Politico: Edwards waffles on defense spending

"After castigating Sen. Hillary Clinton for “the politics of double talk,” he sports a little ambiguity himself."

In a campaign with more waffling than a Shoney’s breakfast buffet, former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina said there’s one thing you can count on from him: a straight answer.

“What we saw in the debate were the politics of double talk,” he told reporters last week in South Carolina, referencing last week’s Drexel University event. “I have a really simple rule — if you get asked a yes-or-no question, you shouldn't give a yes-AND-no answer."

That was a clear shot at Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, the leader in the Democratic presidential contest. But it turns out that the “simple rule” has not always been so simple for Edwards.

His campaign was endorsed by in Des Moines Friday by Caucus for Priorities, a nonprofit group that advocates redirecting certain Pentagon spending (for what it considers obsolete, Cold War weapons systems) to social programs and deficit reduction.

The endorsement had been also been sought by Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.). The group, launched by Ben & Jerry’s co-founder Ben Cohen, describes itself as a “10,000-member strong grass-roots organization dedicated to educating the public about the inequities of our current federal budget.”

“For months, our members have attended his town hall meetings across Iowa and found him to be a leader who listens — and always gives the straight answers Americans deserve from their president,” Cohen said of Edwards in a statement.

Peggy Huppert, the group’s Iowa state director, told Politico by phone that the group chose Edwards because he is “the best messenger who has embraced our issues” and “a viable candidate who has a good shot at going all the way.”

Asked why the group did not choose Clinton, Huppert said, “Sen. Clinton declined for the most part to answer our questions. She gave narrative answers. She was just not specific or forceful enough.”

Edwards’ campaign website posted the questionnaire from the group (.pdf), which gave him a lot of opportunities for straight talk — a series of 15 yes-or-no questions. The Edwards campaign put a bright red check mark next to five of them — but left the other two-thirds blank. Those were supplemented by essay answers that rivals, who called attention to the questionnaire, argue is a lot like . . . well, double talk.

The questionnaire asked — “yes” or “no” — if Edwards would cut funding for each of the following weapons systems: the V-22 Osprey, the F-22 Raptor fighter jet, the DDG-1000 Zumwalt class destroyer, the C-130J Hercules transport plane, or the SSN-74 Virginia-class submarine.

The Edwards campaign left all 10 boxes blank.

Explaining his non-answer, he singled out the Virginia-class submarine for what sure sounds like a yes-AND-no answer: “Some of its functions … can be performed more cheaply by reconfigured Trident submarines. On the other hand, some military experts have told me that the program offers certain military advantages.”

In several cases, Edwards said he would order his secretary of defense to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of the weapons systems the group highlighted.

That seems perfectly sensible and responsible. Sometimes, it turns out, a yes-and-no answer may not be as bad as it sounds.

An Edwards campaign official said: “We have nothing to add or subtract” to the Caucus for Priorities comment.

Politico.com’s Ben Smith notes that the questionnaire “does contain some clear differences between Edwards and his rivals, notably his willingness to make specific commitments on defense cuts where Clinton and Obama — while expressing support for the group's goals — stop short.”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1107/6798.html