-
"Only when you drink from the river of silence shall you indeed sing. And when you have reached the mountain top, then you shall begin to climb. And when the earth shall claim your limbs, then shall you truly dance." ~ Kahlil Gibran -
Nice!Originally posted by Tilla View Post
Actor!
Yes we can! ...using the ways we each think and know we can!"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." -
- Shane Says:
February 8, 2008 at 9:14 am Julian,
I’m a huge fan of Senator Edwards. I supported him in 2004. However, I would like to offer a different POV on many of the things you’ve suggested.
1. Edwards introduced detailed policy positions first because he’s been running for President full time since 2003. Don’t get me wrong, his proposals were impressive and clearly well thought-out. But comparing the timeline of the Edwards’ campaign to that of Obama (or Clinton) is not an apples-to-apples comparison. To put it another way: Edwards introduced his candidacy for President in 2003 and introduced these policies in 2007. It’s not as if we didn’t need Health Care, Economic Stimulus, and a Global Warming plan in 2004. We did. It took him 4 years to introduce these policies. It took Obama (and Clinton) less than a year.
It’s disingenuous of you to look over the fact that Edwards was a professional Presidential Candiate while Obama was affecting real change in the US Senate, passing ethics reform and standing with Senator Kennedy for comprehensive immigration reform.
2. You suggest that Edwards has more “political courage” than Obama because he released his proposals first. I suggest that you look at Senator Edwards’ record in the US Senate. He voted FOR the patriot act. He voted FOR the 2001 bankruptcy law (along with Clinton). He voted FOR the China free trade deal. He voted FOR the usue of force in Iraq. He voted FOR NCLB.
Frankly, with all due respect to Senator Edwards, when he had a chance to directly effect the course of this country as just one of 100 US Senators, he chose again and again to take the EASY WAY OUT. It’s EASY to rail against an unpopular law or an unpopular war. It’s MUCH MORE DIFFICULT to stir the POLITICAL COURAGE to stand AGAINST the political tidal wave and resist these policy positions from day one.
And that’s the kind of political courage you see from Senator Obama. No doubt, in 2002-3 he was already considering running for the US Senate. And at a time when everyone thought the war would be over in 2 weeks and Bush would spend all summer smiling in victory parades, at a time when NEARLY EVERY OTHER DEMOCRAT, including EDWARDS and CLINTON supported the war, Barack Obama was a lone voice of dissent.
3. Your characterization of Senator Obama’s healthcare plan is just a complete distortion of the facts. And I suspect you KNOW that.
FACT: Personal Mandates Do Not Cover Everybody and Personal Mandates Do Not Reduce Costs.
The awesome part of this is that we have real evidence here. We have 10+ years of personal mandates for auto insurance in (nearly?) EVERY STATE IN THE UNION.
Yet, despite HARSH PENALTIES, we still have so many uninsured motorsist that we, as a law, must cover insurance just to protect against those that are uninsured.
Yet, despite COAST to COAST MANDATES, the cost of auto insurance, adjusted for inflation, has NEVER went down year over year.
But we make CRIMINALS out of those that don’t purchase the insurance.
And HILLARY will do the same thing. National healthcare is NOT some abstract duty to divine providence. It’s simply a MORAL issue. It’s simply about HELPING THOSE THAT NEED HELP. It’s a simple illustration that in this country WE ARE OUR BROTHERS KEEPER, and WE ARE OUR SISTERS KEEPER.
It’s about HELPING people. And the way to help people is not to turn them into criminals!
Obama’s plan is to institute nearly the EXACT SAME policy as Clinton and Edwards only it won’t FORCE people to buy insurance that they simply cannot afford. It’s to use the gov’t health plan to compete with the private sector and push down costs for the first time in decades. Obama’s plan is simple: Reduce costs and then cover everyone voluntarily.
Clinton’s (and Edwards’) plan is to cover everyone BY FORCE including GARNISHING WAGES, and THEN reduce costs.
Excuse me while I laugh and squirt milk out my nose. This has been tried. See Also: Insurance, Auto.
When people are FORCED BY LAW to purchase healthcare there is no longer ANY incentive for the private insurers to cut costs. NONE. They have a built in, forced market.
It is _MORALLY WRONG_ for the Government to force people to purchase insurance that they simply cannot afford.
And yes, Senator Clinton does TRY to make it more affordable by offering subsidies. Your comment that she offers “more” subsidies is patently wrong. First, the language in all these plans is purposely ambiguous about subsidies. Second, the words “more” or “less” simply do not apply. Senator Clinton does offer DIFFERENT subsidies, as does Obama and Edwards. Robert Reich, a former Clinton Labor Secretary has examined both Obama’s plan and Clintons and determined that they will both offer coverage to the same amount of people, give or take.
Furthermore: More than one study has shown that there is a “Donut Hole” in Senator Clintons subsidies. This will create a large swath of people who CANNOT AFFORD insurance but will be FORCED to buy it by having their WAGES GARNISHED by HILLARY CLINTON. These are low and middle income folks who will have to cut spending elsewhere to cover these lost wages. What will they cut? What will they lose?
Finally, your characterization of Edwards as “most electable” was proven incorrect, I think. You claim he was the victim of a partisan MSM. Edwards was on the Democratic ticket in 2004. He was one of the last men standing in that news cycle. He was getting attention as a 2008 candidate starting November 5, 2004. You act like people just didn’t know who he was or what he stood for. RUBBISH. People knew exactly what he stood for. The people spoke. It was NOT Clinton’s fault. It was NOT Obama’s fault. It was NOT the medias fault. It was NOT John Edwards’ fault. It was just the way it is.
It just wasn’t his time.
Finally, the notion that Edwards beat the GOP candidates by wider margins than other candidates is PATENTLY FALSE. Sure, there’s no doubt that this is the case in a few polls. Edwards himself made that claim in one of his last debates. And THAT SAME NIGHT it was debunked by factcheck.org. In truth, he WAS beating the GOP candidates by more than the other 2 dems in the last CNN survey that matched the 3 democrats against the GOP Field.
The problem, however, is that Edwards made that statement in the middle of January. And the last CNN Poll that included all 3 was taken in the beginning of December, before Obama won Iowa and before Clinton won in New Hampshire. After that, CNN did not include Edwards in subsequent polls (they said they would begin including him again if he won a state). HUNDREDS of “horse race” polls have been conducted since 2007 and it’s JUST A FLAT OUT LIE to suggest that Edwards’ was the most competitive candidate in a plurality of them.
I do not mean to attack Senator Edwards. He was my #1 choice in 2004, and my #2 choice this year. He’s set the tone of this race and he’s brought issues of poverty to the front of this debate. The nation and the party owe him a debt of gratitude.
But i could simply NOT stand by while you distort the record of Senator Obama.
I hope you join the Senator for the remainder of the race. Senator Edwards himself made this a clear choice for you and your fellow supporters: There were 2 candidates for change in this race, and one candidate of the status quo. There is now only one candidate for change still standing.
Ask “WWJD”: What Would John Do. Faced with these 2 candidates, I think it’s pretty clear who Edwards himself will be voting for in the North Carolina primary.
Enjoy your Friday and have a great weekend!
Karl commenting on Maschaeroni's sending off, "Getting sent off like that is anti-TEAM!
Terrible decision by the player!":busshead::Laugh&roll::Laugh&roll::eek::La ugh&roll:Comment
- Shane Says:
Tweet
Comment