• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Edwards claims to be for the "little guy"

Riprorin

Banned
Edwards blocks GIs' loan break

By Charles Hurt
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Sen. John Edwards, North Carolina Democrat, is single-handedly blocking Senate action on legislation all but unanimously supported by the House to ease the student-loan burden for soldiers fighting overseas.
In April, the House voted 421-1 to pass the HEROES Act, which essentially would defer student loans for soldiers called into action. The only dissenting vote was cast accidentally by one of the bill's sponsors.

The bill is stalled in the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee under a "secret hold," said Sen. Judd Gregg, New Hampshire Republican and chairman of the committee.
Senate tradition allows members to lodge secret, or "anonymous," holds against a bill and block it indefinitely.
Supporters of the bill, the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act, were mystified for months that anyone would hold up such popular legislation, but couldn't pinpoint the culprit.
"It's frustrating when something has such overwhelming support and then it gets held up like this," said the bill's sponsor, Rep. John Kline, Minnesota Republican.
Mr. Gregg and Sen. Lindsey Graham, South Carolina Republican, became so frustrated that last month they wrote a letter telling a colleague that the bill "has been held up in the Senate and is unlikely to pass" in its current form.
In their letter to Sen. John W. Warner, Virginia Republican, Mr. Gregg and Mr. Graham asked that their HEROES proposal be slipped into the defense spending bill in the Armed Services Committee, which Mr. Warner leads.
Capitol Hill speculation about the secret hold eventually centered on Mr. Edwards, one of four senators seeking the Democratic nomination for president.
"Apparently, presidential politics got involved," Mr. Kline said.
One Republican staffer on the Senate education panel said Mr. Edwards is holding up the bill so that he can take top credit for passing it later.
"Edwards likes this issue and he wants to see his name on it," the staffer said.
Mr. Edwards and his office initially denied responsibility for blocking the bill at all.
"I just talked to Senator Edwards," Mr. Graham said as he stepped off the Senate floor last week. "He said if he has a hold on it, he didn't know about it. He didn't even know about the bill."
Told last week that everyone involved with the legislation adamantly said that Mr. Edwards put the hold on it, Edwards spokesman Mike Briggs replied, "They're adamantly wrong."
Yesterday, however, Mr. Briggs acknowledged that his boss was stalling the bill.
"We support this bill, but Senator Edwards wants his amendment voted on," he said. "He wants to make a good bill better."
The Edwards amendment would waive interest accrued by soldiers while engaged in military action and would cost about $10 million per deployment, Mr. Briggs said.
As written, the HEROES Act would extend key elements of current law, which gives the secretary of education the authority to waive student-loan payments for soldiers fighting overseas. The law expires Sept. 30, and the new bill would extend those provisions until 2005.
"This is not a controversial issue," Mr. Kline said. "I wish I could say I thought of it, but it's been passed many times before without any problem."
This internal battle comes while anonymous holds are under growing scrutiny for inviting abuse and fostering political cowardice.
"It's like guerrilla warfare," said one Senate staffer trying to move along the HEROES bill.
The "hold" tradition began as a way to give senators more time to evaluate legislation before voting. In recent decades, it has become a tool for covertly blocking legislation.
Senators sometimes use a hold publicly, to gain attention on unrelated matters.
In May, Sen. Charles E. Grassley, Iowa Republican, and Sen. Ron Wyden, Oregon Democrat, introduced a bill that would require senators to publish their reasons in the Congressional Record within two days of lodging such a hold.
Mr. Wyden told colleagues at a hearing last month that his bill "would bring the anonymous hold out of the shadows of the Senate."
"It would ensure that the awesome power possessed by an individual senator to stop legislation or a nomination would be accompanied by the sunshine of public accountability," he said.
The Grassley-Wyden proposal drew broad praise.
"I believe that holds are an affront to the Senate, the leadership, the committees and to the individual members of this institution," said Sen. Trent Lott, Mississippi Republican and chairman of the Rules and Administration Committee.
As for HEROES, Mr. Kline is determined to see his bill pass.
"It's not fair that [soldiers] suffer an added financial or educational hardship," he said. "They shouldn't have to mail in their student-loan payments from Baghdad."
 
You really love tasting your foot, don't you?

From your article:
"We support this bill, but Senator Edwards wants his amendment voted on," he said. "He wants to make a good bill better."
The Edwards amendment would waive interest accrued by soldiers while engaged in military action and would cost about $10 million per deployment, Mr. Briggs said.
So, yet again, Riprorin quotes an article that rebuts his own claims! Edwards is MORE for the "little man" by wanting to offer MORE help to those serving overseas!

Do you bother to read your articles before you post them? And, you should know better posting links from right-wing rags like the Washington Times. They are more pro-Bush than FOX is!
 
Originally posted by: conjur
You really love tasting your foot, don't you?

From your article:
"We support this bill, but Senator Edwards wants his amendment voted on," he said. "He wants to make a good bill better."
The Edwards amendment would waive interest accrued by soldiers while engaged in military action and would cost about $10 million per deployment, Mr. Briggs said.
So, yet again, Riprorin quotes an article that rebuts his own claims! Edwards is MORE for the "little man" by wanting to offer MORE help to those serving overseas!

Do you bother to read your articles before you post them? And, you should know better posting links from right-wing rags like the Washington Times. They are more pro-Bush than FOX is!

The vote was 421 - 1, lol.

Perhaps his inability to compromise explains why he is such a poor legislator:

"Perhaps most telling about his effectiveness as a legislator is this little statistic: Of the 74 bills he sponsored, not a single one has emerged from committee for a floor vote. The same is true for most of his amendments and resolutions.)"
 
"We support this bill, but Senator Edwards wants his amendment voted on," he said. "He wants to make a good bill better."
The Edwards amendment would waive interest accrued by soldiers while engaged in military action and would cost about $10 million per deployment, Mr. Briggs said.
And why does the rest of Congress have a problem with wanting to help the military even MORE?

Are you going to continue to ignore that point?

Also, did you not notice that you pointed out a 421-1 vote from the House of Representatives? Edwards is in the Senate.
 
Edwards urged to let Heroes Act see vote

By Charles Hurt
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Lawmakers and veterans urged Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. John Edwards to stop blocking legislation aimed at easing student loan burdens for soldiers fighting overseas.
"It's shameful that the members of our armed services are being held captive by political tactics," said Rep. Howard P. "Buck" McKeon, California Republican and chairman of the House subcommittee that engineered the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students (Heroes) Act.
The bill ? which in effect would defer student loan payments for soldiers engaged in military operations ? overwhelmingly passed the House in April just seven days after it was introduced.
Ever since, it has been stuck in the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, of which Mr. Edwards, North Carolina Democrat, is a member. The presidential candidate opposed allowing a committee vote on the bill until an amendment he authored ? which would be more generous to soldiers ? was considered.
"Our troops deserve more than political infighting and stalling tactics," said Rep. John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican and chairman of the House Education and the Workforce Committee. "We have an opportunity to prevent financial hardships for our men and women serving overseas by approving the Heroes legislation, and the fact that it is being held up for any reason, especially a desire to take personal credit, is unconscionable."
North Carolina veterans also have reacted angrily.
"He's out to make a name for himself to be president," said Edward Parungo, commander of a Veterans of Foreign Wars post in Mr. Edwards' hometown of Raleigh. "He doesn't care who he has to step on to do it."
"If this is his policy towards our men and women in the military, then I'm deeply scared of what he'd be like as president," said Conway Brooks, a disabled Army veteran from Raleigh.

A spokesman for Mr. Edwards denied any political motivation for his actions, except that the senator supported the bill and wanted to improve it.
Mr. Edwards' Senate office confirmed Monday that he opposed moving the bill until after a vote on his amendment. But Tuesday morning, after The Washington Times reported that Mr. Edwards was blocking the bill, campaign spokeswoman Jennifer Palmieri hotly denied the report and said Mr. Edwards never opposed the measure.
In an e-mail to The Times later that day, Miss Palmieri said Mr. Edwards opposed moving the bill through committee under a "unanimous consent" agreement ? a speedy legislative path for bills.
But, she added, "He has done nothing since that time to stand in the way of the bill."
However, that is exactly why the bill is stalled in the committee, say several lawmakers and committee staffers who have been trying to push the bill through the Senate for the past three months.
"That's the same thing as a hold," explained one veteran staffer familiar with Senate committee procedures. "If someone objects to unanimous consent, it doesn't kill the bill but it keeps it from moving."
Under well-known Senate prerogatives, any member can block legislation by signaling to the leadership ? in writing or verbally ? opposition to a vote on the bill either in committee or on the floor. Oftentimes, senators block a bill that they support in an effort to improve it or to use it as leverage to win votes on unrelated legislation.
"The Senate's a confusing place," the staffer said on the condition of anonymity. "But holds are pretty straightforward."
"It exposes him as a rank amateur," said Bill Cobey, chairman of the North Carolina Republican Party. "You or your staff don't do things like that just to get your name on the bill. And if he didn't even know what he was doing, then that's even worse."
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Tennessee Republican, "supports moving the bill by unanimous consent and is hopeful the chairman and ranking member of the HELP committee will continue to work toward making that happen," spokesman Nick Smith said yesterday.
The White House also supports the bill but has declined to step into the political fight over how it passes.
Mr. Edwards' fellow senator from North Carolina, Republican Elizabeth Dole, "is certainly supportive of the legislation and would like to see it move forward expeditiously to help our men and women in uniform," said spokeswoman Mary Brown Brewer.
The stalled bill caused such frustration for the education committee that Sen. Judd Gregg, New Hampshire Republican and committee chairman, and Sen. Lindsey Graham, South Carolina Republican, determined that the bill "has been held up in the Senate and is unlikely to pass" in its current form, a letter obtained by The Times said.
Mr. Gregg also said in a brief interview that the bill had been blocked by a "secret hold," but cited Senate courtesy in declining to say whose hold he thought it was. Numerous committee staffers, as well as others involved in moving the bill, said the hold belonged to Mr. Edwards.
Rep. John Kline, Minnesota Republican and author of the bill, accused Mr. Edwards last week of stalling the legislation to further his presidential campaign. Several Republicans have said Mr. Edwards wants to attach his amendment so he can take greater credit for the measure.
But Mr. Edwards' office said his amendment would improve student loan benefits for soldiers by waiving interest fees. "He wants to make a good bill better," said spokesman Mike Briggs.
The Heroes Act would extend a law on the books that is scheduled to expire Sept. 30.
"If he's so concerned, then pass this bill and then sponsor another one," said Mr. Brooks, the Army veteran, noting that Congress' August recess is approaching. "But don't stall this thing before the summer recess and let it affect our men and women serving in Iraq right now."
 
Originally posted by: conjur
"We support this bill, but Senator Edwards wants his amendment voted on," he said. "He wants to make a good bill better."
The Edwards amendment would waive interest accrued by soldiers while engaged in military action and would cost about $10 million per deployment, Mr. Briggs said.
And why does the rest of Congress have a problem with wanting to help the military even MORE?

Are you going to continue to ignore that point?

Also, did you not notice that you pointed out a 421-1 vote from the House of Representatives? Edwards is in the Senate.

:laugh:
 
Originally posted by: Gaard
Originally posted by: conjur
"We support this bill, but Senator Edwards wants his amendment voted on," he said. "He wants to make a good bill better."
The Edwards amendment would waive interest accrued by soldiers while engaged in military action and would cost about $10 million per deployment, Mr. Briggs said.
And why does the rest of Congress have a problem with wanting to help the military even MORE?

Are you going to continue to ignore that point?

Also, did you not notice that you pointed out a 421-1 vote from the House of Representatives? Edwards is in the Senate.

:laugh:

It hasn't been voted on in the senate because Edwards is holding it up.

The bill ? which in effect would defer student loan payments for soldiers engaged in military operations ? overwhelmingly passed the House in April just seven days after it was introduced.
Ever since, it has been stuck in the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, of which Mr. Edwards, North Carolina Democrat, is a member. The presidential candidate opposed allowing a committee vote on the bill until an amendment he authored ? which would be more generous to soldiers ? was considered.
 
Originally posted by: conjur
You really love tasting your foot, don't you?

From your article:
"We support this bill, but Senator Edwards wants his amendment voted on," he said. "He wants to make a good bill better."
The Edwards amendment would waive interest accrued by soldiers while engaged in military action and would cost about $10 million per deployment, Mr. Briggs said.
So, yet again, Riprorin quotes an article that rebuts his own claims! Edwards is MORE for the "little man" by wanting to offer MORE help to those serving overseas!

Do you bother to read your articles before you post them? And, you should know better posting links from right-wing rags like the Washington Times. They are more pro-Bush than FOX is!

So he's helping the little guy by blocking legislation that will help them out, legislation that everyone in congress voted for (the one negative vote that was cast by mistake).

Gosh, with friends lilke Edwards, who needs enemies!
 
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Originally posted by: Gaard
Originally posted by: conjur
"We support this bill, but Senator Edwards wants his amendment voted on," he said. "He wants to make a good bill better."
The Edwards amendment would waive interest accrued by soldiers while engaged in military action and would cost about $10 million per deployment, Mr. Briggs said.
And why does the rest of Congress have a problem with wanting to help the military even MORE?

Are you going to continue to ignore that point?

Also, did you not notice that you pointed out a 421-1 vote from the House of Representatives? Edwards is in the Senate.

:laugh:

It hasn't been voted on in the senate because Edwards is holding it up.

The bill ? which in effect would defer student loan payments for soldiers engaged in military operations ? overwhelmingly passed the House in April just seven days after it was introduced.
Ever since, it has been stuck in the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, of which Mr. Edwards, North Carolina Democrat, is a member. The presidential candidate opposed allowing a committee vote on the bill until an amendment he authored ? which would be more generous to soldiers ? was considered.

You really don't know how to read, do you?

It was passed 421-1 by the House on April 1, 2003. It then passed the Senate on July 31, 2003.

http://www.nasfaa.org/publications/2003/GHEROESPassage080703.html
The Senate on July 31 quietly passed H.R. 1412, the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students (HEROES) Act of 2003. The bill, which passed the House of Representatives on April 1, now goes to the President for signing.

If it was held, it was only for four months. I wonder how long it takes a bill to go from passage thru the House to passage by the Senate anyway?

And, how long did Bush stonewall the 9/11 Commission? How long has he drawn out the Valerie Plame leak investigation? How long has he drawn out the Abu Ghraib prison scandal investigation?

Your curiosity is commendable. However, it is horribly misguided.
 
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Originally posted by: Gaard
Originally posted by: conjur
"We support this bill, but Senator Edwards wants his amendment voted on," he said. "He wants to make a good bill better."
The Edwards amendment would waive interest accrued by soldiers while engaged in military action and would cost about $10 million per deployment, Mr. Briggs said.
And why does the rest of Congress have a problem with wanting to help the military even MORE?

Are you going to continue to ignore that point?

Also, did you not notice that you pointed out a 421-1 vote from the House of Representatives? Edwards is in the Senate.

:laugh:

It hasn't been voted on in the senate because Edwards is holding it up.

The bill ? which in effect would defer student loan payments for soldiers engaged in military operations ? overwhelmingly passed the House in April just seven days after it was introduced.
Ever since, it has been stuck in the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, of which Mr. Edwards, North Carolina Democrat, is a member. The presidential candidate opposed allowing a committee vote on the bill until an amendment he authored ? which would be more generous to soldiers ? was considered.

You really don't know how to read, do you?

It was passed 421-1 by the House on April 1, 2003. It then passed the Senate on July 31, 2003.

http://www.nasfaa.org/publications/2003/GHEROESPassage080703.html
The Senate on July 31 quietly passed H.R. 1412, the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students (HEROES) Act of 2003. The bill, which passed the House of Representatives on April 1, now goes to the President for signing.

If it was held, it was only for four months. I wonder how long it takes a bill to go from passage thru the House to passage by the Senate anyway?

And, how long did Bush stonewall the 9/11 Commission? How long has he drawn out the Valerie Plame leak investigation? How long has he drawn out the Abu Ghraib prison scandal investigation?

Your curiosity is commendable. However, it is horribly misguided.


:laugh: :laugh:

I don't really have a moron 'list'. I guess I should think about starting one. 😉
 
I'm starting to think Riprorin's online persona is a facade, and he is really a bored, lonely North Carolina housewife who desperately wants her hometown boy back. He acts like an awkward 6th-grader with a crush on Sen Edwards.
 
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Originally posted by: Gaard
Originally posted by: conjur
"We support this bill, but Senator Edwards wants his amendment voted on," he said. "He wants to make a good bill better."
The Edwards amendment would waive interest accrued by soldiers while engaged in military action and would cost about $10 million per deployment, Mr. Briggs said.
And why does the rest of Congress have a problem with wanting to help the military even MORE?

Are you going to continue to ignore that point?

Also, did you not notice that you pointed out a 421-1 vote from the House of Representatives? Edwards is in the Senate.

:laugh:

It hasn't been voted on in the senate because Edwards is holding it up.

The bill ? which in effect would defer student loan payments for soldiers engaged in military operations ? overwhelmingly passed the House in April just seven days after it was introduced.
Ever since, it has been stuck in the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, of which Mr. Edwards, North Carolina Democrat, is a member. The presidential candidate opposed allowing a committee vote on the bill until an amendment he authored ? which would be more generous to soldiers ? was considered.

You really don't know how to read, do you?

It was passed 421-1 by the House on April 1, 2003. It then passed the Senate on July 31, 2003.

http://www.nasfaa.org/publications/2003/GHEROESPassage080703.html
The Senate on July 31 quietly passed H.R. 1412, the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students (HEROES) Act of 2003. The bill, which passed the House of Representatives on April 1, now goes to the President for signing.

If it was held, it was only for four months. I wonder how long it takes a bill to go from passage thru the House to passage by the Senate anyway?

And, how long did Bush stonewall the 9/11 Commission? How long has he drawn out the Valerie Plame leak investigation? How long has he drawn out the Abu Ghraib prison scandal investigation?

Your curiosity is commendable. However, it is horribly misguided.

Good, I'm glad Edwards came to his senses and decided to put America fighting men and women's interests above his own.
 
Originally posted by: DonVito
I'm starting to think Riprorin's online persona is a facade, and he is really a bored, lonely North Carolina housewife who desperately wants her hometown boy back. He acts like an awkward 6th-grader with a crush on Sen Edwards.

I think he's Stephen Elliott
 
Originally posted by: DonVito
I'm starting to think Riprorin's online persona is a facade, and he is really a bored, lonely North Carolina housewife who desperately wants her hometown boy back. He acts like an awkward 6th-grader with a crush on Sen Edwards.

Desperate is right.

I'm tired of the typical anonymous cut/paste jobs that are Rip's threads. Frankly, I'm downright bored by his repeated lying, refusal to back up claims, refusal to respond to questions and general single-minded Republican attack-dog mentality. Even the usual conservatives aren't showing up to defend poor ol' Rip. And that really tells you something right there.

I'm done posting in clown-boy's threads. Have fun!

:thumbsdown:
 
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: DonVito
I'm starting to think Riprorin's online persona is a facade, and he is really a bored, lonely North Carolina housewife who desperately wants her hometown boy back. He acts like an awkward 6th-grader with a crush on Sen Edwards.

Desperate is right.

I'm tired of the typical anonymous cut/paste jobs that are Rip's threads. Frankly, I'm downright bored by his repeated lying, refusal to back up claims, refusal to respond to questions and general single-minded Republican attack-dog mentality. Even the usual conservatives aren't showing up to defend poor ol' Rip. And that really tells you something right there.

I'm done posting in clown-boy's threads. Have fun!

:thumbsdown:

I'm an individualist. I don't need the group approval that you libs seem to crave.
 
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I'm tired of the typical anonymous cut/paste jobs that are Rip's threads. Frankly, I'm downright bored by his repeated lying, refusal to back up claims, refusal to respond to questions and general single-minded Republican attack-dog mentality.

I can't even get past the crappy formating, all those one sentence paragraphs make it read like a list of rants.
 
Originally posted by: Riprorin

I'm an individualist. I don't need the group approval that you libs seem to crave.

You also don't care about the "facts" and "credible sources" the wild-eyed liberals persist in asking for.

I don't dislike you (mostly because your posts are often comically incorrect or oversimplified, and thus entertaining), but you are probably the least credible, least-respected poster on ATPN as far as I can see. You are a one-man drive-by hatchet job.
 
Originally posted by: DonVito
Originally posted by: Riprorin

I'm an individualist. I don't need the group approval that you libs seem to crave.

You also don't care about the "facts" and "credible sources" the wild-eyed liberals persist in asking for.

I don't dislike you (mostly because your posts are often comically incorrect or oversimplified), but you are probably the least credible, least-respected poster on ATPN as far as I can see. You are a one-man drive-by hatchet job.

:beer:

While I wouldn't put it -quite- as harshly (I don't read P&N near as much as others), I'll chalk all this up to an awareness deficiency. I'm perfectly willing to listen to any claim, so long as it's not an attempted "I told you so" constructed from a series of leaps in judgment. I think much of the issue with your posts, Rip, is the perceived tone. I'm almost certain you could say what you're wanting to say, just in a different manner, and be heard. Instead of the grandiose, or at times flame-bait, thread titles, post an article, then throw a more "I could be wrong, but this gives the appearance of X" 😉

Heh, I shouldn't post 5 minutes after I wake up. I make no sense.


Btw, "It was passed 421-1 by the House on April 1, 2003. It then passed the Senate on July 31, 2003." cracked me up. I've been there. Kinda makes your stomach drop a bit and you just want to slink under your desk proclaiming a loud "D'oh!" as you go.
 
why do we even bother with Rip anymore? Conjur your wasting valuable time disproving him as you have done so many times. He seems to enjoy getting owned online consistently. Someone once mentioned he may be a masochist, which I'm really starting to believe.
 
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Originally posted by: conjur
You really love tasting your foot, don't you?

From your article:
"We support this bill, but Senator Edwards wants his amendment voted on," he said. "He wants to make a good bill better."
The Edwards amendment would waive interest accrued by soldiers while engaged in military action and would cost about $10 million per deployment, Mr. Briggs said.
So, yet again, Riprorin quotes an article that rebuts his own claims! Edwards is MORE for the "little man" by wanting to offer MORE help to those serving overseas!

Do you bother to read your articles before you post them? And, you should know better posting links from right-wing rags like the Washington Times. They are more pro-Bush than FOX is!

So he's helping the little guy by blocking legislation that will help them out, legislation that everyone in congress voted for (the one negative vote that was cast by mistake).

Gosh, with friends lilke Edwards, who needs enemies!

Gosh, with a president like Bush, who needs a <insert horrible government here> (Theocracy? Dictatorship?)
 
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: DonVito
I'm starting to think Riprorin's online persona is a facade, and he is really a bored, lonely North Carolina housewife who desperately wants her hometown boy back. He acts like an awkward 6th-grader with a crush on Sen Edwards.

Desperate is right.

I'm tired of the typical anonymous cut/paste jobs that are Rip's threads. Frankly, I'm downright bored by his repeated lying, refusal to back up claims, refusal to respond to questions and general single-minded Republican attack-dog mentality. Even the usual conservatives aren't showing up to defend poor ol' Rip. And that really tells you something right there.

Hell with that going for him, he could be president!

:disgust:
 
Edwards' grandstanding delayed our troops getting deferments for their student loans, but Edwards is for "the little guy", lol.

As far as I can tell, he's for lining his pockets and clawing his way to the highest office in the land.
 
Back
Top