Besides Edwards having the second lowest attendance in congress (the first being Senator Kerry), Edwards has an even darker side that is exemplified through the course of his push for the white house.

Let's start from the debate against Cheney where Edwards
So Ms. Ifill gives the Vice President 90 seconds. To which the only words the VP can say are

Let's continue on these kind words from Mrs. Edwards.


Which caused Lynn Cheney's response:

Edwards v. Cheneys

So underneath his 'southern charm' he attacks Dick Cheney, Lynn Cheney, their daughter, and every homosexual person by claiming "its wrong," "it's shameful."

Attack two that dispells his 'southern charm' stems from his Christopher Reeves comments.

This in turn leads Frist, a heart surgeon from Tennessee to respond

Edwards on Reeves

Edwards trial lawyer crawls out from behind his southern charm and the following questions are up for debate:

1. Is Edwards attacks against the Cheney's and the use of the Reeve's for political gain overstated or was Edwards in the right?
   
2. Since having such a poor record of attendance at the senate, can Edwards be an effective VP dealing with the senate?
   
3. Kerry claims that Edwards was his first choice for Vice President. Is it a good thing, if elected president to choose a Vice President with very little political and senate experience?
   
4. Is there anywhere in history where a novice senator has been chosen as a VP and had been successful introducing the Presidents agenda in the senate?

Are you trying out for the part of a Republican hit man josh.
Did Christopher Reeve support the research?
Did he spend his time trying drum up support for those who want to find the "cure" for such things?
Think he didn't wish he could walk again?
He'll he probably would have settled for sitting up by himself.


As for the Cheneys. Well just cry me a river.
Are they not supporting legislation that denies their daughter the right to choose for herself marriage to the person she wants to spend her life with?

At the worst Edwards used a cheap shot at the VP, but Cheney is willingly consigning his own child to second class status. He is saying his own daughter, that he "loves" so very deeply is less a person than others.
You really find Edwards to be the worst person in this case?


2. Since having such a poor record of attendance at the senate, can Edwards be an effective VP dealing with the senate?

3. Kerry claims that Edwards was his first choice for Vice President. Is it a good thing, if elected president to choose a Vice President with very little political and senate experience?

4. Is there anywhere in history where a novice senator has been chosen as a VP and had been successful introducing the Presidents agenda in the senate?



2.So his record as a politician is minimal. So he has had less opportunity to be a crook out to preach America with one face, while looting our pocketbook with pork projects and false patriotism with the other?
I might be safer as an American with a less practised politician running things.

3. Elections are not about ideas josh. If they were the Dems and Republicans would rightfully be unemployed. It is a popularity contest. Choose your best shot to win.

4. Who cares about what has happened in the past. The past is used by those trying to maintain their grasp over things as they are now and to deny others a chance to try new things.
Since when did actors become Presidents? Should Reagan have stayed home--answer carefully young republican. You live in Cali and Aquilla will find you if you malign Reagan

There’s nothing like a “good” opening statement to set an “unbiased” tone for debate.

1. Is Edwards attacks against the Cheney's and the use of the Reeve's for political gain overstated or was Edwards in the right?

While Edwards might have misspoken about people getting out of wheelchairs and walking—false hope, the Bush/Cheney administration has thwarted the hope of millions. What Edwards should have said is that stem cell research gives hope; while the administration’s approach dashes it. I think Reeve would approve.

According to this line of thinking the national amber alert must be an exploitation of the Amber Hagerman's murder.

2. Since having such a poor record of attendance at the senate, can Edwards be an effective VP dealing with the senate?

For what period of time are Edwards and Kerry being measured? If it is while they have been running for president this is understandable. I should also point out that Bush and Cheney have been out of Washington a great deal while campaigning. There is nothing Republicans , Bill Frist for example, would like more than to jerk opponent’s campaign schedules around.

3. Kerry claims that Edwards was his first choice for Vice President. Is it a good thing, if elected president to choose a Vice President with very little political and senate experience?

I don’t know if Edwards being first choice is relevant. As has been pointed out, Edwards had as much if not more political experience as Bush did when he ran for President in 2000. Bush may have had a little foreign relations experience as Governor of a state bordering Mexico, but Edwards role in the Senate provides him more.

4. Is there anywhere in history where a novice senator has been chosen as a VP and had been successful introducing the Presidents agenda in the senate?

From a Constitutional perspective, this question doesn’t even make sense. Edward’s would be the President of the Senate but would vote only in case of ties. See Article I, Section 3, paragraph 4 The Constitution of the United States Any other role a VP plays is behind the scenes and informal.

Historically, the question doesn't work any better. Even a POWERFUL former majority leader, like the EXPERIENCED Lyndon B. Johnson, was not able to push Kennedy’s civil rights and Medicare proposals through Congress until he, in fact, became president.

Here's a more recent example. Cheney, despite being the most powerful VP in history, has not been able to get HIS (Bush's?) energy bill through the Senate, even though Republican control that august body. Perhaps there is something for which liberals can give thanks.

Assuming Republicans retain control of the Senate, Bill Frist will be majority leader and Tom Daschle, assuming he is reelected, will be minority leader.Democrats will push Kerry's proposals; Republicans will oppose them.

Edited to and Cheney example and visual emphasis.

[quote=yehoshua,Oct 14 2004, 01:07 PM]
Besides Edwards having the second lowest attendance in congress (the first being Senator Kerry),[/quote]



Let's start from the debate against Cheney where Edwards
[quote=Edwards]We both believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. I mean, those are not the kind of things that John Kerry and I believe in. I suspect the vice president himself does not believe in that. But we don't -- we do believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman. It's wrong.[/quote] So Ms. Ifill gives the Vice President 90 seconds. To which the only words the VP can say are[quote]Well, Gwen, let me simply thank the senator for the kind words he said about my family and our daughter.



http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2004b.html

Let's continue on these kind words from Mrs. Edwards.
[quote=Elizabeth Edwards]She's overreacted to this and treated it as if it's shameful to have this discussion. I think that's a very sad state of affairs… I think that it indicates a certain degree of shame with respect to her daughter's sexual preferences… It makes me really sad that that's Lynne's response.



Which caused Lynn Cheney's response:
[quote]The only thing I could conclude is that this is not a good man. This is not a good man. And, of course, I'm speaking as a mom. And a pretty indignant one. This is not a good man. What a cheap and tawdry political trick.[/quote]

Edwards v. Cheneys

So underneath his 'southern charm' he attacks Dick Cheney, Lynn Cheney, their daughter, and every homosexual person by claiming "its wrong," "it's shameful."



Attack two that dispells his 'southern charm' stems from his Christopher Reeves comments.[quote=Edwards]If we do the work that we can do in this country, the work that we will do when John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve will get up out of that wheelchair and walk again.

This in turn leads Frist, a heart surgeon from Tennessee to respond[quote=Frist]I find it opportunistic to use the death of someone like Christopher Reeve -- I think it is shameful -- in order to mislead the American people. We should be offering people hope, but neither physicians, scientists, public servants or trial lawyers like John Edwards should be offering hype.[/quote]

Edwards on Reeves

Edwards trial lawyer crawls out from behind his southern charm and the following questions are up for debate:

1. Is Edwards attacks against the Cheney's and the use of the Reeve's for political gain overstated or was Edwards in the right?
   
   I see no attack against the Cheneys. Citing Christopher Reeves as an example, is like citing any other person as an example, was it for political gain, sure - that is what you do during a campaign - cite examples for your gain. What does it matter if you're citing your own record, the record of your opponent, or examples of policy and/or real persons, it's all the same. The only issue here seems to those who take umbrage to invoking the name of a celebrity, but that's nothing new either, on either side of the aisle.
   
   
2. Since having such a poor record of attendance at the senate, can Edwards be an effective VP dealing with the senate?
   
   Proof please...........
   
   
3. Kerry claims that Edwards was his first choice for Vice President. Is it a good thing, if elected president to choose a Vice President with very little political and senate experience?
   
   Experience is not always a key factor, after all we have a sitting president with little political experience (domestically, you could call all his families ties to the Saudis international political experience, but I think that debate is raging in another thread). The incumbent president is trying to present a "regular guy" image to his "base", so which is it? Is being a Washington "outsider" good or bad? Good or bad....? I would prefer a candidate with at least some Washington experience, but that experience is also subject for interpretation. The candidate's experience may be of the type that I find disagreeable. It is all based on the individual IMO.
   
   
4. Is there anywhere in history where a novice senator has been chosen as a VP and had been successful introducing the Presidents agenda in the senate?

EDIT: sorry for messing up all the quote tags, I tried fixing it but I'm doing something wrong...

The loaded double question need not be addressed, since Edwards did not attack the Cheney family, and Edwards supports the stem cell research that Reeves supported.

That Republicans want to ban gay marriage through Constitutional amendment and are dead set against stem cell research should be brought up. Trying to cast Edwards as an insensitive goon because he agrees with part of what Republicans are saying does not make sense. It's too bad that Cheney is Republican and has a gay daughter. It's a conflict, but not one brought on by Edwards.

But it's inexcusable to call Edwards opportunistic with using Reeve's name in the context of stem cell research. The Democrats are on Reeve's side, and always have been. Republicans are against what Reeve's pushed for.



Oh sure. He won't be job hunting.



Yep. VPs aren't usually expected to do very much anyway. Cheney's an exception. He's always pretty busy doing secret stuff.



VPs don't introduce the President's agenda in the Senate. That's the President's job. VPs just sit around waiting for a tie to break.

Again, except for Cheney. He tells people to go do something to themselves, then leaves to do more secret stuff.

I don't have the time to find the root of all the allegations you raised at the moment, but some of the things you're alleging are just blatantly wrong. A serious of questions YOU need to answer to have some credibility:

1.) Is the attendance record career, or during the course of Kerry's and Edwards's campaign for President? I know the Dems having ANY candidate to compare Bush with is bad for Repubs, but excuse us if we don't like the Chinese method of single-party "democracy".

2.) Didn't Gwen Ifill bring up Cheney's daughter first?

3.) Wasn't Edwards referring specifically to gay marriage with his "it's wrong" comments?

4.) Wasn't Mrs. Edwards responding to Lynne Cheney's response, not vice versa? She was commenting on how Mrs Cheney seemed ticked her "out" daughter's sexuality was mentioned by Kerry, despite the fact it had been brought by Cheney and others. Her sudden outrage is well-timed to bring attention from the third debate off of Bush's denial of his "unconcerned" comments re: Bin Laden.

5.) Did Chistopher Reeve ever suggest he'd mind being a poster boy for stem-cell research?

6.) Is paralysis a coronary disease (thus making Frist's occupation relevant to the specific medical topic, not just cover for his anti-choice sentiments)?

I disagree whole-heartedly in reference to both the claim in reference to C. Reeves as well as the Cheney comment.

Stem cell research is undoubtedly a heated argument, regardless of political affiliation. Mr. Reeves as well as any paralysis patients of course would love to get out of their chairs and dance. The inherent problem with Mr. Edwards comment is that stem cell research isn't an absolute cure. This is why they call it "research". Acting as if the big-bad republicans are keeping people in wheelchairs is absurd is not ridiculous. Comments such as Mr. Edwards made insinuate that stem cell research will provide an immediate cure to those not versed on the topic...

As to the comment about the Cheney family, I am perpetually appalled. Whether it came from Mr. Kerry on Wednesday or from Mr. Edwards, I have no idea as to why they cannot respect the woman's privacy. I suppose that she never intended to be the political poster child of homosexuality. Why make a mockery of a woman and a family? Cheap shot is right. I don't even know that statements like that help to prove any points....

Simply put, as a conservative republican southern business man, I am appalled with Mr. Edwards if not disgusted with his lack of tact an intentional sensationalism.

pennDerek, I don't have much time either but the answer to your queries 1 - 3 above appears to be - no, with #4 being technically yes, but I would be mad too if John Kerry purported to tell 30 million people what my gay daughter's motivation was, like he's ever even met her.

This appears to be a definite strategy, to bring up Cheney's daughter by Edwards and Kerry. They brought it up first, unprompted, in both debates. The issue is not that they are "outing" her, it's that they are using her as some sort of pawn to make their point. That's out of bounds - it would be as if Bush, answering the question about 'strong women' responding "my opponent John Kerry is divorced, and frankly was a big of a player after he dumped his first millionaire wife. However, he's God's child and he still loves his children from his first marriage." Out of bounds.

VP debate - Granted, Ifill made the reference to "your family's experience." But look closely at Cheney's answer - Cheney does NOT bring up his daughter at all.


Then Edwards:

Ignoring the fact that Edwards seems to think that combat troops pay federal income tax, which they don't, he interjects Cheney's daughter into his sappy answer. And honestly, the Cheney's have two daughters, so why do they only love the one?

Then, back to Cheney who is obviously royally ticked off at Edwards for bring up his daughter.


Then, Kerry's idiotic response.


Kerry gets Dick Cheney's lesbian daughter into his answer about gay marriage and homosexuality. He's not even debating Dick Cheney here.

Completely inappropriate in my view, but so is the whole DNC campaign.

As for your points 5 and 6, are you suggesting that John Kerry really can make the crippled walk again, or just saying that you don't like Bill Frist? I mean, I've heard of campaign promises, but "John Kerry will make you walk again" is a bit over the top. Is this part of his new "I used to be an altarboy" campaign theme? Is Lazarus next?

Carlito, respectfully... did you even read the text from the debate that you just quoted?

Ifill clearly brought Cheney's daughter into the question, and there is absolutely no arguing that. Edwards first finished up a response to a previous question (scroll back in the debate transcript) which both men had been doing all night and then he got around to answering the current question.

In case you missed Ifill's question, here it is again, emphasis added:

His familiy's experience, hmm I wonder what she could be talking about, doesn't seem like rocket science to me

The fact that Cheney's daughter is a lesbian is public knowledge and it isn't even close to breaking news. Everyone is acting like Edwards outed the Cheney's dirty little secret on national television for the first time. I think everyone is hollaring because they realize how heartless and ridiculous that makes Bush's position look.

I specifically said that she was not "outed" in my post. Ifill TRIED to inject Cheney's daughter into the conversation. Cheney's answer did not contain the words "Daughter," "Lesbian" or "Mary." Then Edwards, probably thinking back to a strategy session he had with Joe Lockhart or someone, managed to get the words "lesbian daughter" into a sentence with "Dick Cheney" in an organized effort to suppress the evangelical vote in swing states. But I could just be thinking conspiratorially.