In the scheme of things, it's important to get information about all the candidates, especially here where coverage is slanted toward only two. More information helps in making the best and most informed decisions. It's also important to discover what candidates say, to test it against reality. That said, here is the majority of a post from the Edwards Blog that I think is illuminating. I hope what follows will contribute somewhat to the overall debate and, perhaps, provide some food for thought as we approach the time to select a candidate.
Far too often people make light of John Edwards' relative inexperience and his voting record in Congress - he voted for the Iraq resolution, and for the No Child Left Behind act - as reasons why they won't vote for him. That angers me more than anything and I'd like to do my part to set the record straight.
Former Governor Dean this weekend proclaimed in the Des Moines debate; "What has happened to so many Democrats in Congress is that they've been co- opted by the agenda of George Bush, who came into office with 500,000 fewer votes than Al Gore. And what we need is a Democrat who's going to stand up to George Bush."
Gephardt in the same debate tried to lump all of his congressional colleagues into one large group when he said they had voted for NAFTA and other trade agreements when he didn't. Edwards did the right thing at that debate and with his "truth-o-meter", he set the record straight. In fact, Senator Edwards wasn't even in Congress to vote for NAFTA and has voted against numerous other trade agreements that have come before the Senate.
Well, today I have found the best factual evidence against Dean's statement that those Democrats in Congress have been "co-opted" and don't "stand up to Bush". The well-respected Congressional Quarterly publication company did a study for this week's CQ Weekly - their "Presidential Support Vote Study". One very outstanding part of that study proves that Senator John Edwards does indeed stand up to Bush and hasn't been co-opted by his agenda. CQ proved that Edwards has the highest rating of senators in opposition to Bush's agenda, with a score of 58.7%. In the study, opposition stood for those who voted most often against his position. Here is the list of the top 11 democratic senators opposed to President Bush's legislative agenda:
Democrats
Edwards, N.C. 58.7%
Graham, Fla. 58.3
Corzine, N.J. 56.8
Lautenberg, N.J. 56.3
Mikulski, Md. 56.0
Boxer, Calif. 55.6
Reed, R.I. 55.2
Durbin, Ill. 54.5
Biden, Del. 54.1
Harkin, Iowa 54.1
Sarbanes, Md. 53.9
Please note that Lieberman and Kerry don't even fall into the top ten in the Senate and in the House, Gephardt and Kucinich don't make the top ten either. That's not to say that they are not good Democrats - THEY ARE! What I am trying to convey is that only one candidate stands out head and shoulders above all the rest - John Edwards - and Howard Dean is wrong when he says the things he says about the good men and women who WE elected to the United States Congress to fight on our behalf. He makes me think we should be ashamed of Democrats for not balancing 11 budgets or not providing universal health care - but I am not ashamed, I am proud of them. They have done a wonderful job, and continue to do a wonderful job. He - Dean - should not attack them relentlessly, but recognize that Democrats in Congress helped balance the budget for the first time in decades under President Clinton, helped eliminate the deficit under Clinton, and continually lead the fight against the special interests that keep us from getting better health care legislation passed in Congress.
