You knew this was coming. After saying the “global war on terror”
was a “bumper sticker,” Edwards has been taking a lot of heat. Fox
“News” continues to target him, with back to back thumpings last night
on Bill-O’s show, as well as “Hannity & Colmes.” So today terrorism
will be his theme.
“Today, we know two unequivocal truths about the results of (President)
Bush’s approach” to confronting terrorism — “there are more terrorists
and we have fewer allies.”That’s an excerpt from remarks that Democratic presidential candidate John
Edwards plans to deliver today in New York City, according to an e-mail sent
to reporters by Edwards spokesman Eric Schultz.
You simply cannot dispute what Edwards is saying with any credibility. There
are more terrorists today, as well as terrorist attacks. Mr. Bush’s blunder
in Iraq, and his continued inability to adjust early enough has given a lot
of fuel and recruiting tools to our enemies. For a man bent on fighting the
“global war on terror,” all he and the Republicans parroting his talking
points seem to do is inspire more terrorism. It started early, with the state
department first refusing
to report the rise in terrorism. The bad news continues.
The total number of terrorist attacks was up more than 25 percent from the
previous year, according to the State Department’s annual report on global
terrorism. – CNN
Edwards trying to combat Bush’s cheerleading on terrorism comes in addition to his views on Iraq, which has the elite in an uproar, especially on the right. Bob Novak is
also taking out after Edwards. But his argument is hilarious. The DC establishment
Democrats don’t like him or trust him. That alone seems like a big plus for
Edwards. Let’s face it, the DC Democrats don’t like anyone challenging an established talking point that puts Democrats saying anything that refutes the traditional daddy party. For Washington Dems, Republicans are to lead on things like “supporting the troops,” while Democrats should just follow along, not rock the boat and certainly not challenge established rhetoric. If we don’t play along we’ll be accused of not supporting the troops, which even if false and worth a fight to prove otherwise because the facts are in evidence, is just too scary to attempt. Play nice. No thanks.
The dynamic performance by John Edwards in Sunday’s Democratic presidential
debate, assailing his competitors for the nomination, got high marks from
political reporters, Republican politicians and left-wing activists. But not
from the Democratic establishment. Once their great hope for the future, Edwards
now is massively unpopular among party regulars, who neither like nor trust
him.(snip)
Edwards has not worn well with party colleagues. Campaign consultant Bob
Shrum was enthusiastic about Edwards after working on his 1998 Senate victory
in North Carolina and unsuccessfully advised Gore to make him his 2000 running
mate. But Shrum chose Kerry over Edwards as his 2004 presidential client.
In his newly published memoir, “No Excuses: Concessions of a Serial Campaigner,”
Shrum explains: “I was coming to believe he wasn’t ready; he was a Clinton
who hadn’t read the books.”During the 2004 primaries, Democratic activist James Carville was enchanted
when Edwards shifted his centrist posture to a populist depiction of “Two
Americas.” Carville told me — and then repeated it on CNN — that Edwards
was the best stump speaker he ever had seen. When I asked him this week whether
he still thought that was true, Carville replied: “Maybe he’s not as
good now.” …
As for who Mark Seigel is, Sirota
has some links leading to the possibility that he’s a big lobbyist working for
the same firm that now employs Harriet Miers, who is also a lobbyist. If true that would
say it all.
I learned one thing a long time ago. When people go to extremes to attack
you it can mean only one thing. They think you’re a threat. Edwards is obviously doing something right. Will it be enough to win the Democratic nomination? Who knows, but he’s making a lot of people nervous.
Comments are closed.