Becuase Everything Else Sucks

Feingold Picks on the Son of a Mill Worker

By Manila Ryce
Published Friday, January 25th, 2008, 2:58 pm
Filed under: US Politics

It’s always confused me how people can get behind Edwards as the alternative to Obama and Hillary when it’s quite obvious the guy’s no liberal. Edwards only received a 60% rating by the ACLU, he’s adamantly against marriage equality, he voted for the Patriot Act, supported the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, and voted for the war in Iraq. Then he used these same initiatives that he supported as reason to criticize Ashcroft and Bush. Even if we are to now believe that he does mean what he says about civil liberties and poverty, I’d still have to agree with Nader’s assessment of John Edwards as a “sniveling coward” for his inability to actually take a stand at the critical moment.

All that people seem to talk about is how John Edwards is saying the right things. Yeah, but is he doing the right things? Has he ever? No. Edwards’ supporters are no more interested in the issues than Clinton or Obama supporters. It’s so appealing to think that he’s the most progressive candidate than it is to understand that he’s damn near identical to the other two. Perhaps if he didn’t look so much like Kennedy, people would be a bit more critical of his hollow marketing. I do agree with his campaign rhetoric that there are “two Americas”, but it does seem as if there are also two Edwards’ to inhabit both.

In an interview with the Huffington Post on Thursday, Feingold restated his hesitance to endorse either Sen. Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton. Both, he said, would make great presidents. The same praise was not, however, heaped upon Feingold’s former Senate colleague Edwards, whose political sincerity the Wisconsin Democrat questioned.

“I don’t understand how somebody could vote, five or six critical votes, one way in the Senate and then make your campaign the opposite positions,” Feingold said, expanding on comments he made a week ago to the Appleton (Wisconsin) Post-Crescent. “That doesn’t give me confidence that if the person became president that they would continue the kind of policies that they are using in the Democratic primary. I’m more likely to believe what they did in the Senate.”

Asked to explain what precisely he found problematic, Feingold offered that Edwards had “taken in” voters by switching positions on several key issues.

“You have to consider what the audience is, and obviously these are very popular positions to take when you are in a primary where you are trying to get the progressive vote. But wait a minute — there were opportunities to vote against the bankruptcy bill, there was an opportunity to vote against the China [trade] deal. Those are the moments where you sort of find out where somebody is. So I think, people are being taken in a little bit that now he is taking these positions.”

The Edwards campaign did not return a request for comment.

read more…

Related Posts

5 Responses to “Feingold Picks on the Son of a Mill Worker”

  1. I found your site on google blog search and read a few of your other posts. Keep up the good work. Just added your RSS feed to my feed reader. Look forward to reading more from you.

    - Jason.

    Jason Elder
    01/25/08 at 3:48 pm

  2. […] of a Mill Worker By Manila Ryce Posted on January 26, 2008 by dandelionsalad Dandelion SaladBy Manila Ryce The Largest Minority Friday, January 25th, […]

    Feingold Picks on the Son of a Mill Worker By Manila Ryce « Dandelion Salad
    01/26/08 at 7:37 am

  3. Great post, Manila, will repost on my blog. Edwards knows how to pander. I remember him coming to my state in 2004 and saying one thing but yet said the complete opposite while campaigning in another state. That’s pandering for votes. I can’t trust him.

    Lo0048
    01/26/08 at 7:39 am

  4. Precisely my reason to discount his candidacy and why I have never been willing to consider giving him my vote.

    Comrade Kevin
    01/26/08 at 11:53 am

  5. I disagree with this analysis — despite my faith in Feingold. The same exact argument can be made about the other two candidates — and perhaps to a much more elevated level. In my mind, Clinton maintains little credibility; I do not want a return to the 1990s, and the continued pandering to corporations. At the same time, although Obama inspires genuine hope whenever he steps behind a podium, his failure to vote on issues — or his inability to realize that, as Edwards has stated, true change cannot arise from attempting to work with the corporations/industries that have raped this Nation over the past 30+ years. Obama’s inability to endorse a mandatory, universal health care system sticks out most on this subject. I, too, in my career, have been required to fight corporations; there is no way to work with them — corporations are virtually incapable of thinking on a level of the common good. Rather, as Edwards knows, corporations must be ‘taken on’ directly.

    Edwards has provided comprehensive, detailed platforms on core issues — he was first on this, and continues to be more progressive than his opponents. These core issues include the ecology, health care, and the economy. He has shown his muster, notwithstanding poor votes he made while in the Senate. Alas, there are a few votes by Feingold on conservative, reactionary judicial nominees that I hope he has come to regret. I see a John Edwards who has grown since his time in the Senate, and certainly through his advocacy of homeless issues with UNC-Chapel Hill’s Poverty Law Center. Indeed, Edwards has ‘walked the walk’ and ‘talked the talk.’ Consequently, he has my unwavering support.

    This support remains constant despite his positions on a handful of civil libertarian issues. I am strongly opposed to the death penalty — Edwards is apparently not. Notwithstanding, his stances on civil libertarian issues has become more progressive with the lessons he learned for supporting the fraudulent policies of this Administration in Iraq. He would not support the PATRIOT Act as it exists today. Remember, Feingold, to some degree, supports some of the policies within the PATRIOT Act.

    One final note — I am not certain as to Russ Feingold’s timeline. The “Bankruptcy [D]eform” bill was passed out of Congress AFTER Edwards’ Senate term had expired. There were too many Democrats who supported this bill — which effectively ended the ability of individuals with health care debt, marital debt, and other serious problems, from alleviating these problems, and achieving a ‘fresh start.’ Russ Feingold, righteously, opposed it. I am certain the John Edwards would also have opposed it upon its vote in 2005/2006. After all, doesn’t this bill affirm everything that Edwards has been saying about the need to fight corporations? The credit and health care industries successfully fought off any ability to qualify any alleged ‘reforms,’ including excluding individuals afflicted with health care debt, and the inclusion of strict regulation over predatory lending practices.

    I truly believe that John Edwards is the one remaining candidate who is capable of delivering real change to this Nation. No, I am not actively involved in his campaign — I have given him a small donation, and slapped a bumper sticker on my car. I am simply sincere with my beliefs — as I believe John Edwards is with his own positions.

    Derek
    01/27/08 at 6:57 am

Leave a Reply

Tired of filing this information out everytime you leave a comment at the Largest Minority? Why not register as a user? You also get full access to our forum!

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>