. I kind of doubt it, but that is just guessing.

He very clearly says he would have.

""I believe this is not an either-or choice. Our national security requires us to do both, and we can.""

I say this because I don't think that even with the intelligence that there was, there was ever a time essence issue to attacking.
I think the Bush Adminstration saw an opportunity and took it.

The wait was over and Edwards agreeded as did the majority of Dems. It was already the official policy of the United States to remove him and Edwards along with the majority of Dems agreed he HAD to be removed and force would be the only way to do it.

 

[disneydude]

Stinger

I don't disagree with most of your premise.
The issue for me IS and has always been with the changing justifications for the war and with this adminstrations attempts to link Iraq and 911.

Why not just say this is what we are doing.....and forget about manipulating peoples emotions by playing with 911.

As far as Edwards going to war....I did read the article....my point was that I don't think it would have been the same thing. I don't think that he would have seen it as an immediate requisite in the same sense as GWB.

 

[TurtleDude]

Edwards is a lightweight who probably would not have won reelection to the senate. Most of his wins at trial came in front of judges bought and paid for by the trial lawyers using junk science that the homer judges allowed in front of a jury. His ceberal palsy cases have now been proven to be junk science-his claims of asphyxia" were bunk.

Barak Obama at least has Harvard Law Review credentials while Edwards is a snake oil salesman shyster with not much gravitas

 

[Stinger]

Stinger

I don't disagree with most of your premise.
The issue for me IS and has always been with the changing justifications for the war and with this adminstrations attempts to link Iraq and 911.

But they never changed. They were spelled out clearly and succinctly from the get-go and all one has to do is go back and read Bush's speeches and the other cabinet officials speeches. They were the very same reason as in the Iraq Liberation Act, sponsored by Clinton and passed by the congress, and restated in the authorization to use force.

Why not just say this is what we are doing.....and forget about manipulating peoples emotions by playing with 911.

Speak for yourself. My emotions were not in any way manipulated and I don't think most were. The case was clearly laid out, debated in our congress and at the UN based on previously passed resolutions which throughly vetted all the reasons. This whole myth about the reasons changing was nothing more than Democrat propaganda to cover their own political need to turned the public against the war.

As far as Edwards going to war....I did read the article....my point was that I don't think it would have been the same thing. I don't think that he would have seen it as an immediate requisite in the same sense as GWB.

You read the article?

From it:

"Although Democrats, including Kerry, had long paid lip service to a policy of regime change in Iraq, Edwards was one of the earliest and most outspoken Democratic hawks on Iraq following the September 11 attacks. On February 24, 2002, he described Saddam Hussein's regime as an "imminent threat" in an interview on CNN. "I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country.""

He is quite clear in his statements he made that it was time to remove Saddam by force, he did not equivocate.

So if the Dems believe Bush should be impeached for having the same opinion as Edwards, that not only could we go after Saddam at the same time as going after OBL, we had to, how can they vote him into office?

 

[Joby]

"Providing universal health care for all Americans,"

So we go to a government run health care system with the government controlling your health care and access to it? How will he pay for it?

Stop wasting cash in foreign nations would be a start

"Rebuilding America's middle class "

Why does he think the middle class needs or wants him to rebuild them into and why should we think HE can do it or we want him messing with us at all? What exactly is he going to rebuild?

Yeah. That's the line Bush I was giving about the wonderful state of our economy. Right up until Election Day.

The leading cause of poverty is single/teen motherhood and fatherless children. What is he going to do about it?

Create alternatives to abortion, like Clinton did. Also, give assistance to young mothers.

In other words, not just preaching the evils of abortion and making it harder to afford a child.

Most people work for the wealth they have so what is he talking about? If he is going to increase taxes on those who work hard and earn wealth then where is the reward for working hard?

He's talking about moving the tax burden from the middle class to the upper.

Basically, the opposite of your philosophy, which is "The rich people are the brightest and best of America, and shouldn't have to pay for it. Otherwise, we're doomed!" :roll:

This guy is all populist talk with no plans, typical Democrat code words. Can anyone tell me why they would vote FOR him?

...Hope?



...anyway, he's too conservative for my vote, but that's another issue entirely...

 

[TurtleDude]

S


He's talking about moving the tax burden from the middle class to the upper.


...anyway, he's too conservative for my vote, but that's another issue entirely...

Uh hate to break the news the upper class already has the tax burden

they pay almost all the death confiscation taxes
they pay the majority of the federal income taxes

edwards not only is a liar, he is a shyster and if he is too rightwing for you -you must be close to a trotskyite

 

[Joby]

they pay almost all the death confiscation taxes
they pay the majority of the federal income taxes

And 1% of them own about 45% of...everything

edwards not only is a liar, he is a shyster and if he is too rightwing for you -you must be close to a trotskyite

Yeah, I agree with the Edwards part, he's a typical American Politician.

And I appreciate the compliment on being a Trotskyist.

 

[TurtleDude]

And 1% of them own about 45% of...everything



Yeah, I agree with the Edwards part, he's a typical American Politician.

And I appreciate the compliment on being a Trotskyist.

The Economist circa June 13, 2006 notes that the top 1% only make about 22% of the income but pay close to 40% of the income taxes and while the top 1% of the taxpayers make about the same proportion of income as they did in the 1920's, their share of the total wealth in this nation has gone way down.

half the country pays less than 4% of the FIT and clearly they use at least half of the government resources.

 

[Stinger]

Stop wasting cash in foreign nations would be a start

Really, so if we stopped all foreign aid how much of a national health care system do you think that would pay for, your about 5% there so keep going.

Again:
"Providing universal health care for all Americans,"

So we go to a government run health care system with the government controlling your health care and access to it? How will he pay for it?

Yeah. That's the line Bush I was giving about the wonderful state of our economy. Right up until Election Day.

What does this have to do with Bush I. We are talking about Edwards please stay on topic

Again:

"Rebuilding America's middle class "

Why does he think the middle class needs or wants him to rebuild them into and why should we think HE can do it or we want him messing with us at all? What exactly is he going to rebuild?

Create alternatives to abortion, like Clinton did. Also, give assistance to young mothers.

Clinton "created" alternatives to abortion did he, like what specifically did he create? And how would that make for fewer young single mothers? And what exactly do you mean by giving assistance to young mothers. The goal is to not have young mothers that require taxpayer money in the first place not encourage it by supporting it.

In other words, not just preaching the evils of abortion and making it harder to afford a child.

So we make it easier for young single women to have children without fathers and homes to support them. This is Edwards plan? Can you cite from his website or did you just try to make it up?

He's talking about moving the tax burden from the middle class to the upper.

The top 1% pays 35% of all income taxes. How much more is he planning to shift onto them? And since federals revenues are booming why is he going to try to do something that would hurt the economy and effect federal revenues to the negative in the long term?

But let's look at what he's really talking about, again.

Most people work for the wealth they have so what is he talking about? He wants to shift more tax burden on people who have worked hard to get tghe income he now wants to take from them. How is that a "reward for hard work"?

Basically, the opposite of your philosophy, which is "The rich people are the brightest and best of America, and shouldn't have to pay for it. Otherwise, we're doomed!" :roll:

What on earth are you talking about "Otherwise, we're doomed" The rich pay a hugely disproportionate amount of their income it taxes already, the bottom 50% pay little if anything at all. This is just a simpleton declaration to attract the votes of the uniformed. Those who don't know that the top 30% already pay most taxes. It's aimed at those who suffer from envy and jealousy and don't want to help pay for the cost of government.

...anyway, he's too conservative for my vote, but that's another issue entirely...

From what you said about him, even if he didn't really say it, you seem to agree with him. Where is he too conservative for you?

 

[Goobieman]

So if the Democrats believe Bush should be impeached for having the same opinion as Edwards, that not only could we go after Saddam at the same time as going after OBL, we had to, how can they vote him into office?

None of this matters -- the (D) next to his name is all they care about.

 

[Zyphlin]

"Providing universal health care for all Americans,"

So we go to a government run health care system with the government controlling your health care and access to it? How will he pay for it?


"Rebuilding America's middle class "

Why does he think the middle class needs or wants him to rebuild them into and why should we think HE can do it or we want him messing with us at all? What exactly is he going to rebuild?

"and eliminating poverty,"

The leading cause of poverty is single/teen motherhood and fatherless children. What is he going to do about it?

"Creating tax fairness by rewarding work, not just wealth."

Most people work for the wealth they have so what is he talking about? If he is going to increase taxes on those who work hard and earn wealth then where is the reward for working hard?

This guy is all populist talk with no plans, typical Democrat code words. Can anyone tell me why they would vote FOR him? What is it he says he is going to do, and not some vague populist rhetoric, that you want him to do. What has he ever done that qualifies him to run the executive branch of government?

"Anyone who's not concerned with the rate of recovery is not paying attention,"

So what would he as President do? Federalize New Orleans? OK we're all concerned but the STATE and the CITY are the ones who are screwing up in New Orleans. If Bush were to just send money down there now which would get eaten up in bogus deals, no plans, no leadership, no accounting he would be slammed for doing so. Until the STATE and the CITY get their act together there is little the federal government can do so what is Edwards talking about?

AND he never served in the military and avoided the draft. The left criticizes Bush who did serve in the military in a highly dangerous MOS. So how can they support Edwards, what if he has to send troops into harms way and he avoided service at all?

Let's see what the man has to say now he has to stand on his own two feet.

That's so amazingly typical of you Stinger! Look at you just using talking point insults about him being a trial lawyer or him demanding a staff member get him a PS3 from Wal-mart. People were definitly right when they were taking bets on how quick you'd make a post full of emotion and just insults instead of anything substantive. Typical conservative...

...Wait, that was substantive and actually just wasn't talking points and insults...

Its a Rove Plot! He actually WANTED to just make insults, but he knew we knew he'd do it, so instead of doing what he knew we knew he'd do he instead did what he knew we knew he wouldn't do! Damn you rove!

 

[Dezaad]

As a 'tax and spend' liberal, I am thoroughly disappointed that Edwards proposes new programs and doesn't propose tax increases to pay for them, along with increases for covering the rest of the deficit. His program proposals are important ones, and completely worthwhile. But, I will utterly oppose them unless the total package includes balancing the budget.

He admits that the deficit will remain about the same under his policies. We shouldn't continue the borrow and spend policies of the current administration.

 

[TurtleDude]

As a 'tax and spend' liberal, I am thoroughly disappointed that Edwards proposes new programs and doesn't propose tax increases to pay for them, along with increases for covering the rest of the deficit. His program proposals are important ones, and completely worthwhile. But, I will utterly oppose them unless the total package includes balancing the budget.

He admits that the deficit will remain about the same under his policies. We shouldn't continue the borrow and spend policies of the current administration.

why would anyone be a tax and spend liberal? maybe we should increase taxes on groups that don't pay enough now-and that isn't the rich

 

[dragonslayer]

Being from North Carolina, I like the guy personally.

I'll be sure to vote for him in the Primaries (unless I find that he is too liberal for me).

Edwards is Ok. He is the best the Demos that has announced. I can never go for Hilary. She voted to support the war in Iraq.

My only concern is that he may not be liberal enough.

Just kidding.:rofl

 

[Stinger]

That's so amazingly typical of you Stinger!

What is amazingly typical is that when the left cannot refute a post they engage in the personal invective as if that wins the debate.

Try to address what I stated for once.

1. So we go to a government run health care system with the government controlling your health care and access to it? How will he pay for it?

2. Why does he think the middle class needs or wants him to rebuild them into and why should we think HE can do it or we want him messing with us at all? What exactly is he going to rebuild?

3. The leading cause of poverty is single/teen motherhood and fatherless children. What is he going to do about it?

4. Most people work for the wealth they have so what is he talking about? If he is going to increase taxes on those who work hard and earn wealth then where is the reward for working hard?

5. This guy is all populist talk with no plans, typical Democrat code words. Can anyone tell me why they would vote FOR him? What is it he says he is going to do, and not some vague populist rhetoric, that you want him to do. What has he ever done that qualifies him to run the executive branch of government?

6. So what would he as President do? Federalize New Orleans? OK we're all concerned but the STATE and the CITY are the ones who are screwing up in New Orleans. If Bush were to just send money down there now which would get eaten up in bogus deals, no plans, no leadership, no accounting he would be slammed for doing so. Until the STATE and the CITY get their act together there is little the federal government can do so what is Edwards talking about?

And it is the left that so criticizes Bush who DID serve in the military, in a dangerous job. So now it's time to hold the Dem candidates to the same scrutiny that the left held Bush.

7. AND he never served in the military and avoided the draft. The left criticizes Bush who did serve in the military in a highly dangerous MOS. So how can they support Edwards, what if he has to send troops into harms way and he avoided service at all?

Edwards laid out his platform for debate. Are you too scared to do so?

 

[Stinger]

Edwards is Ok. He is the best the Demos that has announced. I can never go for Hilary. She voted to support the war in Iraq.

Well it was Edwards who said we had no choice but to use force to remove him.

 

[Zyphlin]

Originally Posted by Zyphlin
That's so amazingly typical of you Stinger!

What is amazingly typical is that when the left cannot refute a post they engage in the personal invective as if that wins the debate.

Edwards laid out his platform for debate. Are you too scared to do so?

Wow. Congrats man. Remind me never to you know, actually jump in a bit at your defense again. How about this GENIUS, go read my post. "Typicial of the left". Seriously...read the majority of my posts. While I'm not TOT, i'm far from some "leftist". Did you even take 5 damn seconds to read past the first line of my post. Next time slow your partisan, unthinking backside, and do this amazing thing called..."reading"...you may see that what you thought was just someone engaging in "Personal invective" was actually basically saying "nice job" and defending you.


Sadly at this point I'm kind of embarressed that that was originally the case

 

[Caine]

The Economist circa June 13, 2006 notes that the top 1% only make about 22% of the income but pay close to 40% of the income taxes and while the top 1% of the taxpayers make about the same proportion of income as they did in the 1920's, their share of the total wealth in this nation has gone way down.

half the country pays less than 4% of the FIT and clearly they use at least half of the government resources.

Thats okay...... They waste alot of taxpayer money too.

I work in the "wealthy" area of Charlotte, and we have nearly the same amount of Calls For Service as some of the poor areas, but less than 1/3 of the reported incidents (where something really happened).

They like to call the police because they heard a noise at 2am in their neighborhood, or... my favorite yet.....
A black man is walking around in my neighborhood, he must be up to no good...
That one annoys me every time.

 

[Stinger]

Wow. ................................

If I missed any sarcasm I apologize, your intent was not apparent. Perhaps someone on the left will address the points made.