John Edwards was interviewed by Tim Russert on FTN Sunday. Except for an enlightening exchange at the beginning centering on the $87 billion vote, I was distinctly unimpressed. Other topics covered were the original war vote, Bush tax cuts, Howard Dean, and voting rights for felons.
What Russert typically does is bring up what others have said about the interviewee or an issue, then asks for comments. Regarding the $87 billion, Russert said that the money is to support our troops, and that if they don't get the support, things will be more dangerous for them. Edwards countered that his original war vote was predicated on a promise by the administration for internationalizing the forces and that they would have a comprehensive plan in place [which the war measure didn't have, but I'll get to that later]. By the time the $87 billion vote came around, Edwards says that they still have not done this. In answer to making the troops less safe, Edwards said that had the Senate voted no, Bush would have come back the next day with another proposal, and continued doing so until the Senate was satisfied.
Excellent, A+ answer. It shows that Edwards finally gets that Congress has a role to play, and that there are mechanisms in place to force cooperation out of the administration. It also shows that he's ready to stand up to Bush. Unfortunately, Edwards showed no remorse for his previous kow-tows to the administration, as follows:
Russert then began asking about the original war vote, did Edwards regret his vote? Edwards responded by playing the Cheney nukes card, that he did what he thought was best for national security and that Hussein had a history of trying to obtain nukes. He didn't go so far as to say he had weapons, but he said he thought that Hussein could have had them in 9 months. So, Russert asked where the WMD are. Edwards said that either the intelligence was flawed or cooked, and if the latter that those responsible for it had to be held accountable. But Russert pursued further by mentioning the memos from CIA stating that the Hussein threat could not be confirmed, then asked Edwards what, then, was the threat? Edwards answered by saying that the potential for Hussein to acquire nuclear weapons was enough to justify the invasion. He also rather oddly stated that we can't be in the business of telling the families of the dead and wounded troops that there is no importance to the work they are doing.
Blech. Nowhere does Edwards make the distinction between the CIA and Pentagon intelligence, how one was downplayed while the other played up. And just like the administration, his argument boils down to, and I paraphrase: "we needed to spend all this money and lives to invade Iraq unilaterally because Saddam MIGHT SOMEDAY have nuclear weapons...despite Powell saying that Saddam was in a box...and despite the fact, which Russert brought up, that the French were all set to go in on this thing if we gave the inspectors more time and the threat was ultimately proven." Sounds like Republican talking points to me.
Next topic: Tax cuts. Edwards started off very strong here, saying the President wants to shift the tax burden from the wealthy to the middle class, citing numerous examples. He then said he wants to raise back up the taxes on those who make over $200K, and cut some other middle class taxes. But then Russert asked Edwards about his vote to cut taxes by $2.1 trillion, and Edwards replied that this vote was for the tax cut concept and not for the eventual bill which turned out to be totally regressive. Russert asked whether Edwards would support such a bill today, and Edwards implied not, that he would go for his plan above.
bzzzzz. Sorry, this is a loser. To EVER have supported ANY $2.1 billion tax cut just flies in the face of fiscal responsibility. Social Security will be an unbelievable problem soon and the government has to do something about it. Fair enough that Edwards now wants to repeal much of it, but supporting that amount in the first place shows that he is too short-sighted for me to feel that he is qualified to be President. I do love his class-war rhetoric, though, and I wish the other Democrats would also use it.
Next topic: Dean. Russert first asked about campaign finance, and the answer was not particularly interesting or memorable. It was somewhat negative, but didn't imply that Dean was Satan for doing this or anything like that. Russert then simply asked what Edwards thought of Dean, and Edwards said that while he likes Dean personally, they've been at odds in the past week over the Confedrut Flag issue. Edwards said that we (presumably meaning Democrats) cannot give even the slightest impression that condones the use of the flag as Dean appears to be doing, and that Dean also is stereotyping Southerners illegitimately. Then Edwards went further and said that it is a bigger issue: that Dean is being arrogant and condescending in telling Southerners that he knows what is best for them, and that he simply does not respect them.
WHAAAAA? How the Hell does he get off making that last assertion? It is beyond presumptuous. Dean commenting that he wants to be the candidate for the guys with pickup trucks and flags in their windows says nothing about how he thinks Southerners should vote. Anyone care to explain this too me? The first part of the criticism is fair, but fortunately we won't be hearing Dean use it again. Dumb move on Dean's part, but arrogant and condescending? No.
I'm sorry, but with this dismal performance, Edwards drops from a second-place tie in my mind with the General (Clark I mean, not Bobby Knight). I think for me it is now Dean-Clark-Big Gap-Braun-Edwards-Kucinich-Kerry-Gephardt-Lieberman-Sharpton.