My husband and I have been doing some research regarding the primary candidates (Democrats and Republicans). What we have found is that only ONE candidate is NOT accepting campaign contributions from special interest groups. That candidate is John Edwards. That sealed the deal for us and speaks louder than anything he could have said in the debates.
You may not be aware of this, but there are about 60 lobbyists for every senator in the U.S. Senate. These lobbyists have tremendous influence with our representatives and lots of money to throw around to make sure their companies are well taken care of. We need a president that will look out for the average American rather than just the big oil companies, large corporations and insurance companies. John Edwards fought these large companies in his law firm; he will stand up to them as president. He has integrity and won't sell out. That is why John Edwards deserves your vote and why we can't afford NOT to get this man into office.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 61
If one wants someone whose policies won't contribute to our nation becoming bankrupt, I would respectfully suggest a look at Mitt Romney, who has a resume' that no one else can even touch.
I wish I thought Dennis had a prayer, but I don't. Get behind someone that can.
I think Obama is a little more grass roots. I like Ron Paul's idea for less beaurocrazy. No more Clintons, time to move forward not backward. Not sure who I will vote for, but already know a few I wouldn't vote for, and Edwards is on that list, along with Clinton, Romney and the other religious nut, and Biden. So, I am narrowed down somewhat, but anything can happen between now and then.
I don't think we need another dishonest politician as our president.
And Greg, what are his "liberal policies"? The fact that he cares about the poor? The fact that he wants to see everyone receive healthcare? If we weren't paying for a war, we could have used those trillions of dollars to pay for universal healthcare and have money left over.
Rosa, as far as Edwards being "sue-happy", he was doing his job. He's a lawyer and people came to him to file lawsuits. He represented people like you and me and not the powerful corporations. That's why I believe he will stand up for us as president.
Obama is a good man. My feeling is that he is just not ready. But he also is accepting contributions from special interest groups just like Clinton and the Republican candidates. Anyone that does that has a debt to pay after they are elected. That is the big reason why we need campaign financing reform and get rid of all these contributions.
I have not yet made up my mind, this is a very long campaign season.
Republicans love to taunt Edwards for being a trial lawyer, but the Republican Party has been intent on reducing the ability of citizen's to find redress for any wrong that they have suffered at the hands of business interests.
It is noteworthy that Giuliani was hired to head-off prosecution of the scumbags who lied abolut the addictive properties of Oxycotin.
Dana is particularly irrational these days as his favorite, Romney, is about to be flushed from American politics.
Good Riddance.
Of course you don't you're just voting for the guy. To heck with knowing anything about him.
But that is already happening as a matter of fact. I only recently heard about it.
So stem cell research has alreayd provided cures for paralysis? That's the first I have heard of it.
Because of stem cell research (which Bush fought against) it is happening.
Bush doesn't oppose stem cell research. He opposes federal funding for stem cell research which would not use the existing supply of embryos but create and destroy new ones solely for the purpose of research. It's one of those "nuances" that those of you who voted for John "I voted for the war before I voted against it" Kerry should understand.
But what does this have to do with Edwards being a good president?
A lot. Not only did he gareuntee that stem cell research would lead to cures (something he can not possibly know) but he has also tried to use his wife's cancer to garner votes.
As for you Peter...will you be around talking that same trash after Mitt wins the NH primary next week or was that little inept attempt at reading the political tea leaves just a driveby?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071230/ap_po/romney_candor
Not long ago, Dana was fantasizing on Gather about Romney's wins in New Hampshire AND Iowa.
Ooops. that part of the "dream" just died.
The Flip-flopper may well squeeze out a narrow win in New Hampshire, but that changes nothing.
The only way this long-shot play for the nomination could work was for the blow-dried liar to dominate the early contests.
That isn't going to happen.
Nevertheless, I would be tickled to see the republicans try to run with Mitt in November.
Can't wait til '08.
I admire Ron Paul's honesty and "some" of his concerns and would vote for him rather than most of the others. Meanwhile I am staying open to see what crops up in the end.
Are you kidding me? She is the most dishonest, connnving and most hated woman in America and Romney would eat her alive in the general. I hope and pray that she is the Dem nominee as it garuentees another 4 years for the GOP. The best thing about it is that you leftists are so smug that you can't even see it's coming when it's blatantly obvious.
I think that the Republicans should take a closer look at McCain. He can beat Hillary (if that's what they want), and he offers honest leadership. The Democratic Party has good candidates this time around. It remains to be seen who would be the best choice.
And Dana, we're not talking about Hillary here. I'm supporting Edwards. You chose to bring up Romney and Hillary. Several of us have told you what has become obvious about Romney: he's a liar and can't be trusted. I said nothing about Hillary. I'm not voting for her. Do I trust her? No. She owes too many people--much like the others. But she would be far better than any Republican. McCain is a good man, but he is too militeristic. War has not solved our problems. We need changes and I don't think he's the answer.
Of course you don't you're just voting for the guy. To heck with knowing anything about him."
Apparently we know more about him than you do about Romney, Dana
"But that is already happening as a matter of fact. I only recently heard about it.
So stem cell research has alreayd provided cures for paralysis? That's the first I have heard of it."
Not already but shows enormous promise. Reeves, of course is not possible now. Bush saw to that.
"Because of stem cell research (which Bush fought against) it is happening.
Bush doesn't oppose stem cell research. He opposes federal funding for stem cell research which would not use the existing supply of embryos but create and destroy new ones solely for the purpose of research. It's one of those "nuances" that those of you who voted for John "I voted for the war before I voted against it" Kerry should understand."
I know and understand he opposed using embryos that were being trash canned from fertility clinics, anyway, which was not only stupid, but criminal. Speaking as the son of a dead Parkinson's patient that may have found relief if Bush hadn't blocked five long years of research before his death, pandering to his RR base, for no good reason. I, and many others, consider that, and him despicable.
"But what does this have to do with Edwards being a good president?
A lot. Not only did he gareuntee that stem cell research would lead to cures (something he can not possibly know) but he has also tried to use his wife's cancer to garner votes."
Stem cell research does hold that promise, and as far as using his wife's cancer to garner votes, I've been paying attention to his campaign from day one, and I don't see it that way, it was her decision to have him go ahead and run, and it is the right that makes that accusation constantly, with no basis in fact.
"As for you Peter...will you be around talking that same trash after Mitt wins the NH primary next week or was that little inept attempt at reading the political tea leaves just a driveby?"
I'll let Peter speak for himself on that one.
So now Bush killed Superman.....
I'm a Republican and I can't wait to see the guy go myself but c'mon.....you guys need to put down the crack pipe once in awhile.
First of all, I don't consider myself a Republican or a Democrat, and I am really peeved at both parties. In fact I'd like to see more than two parties.
Secondly, I am speaking from a personal point of view. These trial lawyers don't just sue big business, they also prey on small business, which Edwards was known to do. We not only had our small business taken away from us, but our home, and then to top it off, this Trial Lawyer (also a Democrat) had the nerve to walk through our home when we were forced to sell all our personal belongings at Auction. He took great delight in our loss. So yeah, I would like to redress the ability of trial lawyers, and their sue happy customers.
You may not have any empathy for hard working people like us who have had everything stolen by WEALTHY trial lawyers in bogus lawsuits, probably because it hasn't been done to you, but I will not vote for a man who practices this kind of deceit.
And Carla, I don't care if he was just doing his job, when his job is robbing hard working people in order to satisfy the greed of the WEALTHY, he's no better than the people he works for.
Nope, you'll never convince me to vote this guy. I already know his kind up close and personal.
http://news.findlaw.com/newsmakers/john.edwards.html
"Sicko" was excellent.
John Edwards has a good plan for health care. I just don't see him winning, Carla.
I've known good lawyers, who are honest, and I'm not against lawyers, I'm against corruption, the rich robbing the poor to middle class, and I just don't want him as a President. You probably should ask yourself: At whose expense did John Edwards become a filthy rich lawyer?
Rosa, I apologize if you felt that I was attacking you. You are right, I have not walked in your shoes and cannot understand how you feel. I would like to understand your strong feelings about John Edwards. You say "he is what he is". What do you think he is? Are you saying that he is deceitful and corrupt, as that seems to be what you are inferring? Would you mind sharing with us some specifics about why you think this?
If anyone wants to read it, there is an excellent endorsement by the Council Bluffs, Iowa newspaper about John Edwards. Copy and paste into your browser to view.
http://www.nonpareilonline.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19152763&BRD=2703&PAG=461&dept_id=555106&rfi=6
That's right Joe. "Show promise." In other words there is a strong potential for cures. No garantees. But what Edwrads did was offer a garantee and unecessarily politicize the issue. I'm always hearing from liberals that it's wrong for republicans to say that if Democrats are elected we will have more terrorist attacks but they feel it's fine when John "Pantene girl" Edwards says "if you elect republican people are going to die of diseases that they wouldn't die of if a Dem is president.
However, unlike certain news channels I will feature your article in The Great Debate because everyone is entitled to be represented.
And Shelley, I know that you're a Ron Paul fan, so that's one reason that you wouldn't be interested in Edwards. But "abhor" is a pretty strong term. How well do you know the man? What makes you abhor him? When did he "sell-out"? To me, the fact that he has not taken campaign contributions from special interest groups is a good indication that he wouldn't sell-out.
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977218275
I kinda like you, but an Edwards/Kucinich ticket? Kucinich would weigh down Edwards like a boat anchor. He just isn't taken seriously by anyone in this country. Its the nutty things that come out of his mouth that damn him to oblivion......lol.
Hillary is the most near the Center, but her health care plan scares the hell out of me. So I'm worried.
I've been wishing and hoping for a JFK-type candidate for a while now : strong on defense, pro-military, well educated economically, fiscally Conservative, with a reasonable Centrist social agenda, tough on border security and immigration, and has a good rapport with business leaders.
Unfortunately the only candidate fitting that bill is a Republican, so I'm a bit undecided so far.
Have to save these precious laugh lines from Dana.
Actually, Dana, Mitt the Flip Flop has higher negatives than Clinton, and is the only Republican against whom Hillary consistently leads by a number greater than the polling margin of error.
This is hard for ideological rightists like you to fathom, but Mitt Romney is cordially disliked by the young (highest negatives of any candidate -they see the fakeness, distrusted by the middle-aged, runs way behind most of the Republicans with women, and evangelicals .
He would be a fantastic candidate for the GOP next Fall.
(Another Republican House Member is retiring from a contested seat, just announced this morning. the House members see which way the wind is blowing.)
But, Romney might not even make it to Michigan, with a loss or a less-than -decisive victory in New Hampshire.
www.johnedwards.com/issues/
I watched part of a Republican debate the other night where several
of the candidates took turns referring to our medical system here in
Canada, trying to scare people about Loooong wait times.
I thought, "What baloney!". Of course unless you have direct
experience of it, you don't know what to believe.
There is pretty close to zero waiting time to get to see a doctor,
unless you show up at emergency just after the victims of a bus
crash. However, if you show up with a headache, the person bleeding
or with a broken leg will be ahead of you. If I think back over 30
years, I recall waiting an hour or so late on a busy night. My own
doctor works in a busy clinic and I usually show up without an
appointment (I'm not a good patient) and I expect to wait an hour or
maybe two. When I have an appointment, it's usually the other folks
who are waiting.
We have teams of people who schedule surgeries and such, based on
information they get from doctors. They consider the effects on your
long-term health and the degree of urgency based on your condition,
but also on things like your occupation.
For example, if I am a carpenter with a bad elbow, I will likely get
in ahead of a pensioner with a bad elbow, because I need my arm to
pound nails and make a living. I'm sure this pees some wealthy
pensioners off, because they'd like to buy their way to the head of
the queue, but try to sell that to the carpenter's wife and kids.
When they get their call, the cost is - nada, but of course we do pay
somewhat higher taxes.
The horror stories that are quoted are a tiny percentage of cases
where people are dropped to the bottom of the queue for a variety of
reasons. It could be that you had a doctor who didn't think you were
an urgent case, so didn't make a good case for you. Some people don't
bother seeing a doctor on a regular basis, so they don't have a
relationship with one. (Unlike the HMO system, you can see any doctor
you want, anytime, if they will see you.) If your doc didn't think
you were urgent, then you won't be scheduled accordingly!
Many cases I have heard about long wait times were from people who
were in the queue, but when they were called, turned it down because
It wasn't at their favorite hospital, or because they were booked for
a holiday in Hawaii. (You will be booked at the first hospital that
has an available operating room and staff. )Then they go down to the
bottom of the queue, and then they end up complaining about the long
wait time. If their doctor had them marked as 'urgent', they may have
been reviewed about that as well. I heard of somebody that was called
for surgery about 3-4 days after she saw her doctor - she thought the
hospital was too far away from home, so she declined - then
complained that she had to wait two months! The fact is, the
hospitals near her were too busy, the one more distant was available
- and the doctor doing the work was the same person!
When I was diagnosed with an infected gallbladder, my wait for
surgery was two days, one of them spent in hospital.
Just some facts:
Studies, some done by Harvard Medical School, show that patient
recovery outcomes are 20% better in Canada, while total medical care
costs are 50% less. Much of that comes from savings due to bulk
purchasing of supplies and drugs, not just from the elimination of
profits from the chain. Many of the services are provided by private
firms (lab testing, X-rays, etc.) but it is tendered annually by the
regional healthcare boards, who run groups of hospitals centred
around major cities. The Saskatoon Health Region runs hospitals in
the city and surrounding towns to a radius of about 100 miles.
Drugstores are entirely private, but they obtain drugs from a
centralized purchasing agency which tenders to the drug companies
annually.
Most Canadians cannot understand why Americans put up with not only
the expense of your medical system, but the lies that are told about
it. Even Democrats cannot tell the truth because it will hurt their
credibility. My experience here is the Michael Moore is telling the
truth, although he has only a small sample to base it on - of course
it doesn't always go as rosy as he painted it.
Rev. Darrell Gudmundson -Staff Minister
Centre for Positive Living, Saskatoon