John Edwards’s Opportunistic Iraq War Vote
Without beliefs all things are possible
By streiff Posted in Democrats — Comments (12) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Okay, I know. Your first question is “which one?”
According to serial loser Bob "let me be the first to call you Mr. President" Schrum, John Edwards voted in favor of the Iraq War, to coin a phrase here, to maintain his political viability.
Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards was skeptical about voting for the Iraq war resolution and was pushed into it by advisers looking out for his political future, according to an upcoming book by one of his former consultants.
Democratic strategist Bob Shrum writes in his memoir to be published in June that he regrets advising Edwards to give President Bush the authority to go to war in Iraq. He said if Edwards had followed his instincts instead of the advice of political professionals, he would have been a stronger presidential candidate in 2004.
Shades of Al Gore trading his Gulf War vote for extra speaking time during the debate. Life is a lot easier when you actually believe in something.
« Corrupt Democrat Watch, July 10 Edition, Part One — Comments (20) | The Beclowning of Claire McCaskill — Comments (14) »
John Edwards’s Opportunistic Iraq War Vote 12 Comments (0 topical, 12 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Sure, plenty of pols will vote with one or both eyes on the polls when deciding on, say, ethanol subsidies or the minimum wage. But this is war we are talking about. There's no justification for a war vote you don't believe in. Especially since Edwards' rhetoric was, if anything, more unambiguously hawkish than most anyone on the Democratic side of the aisle.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
Well it is curious at best how many Democrats now opine regrettably about obviating on the war vote. Certainly, claiming that less than a majority of politicians (not every, BTW) have done this at one time or another would be naïve; but that’s not the point is it?
The reason it is noteworthy is the aforementioned “theme”. I can not recall a time in history such endemic regret has been expressed for the singular purpose of advancing political gain. That behavior combined with the overall systemic mendacity makes their group the antithesis of leadership. Edwards is just another brick in that destructive governmental enervation.
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Contributor to The Minority Report
this was the the most important vote of his 6-year term in the senate....and he sold out for political expediency.
this wasn't some pork-barrel appropriations bill he "just went along with".
ironically, had he voted his conviction (as defined today), he would be sitting pretty with his leftier anti-war allies.
all these senators who are now renouncing their votes really need to consider the fact that presidents don't get "do-overs".
I'm just more cynical (or realistic?) about our elected officials -- Democrats, Republicans, and Independents.
As for "do-overs," I think it's fair to say that the "surge," or whatever one wants to call the current policy in Iraq, is a kind of do-over. In fact, presidents get do-overs more than most people do. Some have survived grievous errors and triumphed in the end, but only one has ever had to leave office (without dying) before his term was up.
I think it's easy to over-dramatize...
and lacking in core moral values precluding an ability to recognize craven political ambition at its worst coupled with liberal blindness to hypocrisy?
Just asking.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
Tbone to jump in with groundless accusations and gratuitous insults.
My principles guide my actions; they don't create my expectations for how politicians will behave.
If my point that it is easy to over-dramatize needed support, I can only thank you (Tbone) for providing it.
Among my principles are the following:
--don't argue with people who don't listen.
--don't accuse people I don't know of things about which I know nothing.
--don't unnecessarily spend time with nasty people.
For the record, the topic was John Edwards and the behavior of politicians.
--don't argue with people about which they no nothing.
--don't accuse people without prejudging.
--spend as much time as possible with nasty women.
The topic was your misidentification of your cynicism.
"Tbone, not just meeting but exceeding expectations everyday."
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
I don't think this is Shrum trying to come out and make Edwards look bad by saying that he was being politically expedient. I think it's Shrum trying to help give Edwards street cred with the nutroots by saying that, really, he was with them all along.
After all, what does Shrum have to lose by saying that is was him, and not Edwards, who was responsible for that vote? Nothing -- he's retired from politics (and was never on the ballot anyway).
But Edwards is running again and this is, IMO, an attempt to shield himself from his vote on Iraq. I think he has more to gain, in the sense of a primary (and against Hillary Clinton, no less) by saying that he was cajoled into voting as he did than he has to lose by confessing that he was, well, cajoled into voting as he did.
He sees his chief problem, considering his strategy, as being his vote. Apologizing for it is one thing....but, this way, he can say that he was skeptical all along.
I didn't say Schrum was trying to make Edwards look bad. But as a point of fact can you think of anyway this makes Edwards look good?
As someone else said, selling out on a tax increase or funding a project to win a few votes is one thing. Selling out on a war-peace decision is a bit different.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
Democratic strategist Bob Shrum writes in his memoir to be published in June that he regrets advising Edwards
Bob "oh-for-infinity" Shrum is a great man, how many loser Democrats has this guy given advice to? This says something about Edwards that he would listen to such an incompetent dimbulb as Shrum.
Maybe he's Karl Rove in disguise? I mean other than Karl, Shrum has been the person most responsible for getting Republicans elected.
Two thirds of the world is covered by water, the other third is covered by Champ Bailey
And long before it was fashionable. This is a bald-faced effort to say "I was against the war before I was for it." Nobody pursuing the nutroots vote could ever be honest about believing in the reasons for the Iraq war. He's even less principled than I thought.
--
We would also like to know your advice for somebody like my daughter, who's going to graduate in two years, advice that you would give a young person.
SEC. RUMSFELD: Advice for a young person. Study history.
I doubt if there has ever been a senator or representative who didn't do the same thing many times in their careers. The idea of the elected official who is so devoutly principled that he or she never makes a calculated decision, (or heaven forbid, compromises) seems naive.
I'm not defending Edwards. If he really was against giving the president the authority to go to war, he should have voted that way. My point is that his behavior seems hardly noteworthy.