Tweet
File this one under "Weirdest Campaign Vows of ‘08": (update)
John Edwards vowed Monday to include Republicans in his Cabinet if he’s elected president.
"Here’s why: because I’m looking for the strongest, most capable, most independent-minded people I can find. I want people around me who will say, ‘You’re wrong about this, and you could do grave damage if you do it. Mr. President, you need to change your mind,’ " he said. "Because I’m not perfect, I’m capable of making mistakes."
Sorry, that’s just ridiculous on many levels. The idea that an Edwards administration can only avoid serious policy mistakes if it contains Republicans is, on its face, totally absurd. Does Edwards really think he can’t find a handful of strong, smart, capable Democrats who disagree with him on stuff and won’t hesitate to tell him so? Really?
Even worse, it really makes absolutely no sense at all in a political climate where the public prefers Democrats to Republicans by a margin of 14 points. And, unless this report is inaccurate, he didn’t just say he’d be open to it or would consider it. This is a promise.
This just reeks of 1990s/DLC Stockholm Syndrome. I’m really over Democrats who say we need Big Grownup Republicans to save us from irresponsible flaky selves. It’s bad for the Democratic brand. It’s bad politics. Can you imagine Rudy or Willard or Thompson making such a pledge? I can’t.
I like Edwards, and I’m not trying to single him out. Bill Richardson did the same thing (see same article).
But this is teh stupid.
UPDATE
Because of the concerns that this article may have taken Edwards out of context, and that he made no actual "promise" or "vow" to appoint Republicans, I have written the reporter and will post what I learn.
Related posts:
- House Voting Now On The Rule For Health Care Debate
- Republicans Move to Permit Credit Card Companies to Jack Up Their Rates for the Next Several Weeks
- Steny Hoyer Latest Democrat to Say House Must Act First
- Obama Campaign Ad Singles Out PhRMA Lobbyist Who Worked Closely with Obama on PhRMA Deal
- Are Progressives Going the Way of Bush Republicans?
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
WTF? And, firsties?
Holy shit. Well, HE’s out.
I’m still hoping that Edwards was somehow badly misquoted and really didn’t say anything remotely resembling this.
This is just astoounding. I’m all for being grown-up enough to admit that having people around you who will tell you no when nessisary is a good thing. Why, pray tell, do these people have to be GOP? Since most of the GOP missed the train regarding anything resembling integrity,ethics, and doing the right thing cause it’s the right thing to do a long time ago.
“… most independent minded people” he’s kidding me right? There goes my first choice.
Or maybe he’s just saying that he’s willing to consider other viewpoints, something that Beloved Leader isn’t. I don’t think this reeks of anything but a guy who is not afraid to say he wants everyone onboard.
A President that listens? Wow. What a concept.
So, what, he needs balance for his OWN principles? Hey, John, there are enough Dems who will disagree with you on various points anyway — WTF do you need the Republicans for?
So, I just got up (worked till 5 am). Missed the latest Pissy Presser and stuff. How bad was it?
On topic: Is Edwards now feeling compelled to pander to pliable Goopers? Oh, well…
Do I have to once again review my support of Edwards, just as I had to review and rescind my support of Obama?
Whoa – “ridiculous on many levels” Blue Texan? Mind elaborating a bit more?
You’re doing it now.
You’re conflating “John Edwards promises to listen to all views” to “John Edwards must have Republicans in his cabinet.”
Fine, John, name Chuck Hagel now as your prospective SecDef.
He must be talking about Lieberman.
This makes sense to me. Have a few Republicans around, find out what they think on an issue, and do the opposite.
I’m guessing he’s just leaving the door open to let a few Repub voters in.
I like Edwards, but this is unnecessary. If you want to say you’ll listen to all views, fine. If you want to say you won’t “rule out” republicans in the cabinet, fine. No need to promise to put them there, though.
If he needs a republican cabinet, why not just elect a republican?
Do they all live in the same bubble President Pissy Pants does? He has a freaking TINY approval rating. UNNAMED democrats kick R ass. Don’t pander to them!
Chris Bowers recently did a study wherein he showed that the “bi-partisan” gestures have all been made by Democrats — the Republicans NEVER try to meet Democrats halfway, and are NEVER called on this by the GOP/Media Complex. (On edit: Here’s the link.)
sounds like a tempest in a teapot to me. after all, he said he wanted the strongest and most capable people. Jim Webb used to be a Republican. James Comey could be a decent cabinet member. there are decent people who aren’t Democrats. we should remember that or we’ll become just like”them”.
That was my reaction in #8 above.
What Hugh said… keep them around for comedy relief. Governing is such *hard* work…
No, he said the opposite. He promised to appoint Republicans. Are there not enough strong and capable Democrats?
Of course. Makes sense.
Of course, HoJo of the HoJo for HoJo party needs to be “rewarded” for his loyalty with a nice ambassadorship. To whoever hates us the most and will still accept our ambassador, providing them with a hut to live in. Or Antarctica. That works too.
Yes Mr. Edwards, and your first mistake is asking a Repug to be a member of your cabinet.
What fahrender said @ 18.
Exactly! Would a Republican ever in a million years promise to appoint a Democrat to a Cabinet position in the spirit of “bi-partisanship”?
**crickets**
He could just as easily have said that there are a number of professionals in the government, or, worse, who have been forced out of government service who are non-ideological, and he would reach out to those professionals. He could have then talked about the pernicious partisanship that has defined the this government–and committed himself to real science, real analysis and government by coming to grips with the world as it is.
In fact, he feeds the meme, that very evil Rovian meme, that there are no facts, only partisan points of view.
Linky quoting Edwards precisely if you please.
Very clever of him. I’ve been wondering when someone was going to take that particular leaf out of Abe Lincoln’s book. Imagine the amount of political heat that deflects when you want to do something extraordinary (like prosecute the Civil War, or put in a national health plan) and members of the opposite party have already been closely involved in the deliberations. I have heard that Abe also used this device to “keep his enemies closer”, as the saying goes.
This could be a mark of intelligence.
It’s a line from way back. Supposed to make a “feel good” reaction by making you think he is above petty partisan politics and will do what he thinks is in the best interest of the nation.
Trying to appeal to moderates.
“If he needs a republican cabinet, why not just elect a republican?”
to include Republicans doesn’t mean to make it a Republican cabinet.
Why would anyone’s choices for advisors be limited to people who belong to either the Republican or Democratic parties? Isn’t that a symptom of our most intractable problems?
I’d be interested in seeing an actual quote of the supposed “pledge.” Everything I’ve seen so far has a quote on the explanation, but the “pledge” or “promise” in the reporter’s words. I’d like to know whether it was just saying “sure” in response to a question about it or something more forceful before worrying about it much.
In any case, I doubt it’s a big deal. It’s been fairly common in recent administrations to have one cabinet member from the opposing party, as a show of bipartisanship.
(Plus, it can be a way to remove the advantage of incumbency in a state or district that’s been trending your way, but has a long-serving rep of the other party. Killin’ ‘em with kindness. *g*)
You need to read the entire article. I wish the reporter would have specifically stated the question he was responding to. The point that Edwards was making was that unlike this adminstration, he would not have a problem including the opposing party in his cabinet in order to consider all possible point of views. He goes on to state that he would not surround himself with people that are yes men and who would tell him how strong and great he is. like Bush has done.
“Actually, Senator Edwards, poverty can be a very good thing in that it keeps down the surplus population.”
Nope, but I couldn’t imagine any self respecting Progressive voter being fooled by any such pledge if the right wing boys did get a wild hair. On the other hand, if conservative voters can be fooled by this (hell, they’ve been fooled by even more obtuse fukkery from their own candidates), then why not? More power to him. I hope it works out. It isn’t hurting my sensibilities or expectations of the Democratic party (which are, admittedly, pretty low right now).
And probably a good table leg as well but I wouldn’t want someone in a Democratic Administration who favors immunity for telecoms, did not have problems with warrantless wiretapping of Americans per se but simply how the Administration was carrying it out, and had no qualms about denying Padilla his Constitutional rights while trumpeting allegations, none of which were subsequently substantiated.
Again, there’s nothing wrong with saying you’ll hire the best people — and that includes considering people from both parties. Perfectly fine.
But to promise that you will appoint a Republican, just because they’re a Republican, in order to avoid “grave damage”, is entirely another matter.
The Big Dawg did appoint a Repug, William Cohen, to his cabinet. But I don’t remember any Repug president doing the same for a Democrat.
We liberals NEED republicans around! They are manly and strong, they will keep us safe! Everyone knows them libruls aren’t any good at security and war… …that’s why Edwards promises to keep the Republican grown-ups in cabinet postions.
Edwards… …you blew this one. Promising the best cabinet member REGARDLESS of party is good, this sucks.
Biodun:
JFK did it too. Even then, there was a feeling that it was bad to have a cabinet full of liberals. I don’t know why.
Well geez, BT. I guess that once upon a time there were actually republicans who were bright, capable and had the best interest of the Republic at heart as Americans. I am sure that Edwards could fill his cabinet with Democrats with no problem at all, but why do we disqualify all republicans automatically because we can’t stand the current crop? I mean shit, dude, I have been so anti-GoOPer for so long that I’ve lost my original invite to the “I can’t stand Wingnuts” convention. But I don’t believe that Edwards is pandering, merely that he’s saying he wants to hear everyone.
If he goes with Holy Joe (or his ilk), you win and I lose and will buy the beer in Austin (or wherever in TX) next time I’m in the neighborhood. But jumping on Edwards for making a statement like this and reading all kinds of evil stuff into it is silly (IMHO). Let’s wait and see what happens. Dollars to donuts, some Edwards staffer is reading this thread right now and reporting back to Edwards as we type.
I might be the dumbest fucking guy to ever write a blog, but I see no evil motives here… just someone who says “I’ll listen”.
No need to go back a million years. Norman Mineta, Secretary of Transportation, Bush II.
Linky in the first line of post, from the Des Moines Register.
That’s what Norman Mineta and Richard Perle — both nominal Democrats — were for. The Republicans would look for total DINOs to appoint, people who were Republicans in all but name, as their once-in-a-blue-moon gesture of token “bipartisanship”.
Their real feelings about bipartisanship are shown by Grover Norquist, who called it “date rape”.
I am I guess one of the few people that believe there are republicans that are more capable in some positions then democrats
or not
it doesn’t matter, what I am saying is the most qualified is the most qualified and it doesn’t matter what their party affiliation is as long as their idiology is the same as mine for that particular position I’m hiring the most qualified
clarke was a republican and he served clinton and this country very nicely
I wouldn’t “insist” on republicans in my office but I certainly wouldn’t deny a position to a republican based on their party affiliation
integrity and ability
however the “integrity” part is going to be hard to find among republicans, they’ve all abandoned their integrity for this president so I can’t really see an elected republican qualifying for anyhting right now
What? A campaign doing something ridiculous. It does not make sense for Democrats to be attacking other Democrats over anything other than ISSUES.
It is ridiculous (1) For the Hillary Campaign to attack Barack for his record in Kindergarten and 3rd Grade. (2) For the Wolfson’s and Tehane’s to attack Barack’s campaign fundraising is also hilarious.
How about attacking the K-Street lobbyists and their questionable donations to campaigns?
Umm……. actually Bush made a diversity vow prior to his first term. That diversity vow included minority, women and Democrats. He ultimately followed through on that pledge by appointing Norman Mineta as Transportation Secretary. Mineta was a Democrat in Clinton’s cabinet.
And you’re conflating “the reason I’d do this is to have independent views” with “only Republicans can give me independent views.”
Get a grip.
Simply really, Liberals are true to their nature and are liberal in thoughts, ideas and approaches. If you’ve ever been on a committee or project team full of nothing but ‘idea’ folks, it’s a freakin’ nightmare. Sometimes, sad but true, you need a brown shirt wearing little hitler youth to actually get stuff done. The trick is to focus the little BSs on something that is inherently good rather than abject evil. That’s where the idea guys might actually be useful.
Bush….Norman Mineta, Transportation Secretary.
I’d forgotten about Noman Mineta in Chimpy’s cabinet. But he sure didn’t last long, did he.
Clinton was generous and gracious to a fault — he appointed William Cohen to his cabinet, and Republican judge Louis Freeh to head the FBI, and hired David Gergen to take over for the badly-outclassed Georgie-Porgie Stephanoupoulos for White House mouthpiece (for which Steffie’s never forgiven Clinton to this day).
Clinton’s reward was to be kicked in the teeth by Louis Freeh, who kept blowing off Executive Orders because he was too busy aiding and abetting the Republican efforts to destroy Clinton.
Jo, I understand what you’re saying – and on one level, I agree with it.
The issue comes from the way the pugs will frame this – and Smgumby @ 39 has it right, it will be framed that those weak, ineffective Dems need Repups to keep us safe or whatever. At which point, why vote for the Dem, you can vote for the Original Daddy Party and be safe.
Now, if Edwards’s PROMISE to do this has been misrepresented, fine. Let him clarify, that he won’t look at party, just qualifications – that reasonable, and I don’t object. I do object to “we must have a repug.”
Cuz where are you going to get one? In either defense, justice, or economic, the traditionally “strong” areas for repugs. Their track record in those areas for the past 8 years aside, it reinforces their frame of the weak democrat.
Mountain out of a molehill. ‘Nuff said.
(I did like his disclosure at the end of the article: in third grade he wanted to be “a cowboy and Superman.”
I have to post this from think progress, take good note of atrios’s response;
No and we all know it was purely a symbolic gesture. :-)
But in all fairness he did follow through on that. Of course this was all prior to the terraists.
Right: “But this is teh stupid.”
Has Edwards lost his senses. There might be an argument for making such a statement during the general elections, but in the Democratic primaries, it is goddamn insanity.
OT esten update from tommy yum:
Esten had a lumbar puncture and chemo, didnt cry from the needle despite nothing to eat since the night before. His hair is growing back.
[egregious: that puts all my tiny little problems into perspective…]
Exactly.
I have no problem with Edwards saying he’ll hire the best person for the job. I just don’t want him to think that hiring a Republican gives him a free pass from the Republican Noise Machine.
His 9/11 testimony contradicted Cheney’s….I believe Mineta.
Lasted through longer than one term, I think. Jan 25, 2001 to July 7, 2006
you need a brown shirt wearing little hitler youth to actually get stuff done.
Oooh, I know, I know! Appoint a rethug as Transportation Sec to make the planes run on time!
There are traditional Republicans, who believe in governing by conservative principles-and then there are the current bunch, who believe in Reagan’s dictum,” government is not the solution to the problem, government is the problem…”-who, IMO, are trying to destroy the government to prove their point.
replying to myself but I think it should be fairly easy to get bush to turn on cheney
cheney has played bush and everyone knows it but nobody is telling bush everyone knows he’s being played by cheney
make bush feel small and subserviant to cheney and cheney becomes not only the scapegoat for bush he also becomes history
Actually, those two are exactly the same. Why not just promise to appoint people with independent views? Why promise to appoint Republicans?
He’s fishing for republican voters. He’s saying half the country is not all wrong. Rather than say come on over you are dead wrong (even if he thinks it), he’s trying to tell them that not every thought in an R’s head is wrong.
What strategy would you use to get R’s over to your side? Running with Chuck Hegel, or appointing an R in your cabinet? All the usual ploys to be inclusive.
Apparently you have to play that way or they obstructionist on you.
The way is said it was not too clever even it was to sound humble.
Yep. I guess I need to read the exact quote or watch the video, what Edwards is responding to, and the context. He can’t be saying he’ll appoint a Repug just because s/he’s a Repug. He can’t be that stupid.
I am not too worried about Edwards. I mean Joe Wilson was a repug. So if that’s the repugs he will keep, then so be it. But then again, I tend to be soft on Edwards.
But what’s with this: A Jane Harman Special?
S. 1959, The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007
The great lie of modern day fascism is that Mussolini never did make the trains run on time. The autobahn, however, is still working rather well.
Pheonix Woman @ 52:
Yep to all points.
blackwater is the brown shirt devision of the bush administration
We must get rid of thw rod liberal.
In its stead use progressive it implies a march toward the future PROGRESS… who doesn’t want progress?
Let’s abandon the old and progress to the new.
Liberals are always changing what they want.
Go Progressive!
Your Fox News diary title is disgusting!
Bill Clinton’s Defense Sec. was a REPUBLICAN!
Bush’s Transportation Sec. was a DEMOCRAT!
Obama and the Clintons endorsed and campaigned with NEOCON Lieberman!!
and you’re concerned about Edwards who campaigned with Lamont?!?
Hasn’t Edwards noticed how the political landscape has shifted to the Right for years? What was far right is now considered center. We don’t need any more of that shit.
I agree with your assessment BT. They way the article reads it appears that Edwards is vowing to appoint GOP’s no matter what. The reporter surmised that in his opening statement. I would like to see the original question as it was posed to Edwards.
I only know I’m extremely disappointed with all but a very few of the elected Democrats. Stockholm Syndrome……..yup. They all seem so scared.
I lost ya there for a minute in the refresh.
The kid is a real trooper.I’ll say a special prayer for him and Tommy.
Reading the Des Moines Register article again, it looks like the writer might have assumed he’d appoint republicans, I don’t know. He doesn’t specifically say that, or does he?
Wow I mangled that
get rid of the word liberal
Sorry.
Beware of wolves in sheep’s clothing.
Pick someone like Bloomberg… smart and not buyable to run a cabinet agency.
Me too. I will look into this. As I wrote above, I hope Edwards was totally misquoted or taken out of context.
But of course you could also pick someone way off to the left lie Noam Chomsky or Naomi Wolff.
Still scratching my head. Chimpo said at his last press conference that the way to help Venezuala was to promote a free trade agreement with Colombia. Because that will help democracy and the Colombian leader is a
strongmanstrong man.hey…get this….rove is threatening all republican candidates;
wow, thisn guy thinks he and the adminsitration still have some kind of clout…oh man
makes me start to like ron paul inspite of his federalist views
My NPR station is carrying an NPR debate with the candidates now.
Hillary was just saying how she favored a diplomatic approach to Iran all along, etc.
But of course you could also pick someone way off to the left like Noam Chomsky or Naomi Wolff.
Unpossible!
A diplomatic approach, but with all options on the table. Kinda like talking to someone with a gun pointed at them.
Because that will help democracy and the Colombian leader is a strongman strong man.
Oh, honey, but the *wrong* man…
/Rocky Horror Picture Show
Bull f*cking shit.
In other news, this exercises my outrage muscles: //www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004823.php
State gives bonuses to officials handling Blackwater contracts.
BTW, it’s Naomi Wolf…
Somehow I don’t think Edwards is going to duplicate heckuva job Chimpy.
If the NIE has done nothing else, it’s forced the major Democrats back from the me-too precipice of attacking Iraqn just because Bush says we should.
The question could have been, “Would you consider appointing a Republican to your cabinet?”…Answer…”yes, and here’s why”…
That wouldn’t be any big deal….if it happened that way…I don’t see anywhere in the article that he said, I promise to, or I vow to…
Fabulous. Pretty soon every Repug will have a hot tub.
Not be be a fly in the ointment. The balancing of the federal budget in the past was only successful through a bipartisan effort (enter Concord Coalition founded by Tsongas (D) and Rudman (R) ).
There are big issues in the country that will require a unified front, like re-balancing the budget for one.
My hope is that he was speaking in this context. Emphasize HOPE.
hotty extraordinaire.
I think I can, I think I can, I think I can LINK properly.
View from outside you’re maybe not gonna like but…… A few hard nosed Republicans inside the team with Hillary during the healthcare debacle might have both strengthened the plan and provided a screen against the “We’re all going Commie! ” screams which engulfed it.
CNN saying we may have an Iranian defector, a general from the Rev Guards., who was instrumental in getting the IntelCommunity to “change its mind” about the hypothetical Iranian nuclear-weapons program. Actually gave a name, but I can’t type that fast. Now living in Turkey with his family.
And this is precisely what they are doing. They are pointing out how each sounded more hawkish than they now claim to be.
You’re hoping he was misquoted, but you took it and ran with it.
And called it ridiculous.
As long as we have polarized opinions and decisions, we are going to have problems moving forward. Doing Something.
I’m impressed that Edwards wants different voices as advisors.
We all know what happens when one person only listens to voices which say what support their personal opinions.
Let’s be smart and not just bash every quick quote we read.
This is an excellent point. Edwards explanation for why he would appoint a Republican are very reasonable. We never actually read any quote by Edwards promising anything.
But the article sure inspired us all to beat up on Edwards, didn’t it? Let’s try to find Edwards quote before piling on. (although I earlier posted that Edwards “blew it”, it’s possible I jumped the gun?)
No, he doesn’t say that he “needs Republicans,” or even that he “wants” them–not according to the article cited, anyway. He only says that he “vows to include them,” and he also tells us why. That’s all.
You “like Edwards”? Really? I don’t believe this for a minute. Because we pay attention to people when we like them.
Naomi Wolf: brilliant and stunning and articulate
Naomi Klein: brilliant and stunning and articulate
Right….uh..huh. I don’t think the Intel people changed their minds. I think Cheenee didn’t like what they said, and put a kiabosh on the NIE parts he didn’t want to go along with, and I also think he might not have told Bush it was even in there in the first place.
Read and re-read the Des Moines Register piece you reference and suggest you may want to review it carefully for clearly it strikes me as sloppy – real or imagined – reporting by the DMR staffer. Am just sayin’ if there isn’t a tape of Edwards proving he actually stated this literally as you suggested I’d sure like evidence.
I don’t know if this has already commented on?, but hmmm, sounds a little ‘heavy’ to me…
‘”Nobody can risk looking disrespectful to the president without paying a price, and they need to understand that,” warned Rove, who was once Bush’s top political adviser.’
http://www.newsdaily.com/TopNe…..s-rove.xml
Right. She may have favored favored a diplomatic approach, but she sure as hell gave Obama shit for suggesting that he’d take the nuclear option off the table.
We’ren’t “hard-nosed” rethug senators involved in the CHIP bill that chimp refused to sign, with the predictable chorus calling it socialism, etc.?
Lincoln had the opposition in his cabinet. FDR appointed a lot of Republicans to positions. IMO it makes for less vanilla governance.
That would be Ali Reza Asghari. Juan Cole has more.
AMEN.
demi:
Got your message. We’ll hook up later. (Just to be tantalizing…*g*)
“Bipartisanship is another name for date rape.”
– G. Norquist
BTW, demi:
I forgot to say thanks!
As per usual, well said.
I thought Ned Lamont said it well. While JoLie was wink, wink, nudge, nudge, I can bring in more pork, Ned was talking about honest government and the public trust. The few GOP voters who don’t have government contracts, hear that loud and clear. Unfortunately, there weren’t enough in CT.
Major props to Bobby G and all the other FDL’ers above who mentioned that Edwards is PANDERING to GOP voters.
If you find a link, let me know, ’cause I can’t find anything resembling a video link.
And alabama at 103, the article says, “John Edwards vowed Monday to include Republicans in his Cabinet”. Not that he was willing, that he “vowed” to. I think it does matter if this is true, not so much that I care about an R in the Cabinet, but the meme that liberals need the strong security minded Repugs.
Ditto.
Like, what’s Good for the Goose is Good for the Gander?
We can’t break the same rules we fault them for.
(IMHO)
We are parsing words describing words used by a candidate addressing a crowd of 200-ish people in at an Iowa Community College. Meanwhile, at long last the story breaks that Sunnis avoid Baghdad hospitals because they might be killed/kidnapped there.
And 2 Washington Post stories suggest that American citizens don’t care about the war any more. (via Atrios and Think Progress).
There are big problems and little ones. Where does this so-called ‘vow’ fit in the scheme of things?
DING!
So far, the quotes I read do not have Edwards using the word “vow” or “vowed”. This is a perfect example of MSM editorializing instead of just writing the news as it is.
Register writer “juiced it up”. A shame.
what the fuck. c&l has a post up of eleanor cliff — usually fairly cogent — suggests that condi who is doing such a bang up job on israeli/palestinian negotiations, should be kept on in a future democratic administration.
how in the hell is this an acceptable tactic. if the republicans are so fucking awesome! that they should fill out a democratic admnistration, then just vote for the fucking republicans.
why don’t these idjits understand that is the goddamned message they are sending.
And 2 Washington Post stories suggest that American citizens don’t care about the war any more.
“ZzZZZzz…Change the channel…Marge..ZZzzzzzz”
/Homer Simpson
Actually, Little Boots did appoint a Dem to his original cabinet but he was fairly innocuous and inconspicuous so few noticed. Norman Mineta was Transportation Secretary 2001-2006.
Smgumby @ 102:
I jumped the gun as well (@ 9) and then retreated (@ 67).
Doesn’t it depend on the Republican? Seriously, folks, we’ve just suffered through an administration that was among the most relentlessly partisan in history. I don’t know if I’d name one, but maybe Snow could have a function, or hey, how about Hagel? The best administrations always have somebody from the other side in a position of power.
c&l has a post up of eleanor cliff
Been a-drinkin’ that Beltway water for too long…
Hillary said the same thing. I guess they all want a reptile brains trust.
I believe it was Tom Ricks who quoted a U.S. military person who said that just because you walk out in the middle doesn’t mean the movie’s over (or change the channel for that matter!). ; )
EEK! Sorry for the double post.
(Ricks referencing the idea that Americans are tired of the war). I miss edit.
Oh look, they are going to shut down the highway blogger….
‘The department’s commissioner, Luisa Paiewonsky, said staff had noticed many more displays popping up over the state’s 9,000 miles of highways that distract drivers, including political messages and advertising for real estate companies.’
http://www.newsdaily.com/TopNe…..passes.xml
OT
I’m baack. Just as I was about to submit my defense in egregious’ swimming pool drain post, my cable went down. No really. It did. I swear it did.
So it’s back up now and I belatedly added my defense in that thread as comment #53 (typos & all). MrCbl, PW, egregious, newtonusr, go back & read it if you’re interested.
http://firedoglake.com/2007/12…..ren-drown/
SunnyNobility-Thanks. Picked up yours in prior thread. Appreciate it.
Yes, about 60 comments passed while I searched the internet for an actual quote and typed my own retreat. I’m glad to see I wasn’t the only one with second thoughts.
And disheartened to see how quickly we jump to eat our own.
Check out this film:
http://video.google.com/videop…..5191428174
And you see why we are in the shit we are today. It’a there.
Edwards is looking to New Hampsire, where independents can vote in the primary and could tip the balance. New England independents like the idea of bipartisanship, and will respond favorably to this.
eCAHNomics… …a likely story.
:)
With all due respect Blue Texan have you located evidence of your postulation that Edwards said what you claim and if not allow me to suggest you clear this up.
Edwards is very smart. He’s directly quoting Bush, who can’t remember making any mistakes. He’s saying he’s not going to fill his cabinet with yes-(wo)men. And he’s clearly taking a page from Abe Lincoln’s play book. When you have big plans, you can’t make any progress with only 50% of the team on board. One reason I have wished for a parliamentary style of government with 4 or more parties is that it requires you to build consensus. The two party system just requires you to bully 1-2% over to your side.
Until I see a clip, or some context, or anything beyond a sloppily-written and -referenced DMR article, I’m going to disregard this as a hit piece on Edwards-and ask that higher standards be employed in referencing in the future.
I don’t doubt for a minute that he DID make such a comment. As a political junkie, I see Edwards as a powerful Attorney General, but his biggest shortcoming -to the base at least, is that Edwards shows no interest in being a ‘Democrat’.
It’s the middle of the road fence sitting Lieberman Democrats that brought the Congress and the party to the shitpile it’s in today.
I, and I think the majority of the Democrats, want a kick ass fearless and steadfast candidate representing our views. Obama has matured and morphed into just that kind of a leader -an incarnated cadence touting blend of Kennedy and King….
-who doesn’t let assholes like Wolf Blitzer force him into saying things he may later regret!
If you’re a Dean, Gore or Russ Feingold kind of Democrat,like I am, Barack will do us proud.
Hi all :) sorry OT, but it does show just how serious ‘Israel’ is about ‘peace’ in Palestine (snark)
JERUSALEM – ‘Israel said Tuesday it is seeking bids to build more than 300 new homes in a disputed east Jerusalem neighborhood, drawing Palestinian condemnations that the move is undermining the newly revived peace talks held last week in Annapolis, Md.’
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200…..LVcnxg.3QA
Something I feel the irrational need to emphasize, since all Kate O’Beirnes would try to convince otherwise.
Hi all :) sorry OT, but it does show just how serious ‘Israel’ is about ‘peace’ in Palestine (snark)
JERUSALEM – ‘Israel said Tuesday it is seeking bids to build more than 300 new homes in a disputed east Jerusalem neighborhood, drawing Palestinian condemnations that the move is undermining the newly revived peace talks held last week in Annapolis, Md.’
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200…..LVcnxg.3QA
I haven’t taken Eleanor Clift seriously for a long time. The example you cite is another reason why. Rice has done nothing but talk about arranging talks to talk about talks. At this late date, her MO has become clearly recognizable, not to mention old, and that Clift doesn’t says so much.
How do you get from “I’d appoint a Republican” to an obvious case of Stockholm Syndrome? Over-react much?
Maybe he has a specific Republican in mind. Personally, I like a guy who goes out of his way to hear an opposing viewpoint. An ideological echo chamber got us the mess we have today.
A guy who votes ‘present’ 7 times on bills related to abortion ain’t what I call “kick-ass.”
A guy who isn’t even present in the Senate when the Lieberman-Kyl vote happened ain’t what I consider kick-ass.
A man whose mentor is Lieberman doesn’t strike me as being in the Dean/Gore/Feingold league.
They will NEVER shut down the freeway blogger!
(he’s my hero)
I suspect that he may have been saying he wouldn’t be treating his cabinate like a political patronage job.
Would you object if that republican cabinate member were an Attorney General Comey? Or even a Defense Secretary McCain? Or what about qualified individuals whodon’t belong to any political party, Like PatFitz? She he be disqualified from a cabinet postion b/c he is not a Dem?
The article says he “vowed” and “promised” to appoint Republicans. Not “I’d appoint a Republican”, meaning “I would.”
If the article is wrong, and the reporter quoted Edwards incorrectly, I will be very happy to post an update.
Delighted, in fact.
They seek him here, they seek him there,
CalTrans may seek him everywhere!
Be he in heaven, Be he in hell,
That demmed elusive PIMPERNEL!!
(with apologies to Baroness Oroczy)
New Thread.
The article about the freeway signs refrences a new Massachusetts law, our dear Scarlet P is in California. And while support the troop signs have sometimes been allowed to stay up, Impeach Bush or Osama Bin Forgotten (two of my favorite) signs typically are taken down by road crews ASAP.
The legality of FreewayBloggin is in dispute and varies from location to location. Since
wethey choose the time and place that the signs go up, the odds of getting caught in the act are slim to none.They will NEVER stop the freewayblogger or his followers!!
Got Free Speech?
This is fairly typical. Whenever the Israelis talk (or even talk about talking) about peace. They always feel the need to assuage the anger of settlers. The talks never lead anywhere but settlments and developments create real facts on the ground.
MSM makes Edward say he’s looking for Republicans for his cabinet because he’s looking for the strongest, most capable, and most independent-minded people, implying that only Repugs have these qualities.
Edwards is not stupid enough to believe and say that.
And alabama at 103, the article says, “John Edwards vowed Monday to include Republicans in his Cabinet”. Not that he was willing, that he “vowed” to. I think it does matter if this is true, not so much that I care about an R in the Cabinet, but the meme that liberals need the strong security minded Repugs.
For the record, Smgumby at 117, “he was willing” is a citation from Blue Texan’s post. Blue Texan, and Blue Texan only, is responsible for those words (not the original story, and not my post at 103). As for the “vow”–allowing that Edwards made it–what are we told about this? I take it that Edwards is making himself make a promise, to the public, and in public, that he won’t surround himself with sycophants. What on earth does this promise have to do with “the strong security minded Repugs”? You’re the first to mention such folks. Not even Blue Texan thought up that one!
I get the feeling that you don’t like politics–that you have a taste for purges, straw-men, and such. If this is so, then Edwards poses a big, big problem for you.
I do think I would object quite heartily to a SecDef McCain, but that’s just me.
Here we are with our economy on the verge of collapse, the rich making out like thieves and the middle class and the poor getting screwed, a never-ending war, our international prestige in ruins…
What party has been in control for the past 8 years? Why would any Democratic presidential candidate even *think* of asking these people for advice? By their works, we damned well KNOW them.
Forgive me, but may I suggest you examine Obama’s history a bit more astutely? And don’t forget his more recent absences on important senate votes that could have been controversial.
Edwards has big plans for change. I do not see that in any other of the top 3 candidates.
What she said!
I don’t like it when someone insults the poster…better to give constructive criticism if there needs to be some, or present opposing citations or something… :(
Whoa — touched a nerve I guess. I am fascinated by politics, don’t much care for purges or straw men.
If Edwards is willing to have Republicans on the team, I say great. I want someone who can work and play nice with others. I was referencing my comment at 39 with the “strong security minded Repug” remark, as well as the almost constant meme that Democrats are the mommy party, soft on security, can’t be trusted in wartime, soft on terror, effeminate, etc, etc, ad nauseum.
A Democrat VOWING to have a Republican on his cabinet plays right into this meme, regardless of the intention. And the first line in the article this post references is, “John Edwards vowed Monday to include Republicans in his Cabinet”.
Didn’t mean to upset you though…
Might be at least comprehensible if he was going for votes in a general election, but for a primary? Suicidal! Time to turn him over; he’s fried!
How disappointing. Edwards was my last hope (from those running who have a chance to win).
I know why he’s doing it. He is behind Clinton and Obama — he is trying to do something to get ahead. But this? THIS?
Hell, what I say is: If you are still a Republican — in 2007 — you are either mentally ill OR evil. And which of those would you have in your cabinet, John?
Remember folks, vowed is the reporters word, not Edward’s. We have yet to see an actual quote from Edwards on the “vow” part.
I know how you feel; I’m right there with you!
And another thing — don’t bother WHINING that YOUR FAMILY has GOPers still in it — and I am spouting BS. Much of my family were Republicans, pre Bush. But after a couple of years, I said, “Time’s up.”
I don’t speak to my relatives who still are GOPers.
I have children I care about more. And these scum are threatening THEM.
Hell, what I say is: If you are still a Republican — in 2007 — you are either mentally ill OR evil. And which of those would you have in your cabinet, John?
Exactamundo!
I’ve heard Edwards say before that he would include Republicans in his administration and unlike some of the people posting here I see no problem with that statement. Now if he proposed having Karl Rove, Dick Cheney or one of the other neocons in the administration I would have a BIG problem with it. But I know I don’t have to worry about that because I trust Edwards not to do that.
What if the question had been: “Would you ever consider having a Republican in your Cabinet?”
And What if Edwards had responded, “Maybe, here’s why: because I’m looking for the strongest, most capable, most independent-minded people I can find. I want people around me who will say, ‘You’re wrong about this, and you could do grave damage if you do it. Mr. President, you need to change your mind,’ ” he said. “Because I’m not perfect, I’m capable of making mistakes. That’s why I will appoint the best people regardless of party.”
Would you still be offended? I added the bold, the rest is Edwards actual answer and no one has told us the actual question! The reporter says Edwards vows.
Good thing we have never been led astray by a reporter.
“Maybe” would still be offensive to me for reasons stated above.
:]
Again I say:
(at #164)
All this tells your base is that you don’t consider your Democratic colleagues good enough; if Democratic colleagues are not good enough, can Democratic constituents be far behind in you esteem? I think it’ a very unwise move.
I agree with WarOnWarOff. Forget Cheney, Bush, etc. Just the thought of an INDEPENDENT REPUBLICAN cracks me up.
Mr. Edwards:
I have to tell you, what you just said is a deal breaker. You’re out just for saying it. I don’t even care if you really meant it. Just saying it is more than I can stand from you.
There is an element of truth in this (further to the NYT partial truth article due to “time pressure”). I suggest that Edwards look at the person’s track record and how many times they stood alone and DID NOT support their president and/or political party. I don’t know of any Republican who frequently voted against the president’s policies. There were some falsies out there but in the end, they capitulated. Blank statements are really bad practice.
And you know what would have been an acceptable answer to me wrt to Edward’s having a Rethug on his cabinet?
“Highly unlikely, after seeing the havoc this bunch has wrecked upon our country. Republicans may seem to know how to win elections, but have no idea how to govern.”
He *could* have left open the possibility, but also fired up his progressive base at the same time!
What am I missing here Kitt? Thus far I haven’t seen any evidence John Edwards said what the Des Moines reporter implied, nor any evidence from the author of this post much less the minority commenters who bought his unfair, dare I say, irresonable assertions in a quite flawed reading of the story. This is not rocket science rather media incompetence and fact free speculation. Surely we can do better than this gang.
Way EPU’d, but for the record, Bush had a D (Mineta), Clinton had an R (Cohen), and those are the ones whose names I can remember.
FDR was famous (and deservedly so) for stocking his cabinet with disagreeing viewpoints and letting them hash it out. So was Abe Lincoln. The Bubble approach has been an utter failure, as anyone who has ever had to manage anything knew it would.
To fight the Commies, McCarthy used Stalinesque tactics. To fight the terrorists, W adopted terrorist tactics. To fight the R’s, you want to adopt R tactics?
Blue Texan!!! You need to change your HEADLINE if there is ANY doubt that he didn’t say that!!! To leave the headline and bury the update is just NOT acceptable!!!!
“Because of the concerns that this article may have taken Edwards out of context, and that he made no actual “promise” or “vow” to appoint Republicans, I have written the reporter and will post what I learn.”
Until you get an actual QUOTE, you need to change that headline immediatly!!
Oy! Edwards stock just went down with me (unless this reporting is incorrect or something).
We desperately need a leader with good judgement and with all the crap the Republicans have pulled over the last 12 years or so, this type of comment concerns me.
Maybe he should clarify which Republican he thinks he’d like to have. If he means any of the Republican whistleblowers in the Bush admin who got the boot for telling the truth, then I’d be okay with it.
- Tom
Being anywhere near a Republican insures that he will screw up.
HELLOooooooooooo!!! You all don’t even know what was said! You’re buying this crap when the article can’t even QUOTE John Edwards! I cant’ believe this.
I already submitted a comment telling Blue Texan to change their headline and how irresponsible that is when there’s no actual quote! Unbelievable for FDL to bury the “concern” and leave the headline. That’s not right!
Its a local paper and who know what their allegiance is? Did John Edwards say that? You don’t know. All you’re doing is speculating to smear John Edwards at this point. Sheeeeesh.
Well, for the record, if Edwards wanted Hagel for his cabinet, I probably wouldn’t be upset about that either. But I still think that to make this point during the primary season is political suicide.
If I do a search on Edwards and this topic, I find a USA Today article. Here is the first paragraph:
The article’s name is “Edwards’ Cabinet list includes GOP names” and it says it was published 86 days ago.
There are many other articles. Apparently this is kinda old news.
Ann in Az….. did you think that when Hillary actually said she’s going to get Colin Powell for her cabinet? Because that confirms her masquerade as a Democrat.
We just don’t know what John Edwards said or the context in which he said it. Does anyone have a transcript? So far, all we’ve got is he’s going to consider people for their merit, not their party. Which, at that level of government is fine to say. Fortunatly any pubbie with any association with bushco, including all their supporters unless they can make as STRONG an apology as John Edwards has repeatedly for his vote, would pretty much not qualify for consideration. There’s a vast canyon between I’d consider all for my cabinet and “I’d appoint Colin Powell”.
I seriously think this headline on FDL without adequate sourcing is so not like FDL. Needs to be changed rather than engage in this smeary kind of stuff.
I also called the reporter and left a message to point me to a transcript or actual quote.
Change the headline, please.
Wow, 86 days ago. Hmmmmmm. I will add that Gannett owns both the Iowa paper AND USA Today. Got a link to that usa today? The only thing I noticed was TPM has the Iowa story too. Thanks :-)
re: no repug appointing a democrat
Norm Mineta
Here’s from the WaPo from Sept. 9…
Edwards’ Cabinet List Includes GOP Names
By RON FOURNIER
The Associated Press
Sunday, September 9, 2007; 4:24 AM
NASHUA, N.H. — Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards carries a running list of people he might put in his Cabinet, and it includes “more than one” Republican.
“I want to be ready for when I get sworn in,” the former North Carolina senator said between campaigns stops as he dug into a travel bag for the list.
“I might have it with me,” Edwards told The Associated Press. “I wouldn’t show it to you, but I could have it with me.”
He didn’t hand over the list, nor did he commit to putting Republicans in his Cabinet.
“No, because the test for me is not whether they’re Democratic or Republican. The test is how competent they are and whether they’re the best person for the job, and to make a decision about who’s best to choose you have to spend time talking to them,” said the 2004 Democratic vice presidential candidate.
Would he name a Republican vice presidential nominee?
“I don’t think so because my view about Cabinet positions is different than the vice presidency,” Edwards said. “I think the vice president needs to be someone who shares my vision for the country and that’s much more likely, obviously, to be a Democrat.”
Edwards didn’t go as far as rival Bill Richardson, who has said that as the Democratic nominee he would give voters a preview of his Cabinet before Election Day.
“It would have independents, Republicans and Democrats. Don’t worry, I won’t overdo the Republicans,” Richardson told a Democratic audience in July.
Also on Saturday, Edwards dismissed critics who question his sincerity and point to stories about his pricey hair cut, big home and hedge fund job.
“They’re look for something to criticize about. It’s what comes with running for president. If you’re not ready to be criticized, you shouldn’t run for president,” Edwards said. “I mean, I know who I am. I know I haven’t changed at all. I’m the same person I’ve always been.“
That’s what I like….. a person who know who they are.
Can’t wait for the update! :lol:
There goes my 1st choice too!!!
I appreciate you posting this Ann.
The article, by >By Ron Fournier, of the Associated Press goes on to say this:
(my bold)
Blue T, I think you owe us an update.
Hey, wait a minnit there checkbookcc. Its not been confirmed just yet. So far its just a old story revived looks to me like. I really think it is taken out of context.
He’s still my number one choice because he has the passion the others lack.
Jes asking you to wait let’s see what the truth is here. Could be a smear in progress. We don’t know just yet. :-)
Blue Texan,
I’m calling full on Bullshit to your post on two points:
First, “John Edwards: I Need Republicans In My Cabinet To Keep Me From Screwing Up”: No where in your source article does it say he said that, nor does the reporter say that, nor infer that.
and Second, “UPDATE Because of the concerns that this article may have taken Edwards out of context, and that he made no actual “promise” or “vow” to appoint Republicans, I have written the reporter and will post what I learn.”: IF you KNOW he made no actual promise or vow, why in hell don’t you change the headline.
There’s no excuse for this obvious smear. None. Its Bullshit pure and simple. Then you continue to assert he vows and promises in the comments. Fer gawd’s sake. Journalism much?
Bullshit.
I have been one of the most outspoken supporters of John Edwards on FDL, and on Digby, and on some other sites, including a very conservative bluegrass forum.
But at this moment, I am about to resort to prayer that that paragraph is a complete hoax.
I fear it is not.
I don’t give a shit about “context”. Coming on the heels of Hillary’s bullshit about using Colin Powell, if he said that, or anything remotely resembling that, then, my 2c, Clinton’s lead in the yellowdog-shitlist-primary has shrunk to 3 percentage points, with Edwards closing fast.
John; the campaign is a grind. We all know that; do you not get a little punchy sometimes, and then bounce an idea off your staff, before you lay it out for the voters and the media?
I mean, how can this be a fabrication?
I could possibly; POSSIBLY: see Anthony Zinni, or Chuck Hagel, as Secretary of Defense. But there, it fucking well ends. In fact, it shouldn’t even start. How about John Murtha? Does he not make the VERY short list for SecDef, with his REAL support of the troops, and with his courageous speaking out for them?
I’ve sent Edwards nearly $100, over the past few months.
I had mentioned to a dear friend that I was considering going up to Iowa to ring doorbells and stuff envelopes for him, and my friend, who is NOT that well off, offered to send me $200 to help with the cost of going up for a month.
Now, I’m waiting for Tex to give us all he can find on this, but in my marrow, I know he isn’t going to find that the every word of it was bullshit. And that is what it desperately needs to be. Woe is us.
BTW, do the posts now have to be of shortened length?
Tanbark, hon. Us is not “woed” just quite yet.
Its complete and utter bullshit is what it is. Complete.
Looks to me the reporter of the source article repackaged some sane statement by a candidate then Blue Texan repackaged it with a title that bares no resemblance of anything John Edwards is about!
Complete nonsense going on with this one!
Okay, BlueTex; you’re up.
You’re saying he said it yesterday, presumably, in Iowa.
You need to source it, honestly and meticulously, and you need to do it quickly.
Like I said, I’ve spoken up for him, big-time, on here, and if he’s sold out on this, you need to take the trouble to nail him for it, accurately and with the source’s name.
I just sent the Edwards campaign site an email, asking them if John did, in fact, speak those words yesterday, and advising them that if it’s a hoax, they need to get on it, because it’s going to have legs with the progressive blogs, and our influence is growing.
I also pointed out to them that the next president of the United States does not need republicans to tell him, or her, if they are about to screw up; there are plenty of good democrats who will do that.
I just want the truth. Is there a YouTube clip of it?
I don’t know of any Republican who frequently voted against the president’s policies. There were some falsies out there but in the end, they capitulated.
Thus Quaker Girl @ 177, who seems to think that the only political figures at issue hwew are elected officials, presumably members the U. S. Congress (thereby ignoring lots of other interesting folks, among them Paul O’Neill).
that would be “at issue here”….
Here’s what we know for sure. 86 days ago Edwards stated that he had a list of possible candidates for his cabinet that included some Republicans. He didn’t commit to putting any in his cabinet: he only said he wanted the most qualified people for the roles.
Yesterday, he made statements in line with the previous reporter’s story, but this time, the reporter used the terms ‘vow’ and ‘promise.’ No quotes included these terms. The phrase that he wanted republicans to tell him if he “screwed up” is–so far as I can tell–Blue T’s phrasing, not Edwards’, not the reporter’s.
This thing has been way overblown.
Laura, are you saying that yesterday, Edwards DID speak those words that BlueTex put in quotes at the top of the thread?
Because if he did, as a staunch Edwards supporter, I would say two things:
He’s unprincipled enough and politically stupid enough to go whoring after conservative votes; JUST LIKE HILLARY!…
and: He’s willing to install a republican or two in his cabinet, because he seems to think that he NEEDS them to tell him if he’s about to fuck up.
The latter one, to which I would reply:
Sen. Edwards: there are too many democrats around who’ve been speaking out against the shitmire for years, for which they’ve been hammered for their courage and their integrity, for you to ignore them, while you do the same thing that Hillary Clinton has been doing, which is to suck up to the GOP and their supporters…nearly all of whom have never deviated from the party line that has dragged us eyebrow deep into the La Brea tarpit of Iraq, with all of it’s wretched baggage.
and Laura, this is NOT overblown. If he spoke those words, it means that he, too, is ready for the kind of “bi-partisanship” for which a lot of progressives have been criticizing Clinton.
No slack. This needs to be resolved. If he made that statement yesterday, it’s enourmously important as a weather-vane for what kind of campaing he plans to run.
If that campaign is one of “forgiveness” for bush and the GOP, then politically speaking, Edwards will be as much of a liability in the general election, as will Clinton.
We are going to need outrage; not kissy-face.
And, what WaronWaroff said.
until confirmation otherwise, i’m going from the quote.. what exactly is the issue you have with the quote?
“I’m looking for the strongest, most capable, most independent-minded people I can find….etc”
republicans raise my bile as much as the next, but until the names actually come up, what’s all the hysterics? would you rather have him say, “i vow to appoint my mentor joe lieberman to my cabinet”, or “i vow to appoint my kindred spirits rahm and steny to my cabinet?”
i would be more worried about the support group and “democrats” associating with a particular candidate right now, because that’s a better indicator about who’s worthy…
yes, “we” were right and “they” were wrong (about almost everything), but to say that ALL democrats are better than ALL republicans is a stretch… i’d rather have a republican i can dislike than a democrat i can’t trust, and there have been plenty of those on both sides (with stronger emotions than dislike and distrust)
If Edwards said this, then:
John, where, in the republican party that collectively placed it’s nose in george bush’s ass, and helped him gin up the bloody clusterfuck out of koolaid and bullshit, do you expect to find those strong, capable, independent-minded goopers?
Of course, John, the exact same question applies to Hillary Clinton, and the fact that it now appears that BOTH of you need to answer it, should tell you something.
Dachoste, I’m not saying that all democrats are right, and all republicans are wrong.
What I’m saying is that John Edwards doesn’t get to slide this without giving us the names of those courageous, smart, republicans with the courage to tell the president that he’s getting ready to fuck up.
I ask because I recall practically none of them who did that with george bush, when the opportunity so directly presented itself, regarding the invasion and attempted occupation of Iraq.
Who ARE these “good” republicans whom he has somehow ferreted out of the bushes?
(No pun intended, but if it works, then, it works)
At least Hillary had the…cajones, to speak Colin Powell’s name, directly. For which she has rightly caught a ton of shit.
If you, or anyone else, thinks that when Edwards starts tap-dancing over to the right side of the stage, HE should get a “this is overblown” pass, you are as wrong as two left feet.
Make that two RIGHT feet.
There is no problem with what John Edwards said on Sept. 9th. None. Nothing. Nada.
The problem here is no one has a quote from what he “said” yesterday!!!! No one iota of evidence he said what’s being attributed to him in the HEADLINE of this post. None. Nothing.
Blue Texan’s post “John Edwards: I Need Republicans In My Cabinet To Keep Me From Screwing Up”
There is in fact NO evidence he said one word at all about republicans and cabinets yester at all. None.At.All.
Now, wtf is that about really? FDL is giving legs to unsubstantiated bs in its Headline. I mean put up or retract and change the headline Blue Texan. Other than that you’re creating a small swiftboat event. Wow, I be you’re so proud to get to do that on FDL! Good thing John Edwards is already familiar with the tactic.
I have no problem with anything John Edwards said on Sept. 9. I don’t know what he said yesterday and apparently neither does Blue Texan.
Its never overblown to be calling bullshit on people who deserve it.
Apology to BlueTex.
I assumed that the link at the top of the thread was just a generic list of weird things the candidates had said, without anything about the Edwards statement. I didn’t read it.
I just read it.
It IS the piece about Edwards’ statement about putting a repub or two in his cabinet.
It is, of course, from today’s DesMoinesRegister.com.
It’s by a staff writer named Tony Ley.
The quote is from Edwards’ speech yesterday in Waterloo, Iowa.
At this point, there’s no doubt in my mind, that Edwards said it, and that it was an effort to show the democratic crowd, and the media, how reasonable and bi-partisan he could be.
I would say:
“That’s not necessary, John. Since you voted to authorize the war back in 2002, I doubt if anyone at Hawkeye Community College in Waterloo, Iowa to hear you speak, now views you as a wild-eyed partisan appeaser of terrists.
That is not the problem. The problem is finding a candidate who is deeply outraged by all the lies and bullshit that were used to get bi-partisan support for the shitmire. And the fact that one (1) U.S. Senator from the republican side of the aisle voted against it.
There is also that problem of finding republicans who fill that “strong”; “capable”; and “independent-minded” bill.
But if you’ve got a few stashed away, before you start using them anonymously to suck up to the republicans responsible for the shitmire, don’t you think it would be a good idea to run their names past us, the democrats, and the people whose votes you’ll need to win the CHANCE to get elected?
A lot of us have heard your heartfelt apologies for that authorizing vote, and we are certainly willing to slide that, now that you’ve seen the light, and while I can’t really speak for anyone else, I think you need to be VERY careful about doing rehab on any republican.
Because, John, here’s the bottom line. They ALL need it, to some degree. And, as yet, you don’t have a lot of political capital to spend, to do it.
As ol’ Jerry Lee used to say:
” ‘hink about it…”
Sorry, Myrtle; what Edwards is futzing around with, is a sorta-kinda blanket pardon for the GOP, for dragging us into the war. That little piece of his speech yesterday was him telling us what kind of campaign he’s going to run if he gets nominated.
It was also him telling the REPUBLICANS, and the MSM that is, as usual, flacking for them:
“I’m not going to beat on you guys too badly, for the clusterfuck. Just like my vote to authorize, it was an…honest…mistake, right? Like in the NBA: “no harm; no foul”…”
And by way of “reaching out” to republicans, and by way of burying the Iraq stick, instead of beating the goopers senseless with it, I’m thinking that he’s positioning himself for another run at the…taaadaaa!…Vice President’s office!
I mean, three days after Colin Powell gets moved into the Hillary Clinton Clinic for koolaid drying-out; here comes Edwards, offering a kind of generic “medicine” for some anonymous republicans-to-be-named-later.
I don’t like it. I aint buyin’ it. And now, I have my doubts that the Iowa caucusers will buy it either.
“I might have it with me…but I might not…” is a fart and a tapdance…and I think Iowans will read that like it’s their morning paper.
I could be wrong; hope I am; but I don’t think so.
Johnny, we hardly knew ye.
If Edwards really said this, I’m down to, like, nobody. Damn.
Tanbark, out of fairness, I just re-read the Iowa paper. No where does John Edwards say what Blue Texan is attributing to him in the healine…. that he “needs Republicans” to “keep him from screwing up”. Just isn’t there. In fact, John Edwards “reported” words yesterday are exactly what he said on September 9th as quoted by a WaPo article.
To spin it as John Edwards has suddenly revealed this consideration of cabinet members based on qualifications and being open to hear dissent is not new from him. He’s been consistent with that. He didn’t say he’d appoint Colin Powell or engage in cronyism at all.
So, I don’t apologize to Blue Texan for twisting this all out of context himself to attempt to smear John Edwards. He needs to change the headline or produce the exact quote that John Edwards says he neeeeeed republicans to keep him from screwing up. Context. I need transcript or ‘tube.
The Iowa reporter needs to add…. “consistant with his previous position”…. or some quotes or something more.
Here’s what John Edwards said according to a Sept 9 article:
“Here’s from the WaPo from Sept. 9…
Edwards’ Cabinet List Includes GOP Names
By RON FOURNIER
The Associated Press
Sunday, September 9, 2007; 4:24 AM
NASHUA, N.H. — Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards carries a running list of people he might put in his Cabinet, and it includes “more than one” Republican.
“I want to be ready for when I get sworn in,” the former North Carolina senator said between campaigns stops as he dug into a travel bag for the list.
“I might have it with me,” Edwards told The Associated Press. “I wouldn’t show it to you, but I could have it with me.”
He didn’t hand over the list, nor did he commit to putting Republicans in his Cabinet.
“No, because the test for me is not whether they’re Democratic or Republican. The test is how competent they are and whether they’re the best person for the job, and to make a decision about who’s best to choose you have to spend time talking to them,” said the 2004 Democratic vice presidential candidate.
Would he name a Republican vice presidential nominee?
“I don’t think so because my view about Cabinet positions is different than the vice presidency,” Edwards said. “I think the vice president needs to be someone who shares my vision for the country and that’s much more likely, obviously, to be a Democrat.””
Same thing. Not news. I have had and have NO problem with what John Edwards said on Sept 9. I’m sticking with voting for him.
Blue Texan’s headline is bullshit until he reveals his evidence that John Edwards said that or inferred it.
That’s all :-)
I don’t for a second worry about Edwards.
I was listening to NPR yesterday and heard some Iowans talking about various things, including immigration and the candidates. Amazingly they showed now prejudice towards brown-skinned people (a plus for Obama) and some Republicans among them said they might well switch to Democratic registration just before the caucuses. Perhaps that’s why they picked Kerry (fairly conservative for a Dem) in 2004 and perhaps that’s why Edwards is looking to win some of their support. I’m certain he realizes, as most of us do, that they certainly are not going to go for Hillary. So, he’s trying to win a few Repub voters. Sounds okay as long as he gets very qualified people who will follow his direction.
I know the more Lefty types, particularly you on this blog (yes, you know who you are), aren’t so happy with any impurities creeping in. But, if you’re going to govern the whole country, then it helps to at least listen to everybody without an impenetrable filter.
Don’t you suspect, as I do, that there are a lot of more moderate Repubs out there in America who are as pissed about Bush as we are? Don’t you think a lot of the more moderate Repubs who liked Reagan and Bush I, but are thoroughly ashamed of Bush II would like to kick Dubya as far out of Washington as they can?
I support John Edwards and I’ll trust him until I see him do some verifiably horribly stupid things. It hasn’t happened yet.
John Edwards for President — This is what Real Leadership looks like.
Have you heard Obama explain yet just how he intends to end the nasty partisanship the Repugs have made their trademark and how he can do this while they continue to use their famous Southern Strategy to pull out the Southern racist voters? Is he going to kick ass or just smoke crack to imagine he’s kicking ass?
Go vote for a Green candidate and we’ll have President Romney or President Huckabee.
If you can’t see some way to listen to everybody and yet maintain your own views, then how are we to govern the whole country?
Don’t let the Perfect be the enemy of the Good!
So Edward’s promises to appoint Republicans (plural) into his cabinet for the great advice he’ll get.
LIKE COLIN POWELL?
This isn’t much different from when Hillary said she’d CONSIDER appointing Republicans LIKE Colin Powell to her cabinet. [Note: She did NOT say she WAS going to appoint COLIN POWELL to her cabinet].
Hillary faced a lot of crap for saying THAT…so Edward’s was forewarned that when he says something like this he should realize that he’s going to face criticism from the base.
BTW If I were President I’d consider giving ambassadorships to Diane Feinstein and Joe Lieberman…to places like the Central Africa Republic and Pulau. Allow the voters in California and Connecticut to re-evaluate their choices.
So far as is known, Edwards promised nuttin’. All that has been established is that he has a list of possible cabinet members and that some of them are Repubs. We know nothing about that list. We don’t know, for example, if any of the repubs have ever held elective office–or ANY office before.
Anything else appears to be folks putting words in the guy’s mouth.
AFAICT
the DesMoines Register story is a throwback to the September 9 story. Until there is a more definitive source for what Edwards said this week, I’ll assume this is just a September 9 rehash. The biggest problem I have with Edwards currently is his focus on slamming Hillary. To me it just makes Hillary look more and more like the nominee.
Edwards needs to say something like, “There are Republicans still on my list, and when I meet an intelligent, capable, experienced, honest, thoughtful, balanced, sincere Republican, I’ll consider them, I won’t rule them out strictly on the basis of their being Republican. But it’s way too early to mention names, Republican or Democrat.”
Ummm, no. That was Hillary wants to continue the incompetence. True to form for her. “4 more years, yay”.
Edwards wants to consider cabinet members on “competence” …… and that pretty much leave out repubicans.
Sending new “Twister” mat to Blue Texan for Christmas. Geeeeze.
my my, an entire thread based on a misconception…
And such wonderful fodder for the concern trolls.
I still learn something new every time I read FDL.
You old doggies all know how intolerant I am of Republican creeps and posers, but they aren’t all creeps.
Some of them are humans, too.
And they represent about 30% of the population.
That is an awfully big pool of people to exclude just because some of them are intolerable jerks. Some of the smartest people I know are the Republicans who DID NOT vote for Bush, and if you think it takes courage for us progressives to defy the Bush/Cheney bots here or anywhere for that matter, imagine what those poor souls suffered when they defied their own party.
Course, there’s always Democrats like Hoyer and Lieberman and Feinstien for those cabinet positions.
C’mon people, get serious.
And here’s a youtube of the exact event at Hawkeye Community College the Iowa newspaper references. “Congressman Bruce Braley, D-Iowa, put his support behind former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards’ bid for the White House during an event at Hawkeye Community College in Waterloo.”
Edwards starts speaking about 6 minutes. Unless he jumped up, grabbed the mic from Bruce Braley and started speaking this insane business on how he “neeeeeds Republicans” to keep him from “screwing up” then your entire premise of your post reeks. He didn’t say that or ever infer that. Period.
Here’s the tube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIJ15FPciy0
MyrtleJune – I would understand your seeming fury over BT’s piece, if it weren’t for the fact that…
-The Dem brand is much more popular than the Gooper brand by the stat listed (14%)…
-Bubba let his dumb self get slapped around so badly that when he had to find a new SecDef, he bowed to the Goopers and picked… a Gooper – Cohen…
-BT says this towards the end:
-Finally, there was more than a hint of attitude in the piece… we commonly refer to it as snark here. And expressing revulsion at the thought of appointing a Gooper to a cabinet post isn’t exactly out of the mainstream here, either.
Blue Texan, I hear a lot about this thread, on other forums.
No really, I did . . .
1) Who are you? No really, who ARE you? Where’d you come from with no FDL intro that I’ve seen?
2) Where’s yer attribution that Edwards said what you say he said . . . or meant.
I haven’t read comments above, so you may have already ’splained my questions . . . but just in case.
‘Splain them now if ya would, or let me know ya did above. . . cuz other sites are callin you ‘fulla it’ for what you’ve posted (MY inuendo) . . . and you SHOULD have yer day and due. *G*
Afterall, TRex spoke his mind in here, OFTEN, with cloying clarity and sweetness, now that I think about it . . . but he did it with attribution most of the time, even in his most HEATED rages . . know what I mean? But he’s gone, and yer, well . . . yer HERE . . . and he ain’t.
*SWEETLYSMILES*
Who da phook ARE ya, BT? A Little Intro, perhaps? I mean, it’s not like the other blogs celebrated yer opening or gave ya any free press . . . and I’m a lil behind . . . no time to scroll back a few days.
N good luck, btw . . . *G*
So, newstonusr…. you think I’m being too hard on Blue Texan. Well, yes, I am. I am sick to death of having Hillary crammed down my throat and now that we’re getting closer to having the good people of Iowa be the first to cast a vote and the polls are tightening up…. we see this bullshit. How many comments were there on this string that said they were over John Edwards because of Blue Texan’s completely irresponsible headline?
Sure. I know snark. I know it well and I appreciate it. That was not snark. It was utter nonsense. How many people read the headline only especially with the new format? How many people repeated this on their blog or feed? Just the headline? Its not even in the same universe as what John Edwards said or is about…. there’s no source.
Not snark. That’s a full on fabrication of anything that was said. I’m shocked. We get a REAL Democrat and this is what we do to them? He’s the second most PROGRESSIVE candidate and we’re going to do a takedown on him? An undeserved takedown? No. You bet I’m gonna take it to them. Wow, no wonder we lose elections. That is not snark.
And if I seem rather pissy about it. Well, its because I am pissy about the state of our country and hellish admin for the last 7 years and I’m willing to fiiiiiiiiight for something better. We’re better than this. John Edwards is the second most PROGRESSIVE candidate, and THE most progressive that can win by being an actual Democrat. Smearing John Edwards is not going help Hillary win, its going to help us all lose.
Shorter MJ: Not snark. Yes, pissy. Fiiiiiiiight. BT – show your work.
This is starting to have to do with some people’s ability to read the written word.
The Des Moines Register staff reporter, Tony Leys, yesterday wrote, as his lead sentence in his article:
“John Edwards vowed Monday to include republicans in his cabinet if he’s elected president.”
Not BlueTex; TONY LEYS, wrote that.
Edwards followed that with:
“Here’s why; because I’m looking for the strongest, most capable, most
independent-minded people I can find. I want people around me who will say: “You were wrong about this, and you can do grave damage if you do it. Mr. President, you need to change your mind.” He said. “Because I’m not perfect. I’m capable of making mistakes.”
Now, if that isn’t John Edwards saying that he needs some repubs in his cabinet to keep him from screwing up, then Rush Limbaugh is fucking Jane Fonda.
BlueTex said: “This reeks of the Stockholm Syndrome.” I agree.
He also asked are there not enough honest democrats who would tell Edwards if he was about to screw the pooch? Which is a rather relevant question.
This is nothing less than John Edwards saddling up to join Hillary’s triangulation posse. He’s saying the same thing that she’s been saying, which is:
“I’ll gain more political benefits from sucking up to the people who’ve dragged us into the shitmire that I will lose political benefits from the people who’ve been at the core of my campaign and whom have been some of my staunchest supporters.”
It was every bit as unconscionable and every bit as politically stupid as Hillary’s referring to Colin Powell as “a distinguished american”.
Only, as I said, Hillary was at least honest in her attempt to run HER bullshit.
Edwards is all “I have a little list; that never will be missed…”
and he won’t give us the names of those republicans, whom he has somehow divined to be “strong, capable, and independent-minded”.
If I were standing beside Edwards when he so-described those anonymous gentlemen, I think it would be an eminently fair question to have asked him where they have been hiding for the past 5 years. (No smileface bitter enough…for that one…)
Do their track records, individually or collectively, include anything about their warning george bush that HE was about to bunghole the rabid Rottweiller? Because I would think that THAT would be a bottom-line requirement for Edwards’ including them in his cabinet.
And, for example, there was one (1) republican senator (whose name I don’t recall) who had the courage and the intelligence (which John Edwards, at that time, did NOT have!) to vote against authorizing george bush to pull the trigger on Iraq.
I think there are a lot of democrats who don’t understand what is going to happen in this election. One of the two major parties is going to come out of it mortally wounded. The “winners” are going to have the white house, and almost certainly, the Senate, and probably, the House, too.
They will be able to fill the vacancies coming up as the Supreme Court ages.
Unfortunately, there is too much of the same kind of “bi-partisanship” which John Edwards so foolishly demonstrated two days ago in Iowa, to force bush’s hand on ending our part in his clusterfuck, so that the denouement of the bloody soap opera will unspinnably be laid on bush’s and the GOP’s doorstep.
Underneath their “stay the course” idiocy, the republicans are shitting their political pants. They are quietly asking the democratic candidates:
“How many lashes are you going to give us in the general election? We can stand a few, but if you want gobbets of flesh flying and if you want to go for the whole enchilada, then we’ll fight to the last congressional seat. (Only, they won’t; they’ll cave, if we have a candidate who has the moxie, and the moral rectitude to hold them accountable for all they’ve done.)
But two days ago, John Edwards signalled them that HIS cat-of-nine-tails, just like Hillary’s, will be made of velour, and if they’ll just let him slip in the back door of the white house, he will wield it like a three year old child, instead of a hearty and pissed off bosun.
Sad.
Off to work. Can’t log on to followup with Blue Texan on his thread.
Basically, there’s nothing new in the Iowa article regarding his earlier statement. Now IF he actually said “vow” and “promise” yesterday still cannot be confirmed. The first paragraph “Here’s why…” is out of context because we don’t, and looks like we won’t, KNOW what he was responding to. What’s the actual quote before that sentence? We don’t know. I’ll be needing that before I can full on condemn him. The reporter should be able to provide that quote and when it was said.
The newspaper article itself is all over the map and unclear if the first part is background or actually was said the 3rd. We have a widely circulated AP article where he said he’d consider ALL based on “competence”….. including republicans. Now, BT spins it to mean JE “NEEDS Republicans” to keep him from “screwing up” and that JE said that. I don’t know by what filter he could read the article and distill that from it. I completly doubt John Edwards said anything like “I need Republicans because I’m so fucking stupid they’re the only ones to keep me from screwing up” as BT says. No. Didn’t happen.
The story has been out there for 87 days now, widely circulated and only when JE gets bunched up with the other in the polls does it get spun around and actually believed. Well, ok. I say, if that’s allllllll you go BT, then go sit down with annie, billo, rush, et al. and if you’ve got something real…. bring it.
You can believe what you want and take action based on a poorly sourced, poorly substantiated newspaper report and a questionable blogger who spun it into something it was not.
I read just fine. :-)