I read the loving tributes to Edwards day after day. I see the flame wars between his admirers and detractors here as well. I'd like to try to explain why so many of us find John Edwards, and the premise of his campaign, so incredibly annoying, insulting, and impossible to support, at least until the very unlikely event he is the Democratic nominee. Let me count the three big ways he's a disaster:
- His Congressional record, on the two votes that I really believe defined his term in Congress, sucked. He was there a short while, used it as a resume-builder, had no discernible positive impact, and showed almost comically, if it wasn't so tragic, bad judgment. He's like Liebercon--usually votes the right way...until it really counts.
Follow me for an explanation, if you will, starting with the AUMF and the Bankruptcy Bill:
a. Co-sponsor of the AUMF, the big enchilada that gave Bush permission to invade. A bad vote, made unforgivable by his position on the Intelligence Committee, made negligent by his admitted failure to even read the NIE on Iraq and its dissensions from kool-aid analysis.
b. The Bankruptcy Bill. Screw the two Americas rhetoric--the bankruptcy vote turbocharged the process. Or as the ever-apologizing Edwards put it:
Like a lot of Democrats, I voted for a bankruptcy reform bill before. I can't say it more simply than this: I was wrong.
He was wrong on the two biggest votes of his Senate career. Anyone can apologize...I want someone with the judgment to get it right the first time.
- IRAN. This is the big one for me. His return to stupidity and bellicose tough guyness on the Iran issue. He proves his apologies on Iraq are hollow...he's learned nothing and is now prepared to take pre-emptive, neo-conish action on Iran, proving his lack of judgment on AUMF was a pattern, not an anomoly. From Raw Story:
In a speech at a conference in Herzliya, Israel, former Senator John Edwards (D-NC) took aim at Iran, warning that the "world won't back down." Although Edwards has criticized the war in Iraq, and has urged bringing the troops home, the former senator firmly declared that "all options must remain on the table," in regards to dealing with Iran, whose nuclear ambition "threatens the security of Israel and the entire world."
"Let me be clear: Under no circumstances can Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons," Edwards said. "For years, the US hasn’t done enough to deal with what I have seen as a threat from Iran. As my country stayed on the sidelines, these problems got worse."
Edwards added, "Iran must know that the world won’t back down. The recent UN resolution ordering Iran to halt the enrichment of uranium was not enough. We need meaningful political and economic sanctions. We have muddled along for far too long. To ensure that Iran never gets nuclear weapons, we need to keep ALL options on the table, Let me reiterate – ALL options must remain on the table."
I know the arguments of the apologists on this one. Spare me the "no one ever takes the military option off the table" and "what he really means is diplomacy and economic sanctions". Words have meanings. If you believe Iran intends to go nuclear, and I do, the choices are war or reaching some sort of diplomatic solution or acceptance of reality, like we have with, say...Israel, Pakistan, North Korea, India, Russia, or France. The disaster of a war with Iran will make Iraq look as minor as Granada, Panama, or Somalia. Three times the size, three times the population, 10 times the military, 50 times the ability to kill our troops, sink our economy, and fund our enemies. When you channel Perle, Bolton, and Wolfowitz....you don't get my respect.
- The hypocrisy issue, also known as the "easy to make fun of factor". This one is huge, as Kos alluded to today, but Kos picked the wrong blunder to diary, as I'll try to explain. The Republicans don't know how to govern, but they are masters of the attack. I'll just list the main ones here, with a few comments.
a. The $400 haircut. A $400 haircut doesn't really bother me, by itself, but there are a few things that make it lethal. First, the judgment issue--it was originally a campaign expense until discovered. I believe no one was fired. Second, his hair and foppishness is an issue, and a $400 haircut shows a disdain for the effectiveness of making your opponent seem foolish. Third, it combines with the "I'm so pretty" YouTube classic of obsessive personal grooming. I won't link to it...it's too mean and I don't know how. But if you watch it, and either laugh or squirm...you know it will be a feature of a brutal general campaign. Watch it and question the wisdom of a subsequent $400 haircut, charged to his contributors.
b. The 28,000 square foot house. Like I said, the haircut doesn't bother me because I understand the counter: "what's wrong with paying real money to real workers?". The 28,000 square foot house, on the other hand, makes it impossible to effectively make the Democratic (and world) case for action on global climate change. You can argue that the world would be better if we paid higher wages and everyone got $400 haircuts. You can't argue that the world would be better if everyone built, heated, and cooled a 28,000 square foot house. He can make the case, but he can't provide solutions. Solutions require changes in behavior. Advocating for reductions in excess. Priuses, not Hummers. Smart small houses not biggest damn house in the entire county excess. Can he argue for energy and resource conservation from the deck of his 28,000 square foot house? Does "Let them eat cake" ring a bell?
c. The $500,000 plus for vague services to a hedge fund involved in sub-prime mortgages. The repeat of the not bothering to read the NIE argument in the new form of not bothering to learn what his hedge fund did. Again, do I sense a pattern here?
Finally, in my world, the military, the holy grail of promotability is supposed to be "sustained superior performance (not rhetoric) in positions of increasing responsibility". Did his performance in Congress merit a promotion? Did failing to carry even his home state in '04? On what basis, besides carefully crafted new words, does he deserve a promotion? Do we really want to lose again? More importantly, do we really want war if the Iranians refuse to back down? And if you're wondering if it's personal? It is. I've been to too many memorial ceremonies at Arlington for too many friends. I can forgive the failure of judgment of those who voted for the easily predictable disaster...but I can not bare to see them promoted.