Andrew Sullivan: "Edwards committed his party to victory in Iraq"

andrewsullivan.com | July 29, 04 | andrew sullivan

[kjam22]

Edwards statements promising that the whole world would just fall in line behind he and Kerry were almost like satire. I thought I was watching a Saturday Night Live skit or something. The only thing that he didn't promise was that we'd find life on mars.

[shrinkermd]

The problem is cognitive dissonance. Kerry and his VP say one thing while the base of their party has other views. See excerpt from an article below.

It shows in startling clarity when you ask: What do Democrats really believe? The answer for the activist heart of the party is suggested by a Boston Globe poll of a cross section of 400 delegates. As the Globe reported, 80 percent of them say they opposed the decision to start the war in Iraq and 95 percent oppose it now. Unlike Kerry, 62 percent support gay and lesbian marriage. Almost nine out of 10 describe themselves as supporters of gun control

[Captain Kirk]

Do you believe any politician, other than a handful, tells the truth? I don't. Heck, Dubya said he was for small government and *domestic* spending has skyrocketed during his administration. Watch what they say not what they do.

[elli1]

The comments of a lightweight one-term senator from S. Carolina equals ''commitment''???

[jveritas]

Andrew:

Yesterday Teresa Heinz Kerry told a group of homosexual the following:

"If nothing else, you will have a mom in the White House, you can call on me any time."

She is also told them to call her "Mama T".

Here you go Andrew I hope you are happy now. However your happiness may very short lived because what Mama T said yesterday is going to finish John Kerry once the Bush campaign relate her statement to Middle America.

[elli1]

The comments of a lightweight one-term senator from S. Carolina equals ''commitment''???

[Steve_Seattle]

Edwards' speech was replete with magical thinking; the insurgents in Iraq will go away because I say they will. They will like us better than they like Bush, so they will lay down their arms.

[Captain Kirk]

That's watch what they do not what they say.

[NeoCaveman]

FYI. Whether Edwards and Kerry are telling the truth about their Iraq policy or not, what they're saying is a lot closer to your guys' position than to mine.

What are you trying to do, use guilt by association. If I were to stoop that low I'd say that your position is closer to Michael Moore, Danny Glover, and Barabara Streisand's than to any serious political candidate or most freepers....

[isthisnickcool]

Andres Sullivan "fecalcicle" alert....

[BonnieJ]

The saddest part of Sullivan's political leanings always being dictated by his personal preferences is that he is one of the most brilliant and astute thinkers and writers of all the editorialists. And he has quite a grasp of history and literature and many subjects. I used to love reading his columns but lately he most definitely has an agenda in this race, and it certainly isn't to re-elect Pres. Bush. And for him to go with Kerry and Edwards seems to contradict much of what he professed to believe earlier.

Who really thinks Edwards and Kerry are pro-Iraq war? It's like Terry McA saying to O'Reilly that he never called Bush a liar. They change their opinions and words with the polls and latest hyped info from the media.

[McGavin999]

Andrew is lying to himself if he believes this. I thought he was too smart to fall for this crap. Obviously not.

[Petronski]

But that's not relevant to my point...

If that is your point, then your point is an ass.

Your whole defense is based on a pedantic reply to one word 'parrot,' when the truth is that what Kerry would have done in Iraq and what you would have done in Iraq are barely distinguishable: nothing.

[Petronski]

That's why we watch what they do, and not what they say.

Yes, except for Neville.

[Poodlebrain]

The problem is that his speech is inconsistent with prior statements both John's have made and votes both John's have cast. And Edwards' provided no explanation for the change in position. Similarly, he claimed that the two John's will be able to ensure certain future events that effectively reverse past actions of other nations as well as determine their future course of events without explaining what inducements will be necessary to accomplish these sea-changes in foreign positions.

How are the two John's going to get NATO involved in Iraq? The Spanish have already cut and run; there is no widespread political support for such a mission among the members. What inducements or coercion will be required?

How are the two John's going to get other nations to forgive Iraq's debts? If the two John's are successful what argument can they make to any debtor nation why there shouldn't be a general forgiveness of international debts? If the international debts of Iraq are preventing its development doesn't the same apply to others?

Edwards' speech was full of what to do, but empty of how to do it.

[Toddsterpatriot]

I heard committed and party and stopped listening.

[no dems]

Look for The Green Party candidate, Independent Ralph Nader (the true anti-war candidates) to be the only ones to get a boost out of the Dems convention. Yeeeeeeehaaaa!!!

[Petronski]

Watch what they say not what they do.

You might have that backward.

[Judith Anne]

Yes, Kerry and Edwards will say anything they have to, to get elected.

And afterward, they will do anything they want to, regardless of what they have said.