Your email address:

Send To (enter comma-sperated email addresses):

Note to Recipient:




Entry:
Pots and Kettles Well, it took the Republican party all of about three minutes to start slinging mud at Senator John Edwards. And what mud they have to sling. The most interesting charges are that Edwards is disingenuous and inexperienced. If those are such liabilities, why should Bush get another crack at the White House? It's important to remember that these charges are being levied by a party that ran W. as a unifying moderate. They then claimed that his inexperience didn't matter because he would surround himself with great advisors. Well, we all know how completely disingenuous W's campaign was. He has been an extreme right dangerous lunatic who has further polarized not just America, but the world. As for those advisors, that would be people like Donald 'Why plan for after the fall of Baghdad' Rumsfeld, Condi 'I'm a Russia expert, but let me tell you about how Saddam is responsible for 9/11' Rice, and John 'Civil rights are undermining America' Ashcroft. Well, W. did appoint one good advisor, Colin Powell, who he then allowed to be marginalized and ignored. So, we are supposed to worry about Edwards being inexperienced or possibly disingenuous? How much harm could he do? He's running to replace an administration that has alienated our friends, invigorated our enemies, undermined our security, and assaulted our civil liberties. While at the same time doing nothing for our economy beyond funneling massive tax cuts to the rich. It won't take much to improve on that record. But the Republican slime trail is even thicker than this. You can check it out yourself [1]here. They start out using Kerry's campaign statements against Edwards. Hmmm. This wouldn't be the same GOP that shrugged off Bush I's comments about 'voodoo economics' as irrelevant once the primaries were over, is it? Seriously, any politician running for party nomination will try to make themselves look better than their opponents. I'm sure there are some great lines from Bush's opponents in the 2000 GOP primary too. But then they go on to attack Edwards for having focused on his legal career before turning to politics. Hmmm, I thought the GOP was opposed to career politicians. But then we come to the truly priceless stuff. The Republicans are attacking Edwards for not having good answers about what to do in Afghanistan. Well, given that Bush has essentially abandoned the Afghan people, and is allowing the country to sink back under the control of warlords and the Taliban, it's not like they are brimming over with ideas themselves. And what exactly is Edwards' position that they are attacking: he suggests asking our allies to expand the size of the peacekeeping force. Sounds like a good idea to me. Especially next to Bush's neglect. And, by the way, set anything Edwards has to say next to the nonsense Bush was spouting in 2000, and Edwards looks a lot better. Not to mention that Edwards actually tries to answer questions, which is a refreshing change from Bush/Cheney and Cronies. I'm not going to take the time to respond point by point to all of the blather, but let's at least look at the title of the next section "New To Understanding Legislation & Presidential Powers." Now that's just precious coming from a party whose leader has just had his head bitten off by the Supreme Court for his abuse of civil liberties supposedly in the name of Presidential Power. And what is their major criticism: that Edwards has, in pointing out some of the administration's more egregious behavior, mistakenly attributed it to the Patriot Act. Bizarrely, the GOP brings up exactly what the Supremes just whacked them for: the abuse of power which has led Bush and company to believe that they can seize American citizens, declare them enemy combatants, and lock them away indefinitely. True Edwards erred in attributing this to the Patriot Act. But one could easily attribute that to a naive belief that before trying to seize extra-constitutional power the president would have at least tried to get the permission of congress. Do the Republicans really think that highlighting W's power-mad hostility to the constitution is an effective way of discrediting his opponent? References: 1. http://www.gop.com/RNCResearch/Read.aspx?id=4345