John Edwards Imitating George Bush
5 Comments Published by Brian on Tuesday, November 13 at 10:47 AM.
Yes, I'm posting twice in a matter of 24 hours, and yes, that means there is an important Legal Research & Writing assignment I should be doing right now.
There are times in the Democratic primary when I think John Edwards makes the most sense of any of the candidates and has effectively coupled a seriousness of purpose with an appropriate sense of outrage at the status quo. Then there are other times where I find him just plain annoying. Two recent moves by Edwards fall in the latter category.
The first is his refusal to promise to support Hillary if she becomes the nominee. When asked about this, he said, "I'm not willing to talk about that at this point."
This is profoundly irritating. There is an extent to which both Edwards and Obama ought to be going after Hillary, but it falls far, far short of the point that you start questioning whether you will support the Democratic nominee. Not only does this make the Democratic Party look far more divided than it actually is or should be, but it makes Edwards look incredibly petty.
My second issue with him is more significant, however. Recently Edwards put out this ad:
In it, he says that he will tell Congress that "if you don’t pass universal health care by July of 2009 – in six months – I’m going to use my power as president to take your health care away from you."
First of all, this is just plain unconstitutional. The 27th Amendment says, "No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened."
But beyond that, Edwards is advocating the exact sort of expansion of executive power that he and every other Democrat have been rightfully criticizing Bush for engaging in. To suggest that the President ought to be able to threaten cutting the pay or benefits of members of Congress in order to get them to sign on to legislation might sound appealing to liberals when it comes to pushing health care reform, but it should be abundantly obvious that such a tactic is a dangerous breach of the separation of powers that could be used by a president of either party to achieve nefarious objectives.
Democratic candidates should be smarter than this. Democratic voters, hopefully, are smarter than this. And any slight hope Edwards had of winning my vote will go out the window if this becomes a central part of his campaign.
There are times in the Democratic primary when I think John Edwards makes the most sense of any of the candidates and has effectively coupled a seriousness of purpose with an appropriate sense of outrage at the status quo. Then there are other times where I find him just plain annoying. Two recent moves by Edwards fall in the latter category.
The first is his refusal to promise to support Hillary if she becomes the nominee. When asked about this, he said, "I'm not willing to talk about that at this point."
This is profoundly irritating. There is an extent to which both Edwards and Obama ought to be going after Hillary, but it falls far, far short of the point that you start questioning whether you will support the Democratic nominee. Not only does this make the Democratic Party look far more divided than it actually is or should be, but it makes Edwards look incredibly petty.
My second issue with him is more significant, however. Recently Edwards put out this ad:
In it, he says that he will tell Congress that "if you don’t pass universal health care by July of 2009 – in six months – I’m going to use my power as president to take your health care away from you."
First of all, this is just plain unconstitutional. The 27th Amendment says, "No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened."
But beyond that, Edwards is advocating the exact sort of expansion of executive power that he and every other Democrat have been rightfully criticizing Bush for engaging in. To suggest that the President ought to be able to threaten cutting the pay or benefits of members of Congress in order to get them to sign on to legislation might sound appealing to liberals when it comes to pushing health care reform, but it should be abundantly obvious that such a tactic is a dangerous breach of the separation of powers that could be used by a president of either party to achieve nefarious objectives.
Democratic candidates should be smarter than this. Democratic voters, hopefully, are smarter than this. And any slight hope Edwards had of winning my vote will go out the window if this becomes a central part of his campaign.
I agree with you.
Tom
It might not be a slam dunk in terms of your constitutional argument. There is at least an argument to be made that health care is a benefit that legislators are given in addition to their statutory compensation levels, rather than part of the total compensation package.
He has looked small, petty, contrived and apart from a few impressive moments, I've almost forgotten why I used to like him so much.
I agree with you, too, Brian. It sounds like he's blackmailing them.
Agree in part, disagree in part.
I agree that Edwards is doing little more than populist bomb throwing with the congressional health care idea, but hey, Edwards IS a populist bomb thrower. That's his gimmick. If, by some freak accident, he ends up in the White House, this "idea" will never be heard from again.
As for his refusal to say he will support Hillary, I agree with him. Why say you will support a candidate that you don't agree with purely because you are of the same party? Frankly, I think we would all be better off with less party loyalty in politics.
Wouldn't taking away their benefits require, I dunno, say an act of Congress?
And even if he could remove the benefits unilaterally, I don't think Augur's distinction holds. Either way, I can't quite imagine a constitutional showdown between the Congress and the President over Congressional health care plans.