Edwards=Desperate

Pundits who can't stand the very idea of economic populism = desperate.

Ha, I think the test will be if one of his opponents publicly defends the two tiered health system for insiders and the rest of America. Then tell me what a horrible message this is. My guess is they won't, and if he separates himself from milquetoasts like Joe Klein, and wanna-bes like Garance, so much the better.

Joe:
Don't you think Edwards checked it out with the lawyers first? Or don't you like it because he is ticking off your cocktail weenie circuit friends?

Edwards is making a point here, silly. Anyway, since when does the pundit-ocracy take what a politician says literally? Only when it's a democrat, or someone who the Villagers all agree is a "weirdo." Rudolph Giuliani is a serial liar, exagerator, self-aggrandizer and conflater whose major statements are easily refuted with the teeniest bit of research. His claims make headlines and soundbites, and are allowed without any fact-checking. Why the free pass? Is he infallible just because he was a victim of 9-11?

Count me among those who like Edwards. I lean towards Obama, but OK -- Edwards is a great guy too.

That said --

How would something like this unfold in reality? My take -- it would be incredibly divisive. And Democrats as well as Republicans
would kick back.

Is Edwards serious about this? Or is he just trying
to do something, anything, to get the nomination?

Suddenly the residents of Versailles are concerned about the Constitution?

Ara:
While it might never come to this, it is brilliant by Edwards. After all, have you seen the approval ratings of Congress lately? Joe is just mad because Edwards is attacking his cocktail weenie circuit buddies. Edwards really can't lose on this despite what Joe says.

I'm assuming that he'd try to get a law passed that said, "no health insurance for Americans = no health insurance for Congressmen."

I don't see why that's unlawful, or even desperate. It's trying to draw attention to how little fun it is to get by without health insurance. Am I missing something here?

Whether or not his proposal could be enacted is not the point. Anyone who has been listening to Edwards has heard him discuss the "2 Americas" and this is just his newest emphasis on this.

Why should those in Congress get free health care when their ample salaries could easily pay for it?

Edwards isn't desperate by pointing out the excesses of those who make laws benefiting HMOs, insurance companies and themselves at the expense of poor people. It's completely consistent with the rest of his positions.

For several months now, Giuliani has been promising to cut a third of the Federal workforce, which would cripple many of the critical services of government. Somehow I missed the Swampland outcry over that.

Okay, Joe... defend your position. Why should Washington politicians have better healthcare coverage than most Americans? Why is that okay?

What Mike M. and zota said.

Joe please explain why Giuliani gets a pass on reducing the federal workforce, but Edwards is lambasted by you for threating the poor Senators and Congressmen.

If you can't answer this question then STFU

"Why should Washington politicians have better healthcare coverage than most Americans? Why is that okay?"

Mike M the answer is simple. They are our betters.
Joe understands that. Now please direct your attention to our Fake Outrage at Hillary Du Jour.

Thank you

THIS is what gets your back up about unconstitutionality, Joe? Are you serious? A rhetorical point in a political ad?

Giuliani promises to do five unconstitutional things before breakfast. Has there ever been a post on Swampland about Giuliani? Ever?

Ara: How would something like this unfold in reality?

Bully pulpit aside, I think all a President would have to do is veto an appropriations bill that allocates funds for the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program or Congressional pay raises in a given fiscal year. This would probably hurt the Executive branch as well, as funding for Office of the President and Vice President functions are often included with the same bill.

Joe Klein: ..this sort of demagogic nonsense is really dreadful.

Not as dreadful as failing to understand that meaningful reform of the health care system in the US won't happen unless Congress is forced to do it, either through people like Edwards leading the way or by replacing those in office who are unwilling for whatever reason to do the right thing...I mean, Harry Reid threatened to kill any pay increase for Congress. Was he 'desperate', Joe?

Elvis: What about a presidential signing statement? Let congress pass some dinky health-care tweaking bill, sign it and add: "By the powers vested in me as decider-in-chief, I interpret this law to apply to ALL 'Mericans, including members of congress." It's worked 700+ times in the past 6 years...

This is the constitutional issue:

Amendment 27 - Limiting Congressional Pay Increases

No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.
--------------------------

So, yes, strictly speaking, in this 30 second spot, Edwards is making a campaign promise he cannot keep.

Or, at least, he would have to, when answering a question from the press say that the changes would not be effective until the following midterm elections.

Now, I have my doubts that the spokesman was non-plussed. Especially given that edwards is both a lawyer and a trial lawyer, he may very well have a strategy in place to respond to this kind of attack.

Someone get Joke Line his smelling salts.

The link Garance has regarding the law is to the 27th Amendment, which deals with congressional salary. Has that been interpreted by a court to include benefits too?

Todd, the amendment says "compensation"--for good reasons. they might well issue themselves stock options in google or something, otherwise.

http://ezraklein.typepad.com/blog/2007/11/his-ideas-are-g.html

Ezra is also on this:

So we're back to arguing about John Edwards' plan to strip members of Congress of their health care if they don't pass comprehensive reform. I'm always astonished at how bizarrely literally pundits act when they approach this idea. It's true that, in the strong form, its; unconstitutional. Edwards cannot, with his pen, deprive anyone of their health care. The Edwards Campaign, by contrast, says that it will take the form of a bill sent to Congress, which seems constitutional, though everyone says it would be impossible to pass.

But would it be? That's the part I don't understand. Why wouldn't the Democratic leadership want to use this legislation to hammer away at Republicans? To force them to go on the record about the importance of their own health care? The idea behind this bill is that it will ratchet up political pressure for change, creating a situation in which Congressmen come to the table because they fear losing their seats if they don't. It's a strategy based on the application of political pressure, not legislative finesse. And while not a surefire winner, it's certainly a plausible theory of reform.

The imported non-union shampoo seeped into Prince Panderer of the Piedmont's brain stem eons ago.

Not news.

Next!

Joe's in the tank for hillary, that's why. this should answer all of the questions above.

Lemme see, you got the people on the Republican side promising to trash the constitution every day, supporting torture, unilateral invasions of other countries, even talking about nuking other countries, but Edwards is desperate, for making a passionate statement about healthcare?
If Edwards is "desperate," what are the Republicans?

In fairness, and to give Klein his rarely earned due, he has said something about the Republicans and their craziness, but still, when it comes to constitutional issues this is absolutely nothing compared, not only to what the Republicans talk about, but, far more importantly, to what they've already done. Even Klein, who has been getting better, just has no sense of the big picture.

It's also quite obvious that you're in the Hillary camp, which is fine, but shouldn't you come out and say that, instead of leaving it to be inferred?

Joe is on Tweety now.

I like Edwards, but I'm not that crazy about the tone of this ad.

...Normally I agree with Joe, but is this kind of punitive damage any different than, say, making people empty bedpans at Walter Reed?

Not that two empty statements make a right, but... Eh.