John Edwards = Mitt Romney??

This article 'Variations of Edwards and Romney' perfectly sums up my sentiment towards a Edwards candidacy. nists/chi-oped0610chapmanjun10,1,7366815 .column?coll=chi-news-col

I should warn you that while what I say about Edwards and Romney is true today, it may not be true tomorrow. Trying to describe either's stance on the issues is like trying to paint a watercolor of the sky--before you can finish, it has changed beyond recognition.

Edwards, you might forget, ran for president in 2004 as a moderate Southerner in the mold of Bill Clinton. Coming from the home state of Sen. Jesse Helms, he had broken with his party's left wing by voting for the Iraq war resolution and for normalizing trade relations with China.


Trying to hold Romney and Edwards to a position is like trying to climb up a water slide on Rollerblades. Edwards has renounced his vote for the war resolution and claims to be his party's true anti-war leader. But in November 2003, long after it was clear that we would not find those weapons of mass destruction, he took a less categorical stance.

Asked if President Bush was right to go to war when he did, Edwards said, "You know, whether, if I had been president of the United States, I would have done this exactly like him, probably not, you know?"

In the end, the two bring to mind Mr. Potato Head, which is a fun toy because it can be configured in so many different ways--with ears where arms should be, or the mouth and nose reversed, or any other way you can think of. As with Mr. Potato Head, endless changes are not a violation of these candidates' principles but an expression of their essence.

The upside of this flexibility is that watching them carries a current of suspense that their opponents can't match. The downside? No matter how it changes, a potato head is still a potato head.

It will give me a heart attack if both of these two sleazy snake-oil sales men get their respecitive party's nomination. Lots of people will have a hard time in deciding which one is even more deceptive. It's going to be an interesting show though with all sorts of haircut drama.

LOL. Go Romney, go Edwards!!

Tags: Edwards Romney (all tags)



Re: John Edwards = Mitt Romney??

Prepare to be flamed.  You've got guts.

by noquacks 2007-06-09 05:37PM | 0 recs
I don't want to get into an argument

here but I too have noticed the similarities between Edwards and Romney in terms of strategy and political evolution. The similarities might be superficial though.

by Populism2008 2007-06-09 05:42PM | 0 recs
Re: I don't want to get into an argument

What issues has Edwards flipped on other than the war?

by adamterando 2007-06-09 06:29PM | 0 recs
Re: I don't want to get into an argument

can policy guru fill me in? I believe he flip flopped on almost every issue including the notorious 'war on terror' bumper sticker.

by bryandem 2007-06-09 06:32PM | 0 recs
Re: I don't want to get into an argument

Ah, so he decided that his war vote was a mistake (which is was) and apologized for it. In your world I assume he should not have apologized because you don't think the war was a mistake.

He also decided that GOP had gone too far in using the GWOT frame to bully Dems into doing their bidding and decided he wasn't going to let it slide anymore. Also a mistake in your eyes because you believe in that frame and secretly admire politicians who can bully others (e.g. Lady Thatcher) because it's a sign of strength.

Interesting. It's becoming very clear who's side your on.

by adamterando 2007-06-09 06:35PM | 0 recs

I am 'secretely' admiring lady Thatcher. I've been admiring her for a long long time. Her autobiography is one of my favourite political autographies.

Regardless of ideology, she was extremely determined, competent and successful. She won an impossible war, and she revived Great Britain. Without lady Thatcher, U.K. would probably be just a second-tier industrial country.

by bryandem 2007-06-09 06:50PM | 0 recs
Re: laughable

Bullshit. Without Thatcher, we might actually have some industry less. She was like Gingrich, but less sane.

Revived Great Britain? Only to the extent that she made nativists and free-market ideologues feel like their views had merit, and that she created a generation with an absolute contempt for the Tories. About the only good thing she was ever responsible for was the 1997 election.

by Englishlefty 2007-06-10 04:21AM | 0 recs
Off the top of my head

Flipped on medical marijuana. In 2004 he said sufferers should be arrested for using medical marijuana. In fact his campaign called police in NH on protesters for medical marijuana. On the GWOT, it was yes, we're safer, but not as safe as we should be, pretty much the same as Clinton. Bundler transparency, he resolutely opposed.

by zac 2007-06-10 07:06AM | 0 recs
Re: I don't want to get into an argument

Seriously, Edwards voting record while in the Senate was decidedly moderate/non-progressive.  So, it is fair to state that on almost every issue imaginable he has experienced a left-ward jolt from that time, at least going by his rhetoric.   Now, it is easy to talk from the sideline, harder to actually vote a certain way if you have to consider your constituency.  That is why the point has been made repeatedly that Edwards had to vote a certain non-progressive way in NC, because overall it is a conservative state.   However, then you also have to be ok with the point made that he has changed on a lot of these issues, away from his former voting record, towards a more "liberal" posture today.  

If you believe that Edwards is indeed a progressive candidate and it comes from the heart, then you also believe that if Edwards were in the Senate TODAY, his current voting record would look totally different from his record until 2004, which by definition then would show how he has "transformed" or "changed" positions since then.   Another, less flattering, word for "transformed" or "changed" is "flip-flopped."

by georgep 2007-06-10 07:41AM | 0 recs
Re: I don't want to get into an argument

You also notice that Edwards did not start out as an anti-choice candidate to win election in conservative NC.

He also did not start out favoring a concealed weapons law to get elected in conservative NC.

He also did not claim to be a hunter to get elected in conservative NC.

You're almost right, not only are the similarities superficial, they're totally nonexistent.

by adamterando 2007-06-09 06:32PM | 0 recs
Just like you compare Obama to Reagan...

Keep with the comparisons.  They show the worth of your remarks.

by citizen53 2007-06-09 11:21PM | 0 recs
Re: John Edwards = Mitt Romney??

i agree with this article...mitt and john have both flip flopped on many issues for political gains...i just cant trust a word out of those 2 politicians mouth.

by JaeHood 2007-06-09 05:45PM | 0 recs
This is textbook trolling.

You have an inflammatory title about one of the big 3 on this site, you're undoubtedly trying to stir up shit.  You attacked a Democrat in the text (let's be honest, this is MyDD--it's like a powder keg in a barbecue pit), and it would take a special kind of oblivious to think that wouldn't be an inflammatory gesture.  So, you intended to inflame and not debate.  Hence, troll diary.

Please don't throw rocks at beehives in my vicinity, thanks.

(And FYI, I'm undeclared on candidates but won't be voting for Edwards, Hillary, Dodd, or Biden because of their votes to authorize the war.)

by Jay R 2007-06-09 06:47PM | 0 recs
Re: John Edwards = Mitt Romney??

Ok, bryandem, since you have been on this site you have declared yourself a centrist and a hawk, and you have mocked and attacked both Edwards and Obama. What's up with that?

You're contributing very little to the conversation on this site - most of your comments and diaries are either unconvincing cheerleading routines for Hillary, or attacks on the other candidates.

Why, excatly, are you here?

by LandStander 2007-06-09 06:58PM | 0 recs
Re: John Edwards = Mitt Romney??

Have you contributed much to the conversation except bashing Hillary Clinton and cheerleading Edwards?

by bryandem 2007-06-09 07:06PM | 0 recs
Re: John Edwards = Mitt Romney??

Take a look at my comment log if you'd like. It's there for the world to see. I comment on a wide variety of topics here, and although I lean Edwards, I also support Obama and have not decided who I will ultimately vote for in the primary.

by LandStander 2007-06-09 07:13PM | 0 recs
Re: John Edwards = Mitt Romney??

I question that he is even a democrat.  Yes, we dems always argue amongst each other, but to totally tear down a candidate, who can be the possible nom, is "no can do".  This diary is a troll diary, he started it to inflame and incense folks, period.  He added nothing of value here.  And to put Margaret Thatcher on a pedastal?  Highly, questionable.  Indeed.

by icebergslim 2007-06-09 07:53PM | 0 recs
Re: John Edwards = Mitt Romney??

Seriously, where ARE you with these sentiments in the many diaries that attempt to "tear down" Hillary Clinton?  Isn't she a candidate who "can be the possible nom"?  Yet she is hit with gratuitous diaries almost on a daily basis.  Why is it OK when it is done to her?   Something is off when general sentiments are made, but they really only apply to candidates you want to apply them to.  

There is a point that is often repeated, that the ONLY way a Clinton ("the common enemy") presidency can be avoided is by tearing her down.    I guess some can't handle when the medicine is applied evenly, even though they claim that it should not be applied to any of the candidates.    

by georgep 2007-06-10 09:37AM | 0 recs
Re: John Edwards = Mitt Romney??

Tear down Hillary Clinton, yes, for her positions.  But outright call her out of her person or totally disrespect her NO.  Why?  Because in the end one of these persons will be the nominee and if we want this person to win, we have to support the ticket period.  People have a right to dissect these candidates positions, no one is perfect, but to disrespect any candidate is a "no can do".  Finally, Hillary Clinton went into this campaign thinking "inevitability", we all know this.  She was going to be the candidate that had the best campaign strategy, the best pollsters, the best, we know this.  But people are thinking now.  And some are rejecting her position to not apologize for Iraq and even outraged that she would want to keep troops over there.  And there are some who are legitimately concerned about her past, and it is not worth writing about, and for good reason.  So, for anyone who supports her to think that these books out would not be topic chit-chat, that her past would not be out to critique, that her stance of not apologizing for the war would not harden some, and to think that she is the only winnable candidate in the lot, need not to read these blogs then.  She is an admirable woman, but is not the best for many as the nominee.

by icebergslim 2007-06-10 12:04PM | 0 recs
Re: John Edwards = Mitt Romney??

And furthermore, this entire diary consists of five sentences that you actually wrote yourself. Between those sentences, you offer a condensed version of an editorial written by a conservative columnist in a regional newspaper.

Why don't you take a look at what your friend Steve Chapman has to say about Hillary.

by LandStander 2007-06-09 07:09PM | 0 recs
Re: John Edwards = Mitt Romney??

This article is garbage and doesn't deserve being refuted by an intelligent human being.

by RDemocrat 2007-06-09 07:11PM | 0 recs
Re: John Edwards = Mitt Romney??

I totally disagree.  John Edwards is not a flip flopper.  Mitt Romney is the one candidate to be totally afraid of.  Why?  Because he will say anything, do anything to get the presidency.  A person like that will do anything to compromise this country.  We have had more than enough of that with GWB, defintely do not wan to go down that road again.

by icebergslim 2007-06-09 07:34PM | 0 recs
Re: John Edwards = Mitt Romney??

You will never get an apology from Hillary, remember she stated that she is going to keep troops in Iraq.  So, if you are looking for a total "get the hell out of Iraq" candidate, that she ain't.

by icebergslim 2007-06-09 07:49PM | 0 recs
Re: John Edwards = Mitt Romney??

In my opinion any of them will keep troops in Iraq unless they have a desire to be a one term president best remembered for $10 a gallon gas.

by robliberal 2007-06-09 08:33PM | 0 recs
Re: John Edwards = Mitt Romney??

Keeping troops in Iraq is a no can do.  And yes, if they continue the war, can not get the peace, keep troops over there when a country does not want us there, then YES, a one term candidate, indeed.

by icebergslim 2007-06-09 08:45PM | 0 recs
Re: John Edwards = Mitt Romney??

It's not like there's much gas coming out of there right now anyway. That might be a concern, but frankly oil production and transport is stupendously easy for any reasonably competent insurgency to disrupt and Saudi Arabia, Russia and Venezuela are all more likely to be of importance for gas prices.

by Englishlefty 2007-06-10 04:40AM | 0 recs
This diary did not convince me
I assume that the point of this diary was to present evidence sufficient to convince the reader to believe that John Edwards is a hard-core flip-flopper similar to Mitt Romney.
Romney has flip-flopped many times.
You did not prove that Edwards has flip-flopped many times. the number 1 does not represent "many" things.
Weak evidence was presented to back up the Edwards=Romney claim.
My views on Edwards remain exactly the same as they were before this diary.
by kingsbridge77 2007-06-09 08:29PM | 0 recs
Re: This diary did not convince me


by LandStander 2007-06-09 08:35PM | 0 recs
It doesn't matter to me if he fliped 50 times on

each issue. He has been leading on the major issues and forcing the other candidates to address them.  It must really irk you,that your own candidate doesn't have enough positives to write a positive post about them rather then to put up such a trash talking piece. I feel sad for you, that you would chose to diss a Democratic candidate and equate them to a Republican.

For that matter, there are worse candidates you could have tried to smear him with such as Cheney or Delay, but whatever.

You are really trash talking with the snakeoil line that is not worthy of Mydd.

You might try a line like that on FOX or some right wing blog, try hugh hewitt, or O'reilly maybe even a coulter site, but not on mydd.

by dk2 2007-06-09 09:43PM | 0 recs
Re: bryandem=bryantroll?

by citizen53 2007-06-09 11:18PM | 0 recs
Edwards consistently and forthrightly leads

He does not hide his position on any issue.  He does not pretend to positions on issues just because it would be easy.  He does not hide when he has reconsidered and changed position.  This is the mark of an intelligent, secure and mature human being.  

If we fail to take new information into our perspective, then we fail to grow.  We would remain forever childlike and stubborn (see the current occupant of the White House).

Edwards saw that the facts in Iraq did not match the information provided by intelligence from two administrations.  He saw that Bush, despite being president, was not capable of meeting the lowest standard of competence.  Therefore, he saw that he had made a mistake in voting to authorize Bush to go to war.  He admitted that mistake.  He works hard every day to bring an end to the calamity that grew from that mistake (a mistake, btw, shared by a majority in this country).  He is acting like a grown-up, you just may not recognize it because we have become accustomed to the infantile behavior that passes for leadership in this country.

He has grown in his approach to health care.  He no longer believes that a gradual approach will work.  He came to this conclusion by talking to many people during the last three years and by seeing the devastating consequences of our government neglecting to lead in a systemic overhaul of our health care system.  His plan for universal health care shows an ability to reevaluate facts on the ground and find solutions.

He has consistently worked to alleviate poverty.  He has made that fight part of both his presidential campaigns.

He has consistently worked to make higher education available to all.

He has been consistent in helping women in the struggles they face and in respecting their right to self-determination.

He has consistently stood with unions and with those workers who have not been able to join unions.  He doggedly campaigned for a higher minimum wage.

He is smart enough not to run into an ice berg just for the sake of staying on course.  Unlike most of the other candidates, he does not triangulate.  

He will be a great president.

by ashlarah 2007-06-10 12:30AM | 0 recs
Re: John Edwards = Mitt Romney??

After learning of Edwards $400 haircuts and charging $55,000 for a speech on poverty, I have been disgusted by him.  Just disgraceful.

by reasonwarrior 2007-06-10 01:46AM | 0 recs
Re: You just pointed out a difference

By this comment.

Both are very well to do candidates in terms of wealth, Romney does have a lot more money than Edwards.  But the difference is this: Romney is interested in keeping his friends very wealthy whereas Edwards believes government and partnerships can do things to help the poor and raise up the middle class.  He proposes a roll back of Bush's tax cuts on the most wealthy, which means he will have to pay more too in taxes.  Romney is worried he will have to pay more in taxes.

by benny06 2007-06-10 02:15AM | 0 recs
Re: John Edwards = Mitt Romney??

After learning Hillary thinks we are safer now, after not implementing the 9/11 Commission's recommendations, nor catching Osama, and creating a terrorist breeding ground in Iraq, I have been disgusted by her. She is pathetically stupid. She will never get my vote....ever.

Clinton = Bush = more of the same

by rbrianj 2007-06-10 02:32AM | 0 recs
Re: John Edwards = Mitt Romney??

Did the $300,000 he gave to charity disgust you too? Does his Universal Health Care plan disgust you?

by kingsbridge77 2007-06-10 04:48AM | 0 recs
Re: John Edwards = Mitt Romney??

Interestingly enough while "high information" voters tend to pay attention to such things "low information" voters seem to ignore whatever the latest changes are.

It would be interesting to look back in history and see if high information voters have a greater chance of simply fooling themselves because they are too wrapped up in it.

by sterra 2007-06-10 03:32AM | 0 recs
Re: John Edwards = Mitt Romney??

Hillary's running a GE,she doesn't want anything form this time period to derail her when the actual GE is going on.
General punditry knowledge is that the country is more moderate,more in the middle and less on the fringes (right or left)once you get out of the primaries.
She'll never apologize.(smart politically)
The other candidates shoulda engaged her on the "we're safer" statement. (At the debate,not the next day) but they literally let her get away with many blatant strategical moves.
Just as she and Obama both redressed Blitzer for asking unimportant but polarizing questions. She coulda been addressed on some of her coy moves.

Edwards is no Romney.
Hell Romney's not even Romney a lot of times according to this post.

by g1967 2007-06-10 03:35AM | 0 recs
Re: John Edwards = Mitt Romney??

This isn't even good trolling. The article is mostly about Romney, merely pointing out that Edwards has changed his mind on the war (which hardly makes him unique - I seem to remember it was pretty popular back in 2003) and moved to the left. Yes, those are changes, but the columnist is more inclined to point out that they're both good-looking men than to substantively discuss the merits of Edwards' political strategy.

That's not to say it shouldn't be quoted, but it should be analysed with a little more intelligence than that used by the columnist.

Sadly, you didn't do that. This is a blatant ad hominem argument and a bad one at that. Yes, we all know Edwards has changed some of his positions. I don't think that's a surprise to anybody reading this. So there's no point repeating that again and again. If you have a problem with specific policies or strategies of a candidate, that's something that's worth discussing. But I can't say that I see the point of having haircut argument #846.

by Englishlefty 2007-06-10 04:47AM | 0 recs
Re: John Edwards = Mitt Romney??

No comparison.

Edwards has had the guts to apologize for his vote on the war. And has done us the courtesy of explaining how he arrived at the vote, and why he now believes he made a mistake.

Edwards has not changed his stand very often. It seems to me that he is EXPANDING on some of his ideas to help fight poverty, strengthen our military, and create educational and financial opportunities for all Americans. Expanding on his vision is not a flip-flop at all. Quite the opposite! He is showing us more and more of what is possible for us to achieve if we stand together.

And hey, if you want someone who stands by their plan no matter what happens, well, we've got that person in office right now. George W. Bush does NOT change. He stands by his original thinking, even when the blood in Iraq is up to his knees, with no end in sight.

I know that Edwards did not pander to conservatives to win his Senate seat in NC. He spoke about change and hope, and with understanding of our textile and furniture workers who were watching their lives get torn apart as their jobs were lost. We elected him because he was so courageous to stand up the the giant Helms political machine that gripped our state. Then, as now, he offers strong leadership to achieve a better life. No flip-flop in that.

by bettync 2007-06-10 04:58AM | 0 recs
Re: John Edwards = Mitt Romney??

Awesome responce bettync!!

by RDemocrat 2007-06-10 05:41AM | 0 recs
Edwards is also beating the pants off

of Romney in every poll. Obviously quite a lot of people feel there is a huge difference.

by okamichan13 2007-06-10 08:20AM | 0 recs
Just about time

for another new account it seems. Trolling Obama and Edwards here with this kind of crap certainly won't help your candidate.

Hillary must feel pretty threatened I guess. Or you must feel pretty insecure about your choice to support her.

by okamichan13 2007-06-10 08:25AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads