Edwards Threatens Congress In New Iowa Ad

Comments (30)

colonpowwow wrote on November 13, 2007 9:12 AM:

If by the biggest freak of political nature that ever happened, the $400 haircut populist with the most non-progressive voting record in the Senate of any Democratic contender managed to become President, and he tried to do this . . .

. . . Congress would cut his peanuts off. (See President Jimmy Carter)

david mizner wrote on November 13, 2007 9:18 AM:

Great ad. It's a moral message that'll hit Iowans in the gut.

As for the alleged constitutional problem, Edwards doesn't say, has never said, that the health care coverage would be cut off before the next election, only that he would try to enact a deadline for passing universal coverage.

In any case, I'm sure Team Edwards welcomes this debate.

david mizner wrote on November 13, 2007 9:24 AM:

One more thing: the 27th Amendment was intended to prevent pay increases, not paycuts, plus it's not clear that it covers benefits, only salaries.

colonpowwow wrote on November 13, 2007 9:30 AM:

david mizner wrote on November 13, 2007 9:18 AM:

"In any case, I'm sure Team Edwards welcomes this debate."

How about debating whether this is a classic example of desperate, pandering nonsense by a candidate standing on the cusp of political oblivion?

The two real contenders in this race have to be laughing at this. Will his next two ads be attacks on the liberal media and welfare queens. Iowans will eat it up!

david mizner wrote on November 13, 2007 9:37 AM:

Colonpowwow,

It's a huge applause line for Edwards wherever he goes. As for your comparing progressive populism to reactonary populism, all I can say is, hunh?

AJ wrote on November 13, 2007 9:46 AM:

Great ad. The point is to provoke a political fight with congress over why they deserve health care and the rest of the American people don't.

Geek, Esq. wrote on November 13, 2007 9:50 AM:

Edwards is saying that "he" will take away their health insurance.

That would more egregiously unconstitutional than anything Bush/Cheney has done.

Now, he could ask Congress to do it, but that's not the same thing as he himself taking it away.

colonpowwow wrote on November 13, 2007 9:50 AM:

david mizner:

Okay, what do you think the chances are of something like this ever gaining a minimum of traction say Edwards ends up as President?

Sure, bashing Congress is always good for an applause line. It's popularity ranks below Bush's and just above smarmy lawyers.

My point lately has been, if Edwards is such a progressive, why doesn't his Senate voting record or his progressive rating (by Americans for Democratic Action) reflect this?

Easy answer. Because he's the classic do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do liberal politician who gives nothing but lip service to progressive issues as it pertains to his personal life and voting record when it's his electability on the line.

Geek, Esq. wrote on November 13, 2007 9:54 AM:

Edwards has gone from Huey Long to Hugo Chavez.

AJ wrote on November 13, 2007 10:02 AM:

Geek, ha, alliteration is clever.

I am surprised how touchy the Obama and Clinton campaigns are about insider perks. I mean I knew they were campaigns run by insiders, mostly for insiders, just surprising it's so open.

Geek, Esq. wrote on November 13, 2007 10:07 AM:

I'm sensitive about the Constitution, unlike certain desperate demagogues.

Brian wrote on November 13, 2007 10:16 AM:

Once again, another ridiculous headline that is worthy of the mainstream media. Eric, do you write for the Note? Edwards showed some balls and made it clear that he would use whatever leverage he has to combat the insurance lobby, and you accuse him of "threatening congress"? What is it called when the insurance industry has a death grip on our representatives in congress? Isn't that threatening?

Geek, Esq. wrote on November 13, 2007 10:19 AM:

Edwards was threatening.

His exact words:

"I'm going to use my power as President to take your healthcare away from you."

That is a threat. Moreover, it is a threat to act unconstitutionally.

Brian wrote on November 13, 2007 10:24 AM:

It is a threat. It is a well-deserved threat. Of course, the Constitution would win and Edwards probably would not even get close to pushing the tactic. BUT, if it gets Congress to protect the American people instead of their insurance industry contributions, then he should level this threat every chance he gets. You've really sunk your hook into the red herring on this one Geek lawyer.

joe subscriber wrote on November 13, 2007 10:26 AM:

This is almost enough to get me to support Edwards. Now, if he included cutting the health care of the President as well as the judges from the district level on up, then he would merit my vote. No health insurance for anyone until it's available for everyone.

Geek, Esq. wrote on November 13, 2007 10:27 AM:

So, Edwards threatens to do something unconstitutional and I'm wrong for objecting?

Brian wrote on November 13, 2007 10:33 AM:

You're not wrong for objecting, just silly. You will find yourself in the same camp as some very well paid insurance attorneys. Edwards was presenting an uppercut to the insurance industry, not a blow to the Constitution. You have missed the point of his statement and begun to argue a Constitutional issue that, while real, will never actually become a problem. You can parse his statement and convince yourself that Edwards really means to trash the Constitution, but you are missing the real point. We need to be forceful and step right to the line when battling for our Country's future against insurance lobbyists who routinely jump over the line.

NTouch08 wrote on November 13, 2007 10:35 AM:

I have been a staunch Edwards supporter from day one. I even went so far as to give money when receiving an email about getting a new ad up in Iowa (I know it was going to happen regardless of the response they got, but I bought in.) I must say however, that I would have withheld my latest contribution had I known THIS was the ad. For a candidate with limited funds to begin with, who is capped by the matching funds rules, to go and drop such a big dollar amount on THIS? Every story someone has seen on him saying this at town halls, etc. They have also seen how the President does not have that authority. By all accounts, Iowa caucus goers are not as mindless as many in the general electorate and will know this. He still has my support, but my disappointment shows through today as well.

Fred M. wrote on November 13, 2007 10:37 AM:

Two key issues that a true progressive candidate would be pushing:

1) A return to a true progressive tax structure. The cuts to the top tax rates during the Reagan administration are the cause of runaway executive salaries, bonus and options. It is the only way to stop the ever increasing gap between the rich and poor in this country.

2) True campaign finance reform. The only way to limit the excessive influence of corporations and the wealthy in our political system is to limit contributions by representative districts. In other words, restrict contributions to only the candidates that represent an individual's or corporation's state or district. Our government representatives should be responsibile to their constituents ... not corporations or individuals from outside their state or district.

eric wrote on November 13, 2007 10:39 AM:

Look Geek. It is just a threat - a bit of puffery, really. And if he did try this, it surely would go to court and we would have our answer. In any case, the act of doing it would be enough to give the issue the attention it deserves.

And I do agree with comments above, this isn't a clear cut issue. The 27th amendment isn't clear on this. It just says that an election must take place before the change. It also discusses a "law" that varies compensation. This wouldn't be a law. It would just be an order directing how the Congress gets paid.

Brian wrote on November 13, 2007 10:40 AM:

It would be great if Edwards really pressed this issue and forced commentators and even some members of Congress to begin an all out effort to defend their right to insurance coverage. Yes, the Constitution prevents the President from doing this, but the silliness of Congress and commentators actually taking the bait (Yglesias and Kleefeld)and totally missing the point of his ad is really amusing. Go ahead, defend your right to full insurance coverage and your Constitutional right that prevents the President from taking that coverage away.

eric wrote on November 13, 2007 10:45 AM:

"Brian wrote on November 13, 2007 10:40 AM:
It would be great if Edwards really pressed this issue and forced commentators and even some members of Congress to begin an all out effort to defend their right to insurance coverage. Yes, the Constitution prevents the President from doing this, but the silliness of Congress and commentators actually taking the bait (Yglesias and Kleefeld)and totally missing the point of his ad is really amusing. Go ahead, defend your right to full insurance coverage and your Constitutional right that prevents the President from taking that coverage away."

You are exactly right. Best comment in the thread.

Jake D wrote on November 13, 2007 10:59 AM:

Geek, Esq.:

Putting aside Brian's argument for the moment, what exactly is UNCONSTITUTIONAL for a President Edwards to sign into law a bill duly passed by both Houses of Congress "taking their healthcare away from them"? Doing so via Executive Order would only be the last resort ; )

Brian wrote on November 13, 2007 11:07 AM:

Argument from a middle income congressperson:
"You can't do this. It's unconstitutional. What am I supposed to do if my employer takes away my healthcare? I can't afford decent coverage, and if I could, no one would insure my son who is in need of intensive care for a tragic disease."

Come to think of it, the insurance industry wouldn't know what to do. Do they support this congressperson because he seems to be fighting for their interests? Or, do they oppose the congressperson because he is exposing the greed of the insurance industry? What a dilemma.

Richard L. Adlof wrote on November 13, 2007 11:53 AM:

Congress has been failing to do their job to defend the rights enshrined in the Constitution and represent those people who elected them for a decade or so now . . .

It is a perfectly acceptable tactic to run against Congress. It is acceptable to shame them into remembering why they have health insurance and that they are representatives and not a ruling class.

The benefits of being a Congressperson or a Senator NEED to be equal to the least of our people and their obligation and duty is to insure that.

The First Branch continues to fail us. If Edwards' rhetoric affects some small measure of change towards the positive . . . I welcome it.

This is an act of communication . . . The freedom of speech. I know that we as Americans have grown incapble of recognizing it BUT let your heart remember. The ability is not gone . . . It is simply whithered from non-use.

gtash wrote on November 13, 2007 12:30 PM:

Mr. Edwards said he would use his influence as President to take health care away---this has nothing to do with his legal "authority". You have missed the point which, by the way, has resonated in the public ears for years and years.

tarheel74 wrote on November 13, 2007 12:37 PM:

“Let me put it this way,” he said. “If John wants to make the comparison between the work I did as a community organizer — or as a civil rights attorney or as a state senator taking on special interests — to him working as a trial lawyer making millions of dollars, I’m happy to have that discussion.”
Recognize this quote: it's by the man who should be the next POTUS
Obama'08

Jake D wrote on November 13, 2007 1:15 PM:

New thread on the issue: http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/11/edwards_camp_yes_our_health_care_proposal_is_constitutional.php#comments

dewey_m wrote on November 13, 2007 3:32 PM:

The fact that there are obviously paid shills from the competitions' camp making comments tells me that John Edwards populist message is afar greater threat than I thought.

colonpowwow wrote on November 13, 2007 6:04 PM:

Hey dewey_m:

As one of the posters who is just as passionate about my candidate, Hillary Clinton - a true progressive based on her 95% progressive voting record in the Senate, as progressive wanna be Edwards's are about him, I am getting tired of all this paid shill nonsense starting everytime one of us truly informed voters start presenting the facts about Hillary's progressive credentials versus those of the $400 haircut populist to the manor bourne.

First of all, I have worked for other Democratic candidates on the local level, and believe me, no Democratic candidate of any fringe or with taste
;-) would countenance many of the posts and arguments I've had here. You really should be able to figure that out yourself.

Then again, consider who you're supporting.

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)