Saturday, October 22, 2005

John Edwards at UC Berkeley

From a e-mail by
This Tuesday, Senator John Edwards will be at University of Californoa—Berkeley continuing his whirlwind national tour to galvanize young people in the fight against poverty. The last few events have been smash hits, and momentum continues to build.

The Senator has asked us to invite MoveOn members to join him when the "Opportunity Rocks" tour hits Berkeley. Here are the details:

WHO: John Edwards, UC Berkeley students, and MoveOn members from the community
WHERE: UC Berkeley -, Union Ballroom, Pauley Ballroom, Martin Luther King Student Union
WHEN: Tuesday, October 25th. Doors open at 5:30 pm
Seating is limited, so please reserve tickets today at:

I have my tickets. See ya there.

Update: Just got back from the speach. John Edwards is certainly a good speaker and what he had to say about poverty in America was very insightful. I may have more thoughts on it later.

Update:I was certainly a good speach. I didn't have a good seat so I couldn't see his face most of the time but I feel like that let me concentrate on his words more.

What was interesting to me was that the whole speech was about increasing opportunity and the idea that we could help. But when he went to list the ways we could alleviate poverty his solutions were things like extending the EITC, mixed income housing, extending Medicare and Medicaid benefits (presumably leading the way for some kind of universal healthcare) and other things which are pretty much things politicians can only do.

Personally I think this is correct. But then that means the best we can do is work in the Democratic party to get people elected *and* try to convince people to join our cause through things like liberal blogs and think tanks. (Hey, like this one!) I don’t know what groups were there after the speech to recruit, but I’m glad liberals are getting away from the hippy-dippy flower power idea that we can fix systematic problems with what basically amounts to non-governmental charity programs.


Haha that's awesome... is with John Edwards, so they seem to not be able to "move on". LOL
Yeah! Like when Regan lost the nomination and then the Republicans supported him when he ran again four years later. Man, what a loser those they are!
I never said I support ROnald Reagan. I think the Democratic Party is better off if they get new blood in the ring to fight against the Republicans. Unless you want John Kerry running again.
I apologize if I implied that you supported Reagan.

I agree that the Democratic party should get as wide a field as possible. Though I would include new blood and old (if a one term senator can be considered old).
Well to be fair I never said I didn't support Reagan either. I do think he was one of the better presidents for various reasons, but so was Bill Clinton. I just noticed that most of your comebacks include assigning your opponent a right-wing insult, regardless if he or she is right, left or libertarian, etc. For example, someone on the left could easily criticize John Edwards trying to run again.

New blood and old blodd really has nothign to do with how long someone had served. I consider old blood as "has-beens", the ones who have proved defeat on the battlefield. That includes junior and senior senators, and governors.
I disagree. Nixon and Clinton both got reelected to a seat after trying and losing for it (Clinton for governor, Nixon for president). Reagan lost a primary battle and then came back for years later to win it. It’s clear that to be a has-been it’s not enough to simply fail once.

I place Libertarians to the right of "social conservatives*" because unlike liberals and conservatives they reject utilitarian arguments. It's no use arguing with a real libertarian that this or that government program is the most efficient way to do something. Such moral arguments make no mark on them. It's the same attitude you would get if you argued with a socialist that having government do this or that would be less efficient.

*I put that in quotes because it’s silly to discount the economic policies favored by the vast majority of conservatives (since most conservatives are “social” ones) as having nothing to do with conservatism itself. Only in America is virulent anti-government seen as central to conservatism in some way. I’d say this has to do with demographics and the weird mixed ideological composition of the two parties until recently. As Bush and an entire government lead by people elected by conservatives has shone, conservative commitment to small government is anything but central. Just as a commitment to big government is not central to liberalism (although communists further to the left think it is).
The problem nowadays is that with has-beens comes an increasing level of victims of smear campaigning. None of the people who tried to run would stand any chance for election against a Republican war machine. The Republicans at this point are not going to nominate Bob Dole to run again... and for good reason.

Ronald Reagan was elected at an opportune moment and very few people remember who he was when he ran for the primary against Ford because he ran against an incumbent in his own party. That was actually kind of stupid.

Edwards running will most definitely be like Mondale running against Reagan in 1984.
Post a Comment