John Edwards 2008: What’s not to like

and Send me Your Brain; I Say: No Thanks

by eriposte

I’ve previously discussed historical analogies between Sen. Edwards’ campaign against Sen. Clinton and Bill Bradley’s campaign against Al Gore in 2000. Now, we have moved on to the absurd anticlimax that I had hoped we wouldn’t. Here’s the latest pronouncement from Sen. Edwards, via the WSJ blog Washington Wire (h/t Taylor Marsh, emphasis mine, throughout this post):

For too long, our political leaders in Washington have looked the other way as lobbyists and irresponsible corporations have fought against efforts to achieve real change in America. Enough is enough.

…Please sign the “America Belongs to Us” Pledge, and join together with Americans from all across the country who are taking a bold stand to make sure that our next president belongs to the people — not the lobbyists.

Here’s the so-called “pledge”:

Because I believe we need real change in America and an end to the broken system in Washington that works for special interests and not us, I pledge not to vote or caucus for a Democratic presidential candidate that accepts campaign contributions from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs.

This “pledge” has finally - and sadly - tipped me over the edge and made it clear that there is one candidate I am NOT supporting in the Democratic primary. That candidate is Sen. John Edwards. If he wins the primary I will still support him in his Presidential campaign since he will be better than the Republican candidate for President. But, as a strong protest against his transparent stunt (aka the “pledge”) I’m not going to support him in the primary. The reason is simple. When Sen. Edwards ran for the Senate back in 1998, guess how much PAC money he took in, according to the Center for Responsive Politics (Open Secrets):

ZERO

Yes, ZERO (more on the significance of that in a moment). His Senate campaign against Sen. Lauch Faircloth (R-NC) was marked by his trademark cry that he would battle the “special interests”:

“This is who he is,” Prince said, noting that as far back as his 1998 campaign against Sen. Lauch Faircloth (R-N.C.), Edwards was talking about fighting for the little guy and against special interests. In one ad during that race, Edwards said: “Insurance companies have plenty of lobbyists fighting for them. I don’t want to be their senator. I want to be yours.”

Not to mention this:

Despite his own personal wealth, Edwards ran as the populist outsider, saying Faircloth cared more about big business than the people of North Carolina.

“We have got to start the process of restoring people’s faith, making them believe again that this really is a democracy, and that their voice matters when decisions are being made in Washington,” Edwards, then 44, said during his race against Faircloth.

With his emphasis on vindicating blue-collar workers and the poor, Edwards was a political anomaly. He had the kind of rags-to-riches life story that is often celebrated by Republicans, but instead of singing the praises of the free market, he condemned its excesses.

So, how did “populist”, “anti-special-interest”-crusader John Edwards vote in Congress after taking a sum total of ZERO dollars from PACs and lobbyists? He voted in favor of a Bankruptcy Bill not once but twice, voted against filibustering the bill and voted against some progressive amendments to the Bill, he supported NAFTA as recently as 2004, he voted in favor of storing nuclear waste at Yucca mountain, he voted in favor of No Child Left Behind, he voted in favor of the Andean trade agreement and easing trade relations with China - not to mention, he voted in favor of the 2002 Iraq war authorization resolution and stood by his vote in 2004, he voted against an attempt to restrict the Iraq war authorization to one year, he voted against creating an independent report on pre-war intelligence manipulation, he voted against an attempt to raise taxes to fund the war, and he voted in favor of labeling Iran a state sponsor of terrorism. You get the picture.

With this “pledge” stunt of his, I unfortunately have to draw the line and point out that some of us still have some brains left and don’t intend to email either the “pledge” or our brains to him. Sen. Edwards is running on a platform that says you can only trust people who take no contributions from PACs/lobbyists. As he has shown through his own career in the Senate, this claim can be catastrophically wrong. Who you take money from is a factor, but it is absolutely not the kind of defining factor that Sen. Edwards makes it out to be. What matters most is the character and ideology of the individual - NOT who they take money from. Lawyer-turned-lobbyist Sen. Fred Thompson (R-TN) has about $100K in PAC receipts, Republican Governor Mike Huckabee has taken barely $20,000 from PACs and Republican Governor Mitt Romney has about $300,000 in PAC funds - and all of them are far to the right of Sen. Hillary Clinton even though they have taken much less PAC money than she has. In other words, Sen. Clinton is very progressive on corporatist matters even when compared to Sen. Edwards and Sen. Obama and you have three top Republican candidates who are far to her right who have taken significantly less contributions from PACs than she has.

Don’t get me wrong. I am personally in favor of dramatically reducing the corrupting influence of corporatist interests in elections and would love to see all candidates refuse special interest PAC money. However, Sen. Edwards has undermined the “clean elections” movement with this “stunt” by hypocritically pushing the envelope so far against other Democrats who are far better than the Republicans who will absolutely undermine clean elections in this country. In an ideal world, I’d love to endorse Sen. Edwards PACman theory - i.e., that those who take money from PACs/lobbyists can’t be trusted with your vote. However, this theory - deceptively nice-sounding, superficially pleasing and comforting - is sometimes just a mountain of stinking horse manure and far more damage is often done to the country by people who take little or no PAC money, than by those who do. So, Sen. Edwards, here’s my position on your “pledge” - thanks but no thanks.

The Leftcoaster

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/011418.php

John Edwards

The Ad: When I’m president I’m going to say to members of Congress and members of my administration, including my Cabinet: I’m glad that you have health care coverage and your family has health care coverage. But if you don’t pass universal health care by July of 2009, in six month, I’m going to use my power as president to take your health care away from you. There’s no excuse for politicians in Washington having health care when you don’t have health care.

Analysis: John Edwards’s new Iowa ad is very effective rhetorically–and based on a false premise. A president has absolutely no power to rescind federal health insurance for members of Congress, as the Edwards campaign admits.

“He would introduce legislation, that’s all it is,” spokesman Eric Schultz said. “He would introduce legislation and ask them to set a deadline for themselves.” While a President Edwards could mount public pressure based on the 47 million Americans who lack health insurance, Congress is, to put it mildly, unlikely to relinquish its own coverage. In fact, some experts argue that such a law would violate the 27th Amendment’s ban on “varying the compensation” of members of Congress without an intervening election. Schultz said Edwards would ask senior administration officials to voluntarily give up their health coverage if he fails to pass universal coverage.

The ad captures the former senator’s passion and underscores his message that the Washington political system is broken. But Edwards is making a promise he can’t keep.

–Howard Kurtz

The Washington Post

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/11/13/edwards_impossible_promise.html

Is Edwards “the Most Electable”?

John Edwards statement to Good Morning America, September 3, 2007:

“And the same polls that you’re talking about, if you look at the general election match-ups, show very clearly that I’m the strongest Democrat to beat the Republicans in the general election. “

The Facts

National head-to-head polls collected by Real Clear Politics do not support Edwards’ claim. They vary week by week, alternately favoring one candidate, then another. The most recent poll averages suggest that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have as good a chance as Edwards in many head-to-head matchups.

snip

“The polls do seem to suggest a structural advantage for Democrat candidates against Republicans at this early stage,” said Washington Post director of polling John Cohen. “But there are no consistent, reliable data showing Edwards with a better chance than other Democrats.”

Washington Post Fact-Checker 9/24/07
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2007/09/john_edwards_strongest_democra.html

While much of the political news attention has been focused on Idaho Senator Larry Craig’s apparent hypocrisy, Glenn Reynolds and Professor Bainbridge note the gross hypocrisy in John Edwards’ calling for a ban on SUVs. The guy not only has a 28,000 square foot estate, but as Glenn shows in a linked photo, that estate is surrounded by SUVs.

To which we might add that Edwards’ campaign dished out $430,000 in the first half of the year flying around the country in the private jet of his friend, asbestos tort kingpin Fred Baron

Point of Law.com

http://www.pointoflaw.com/archives/004220.php

Democratic presidential contender John Edwards said Wednesday he would ask Americans to give up their fuel inefficient sport utility vehicles, even as he appeared to disregard such advice himself.

In a speech to the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers in Lake Buena Vista, Florida, Edwards – a former U.S. senator from North Carolina – says he believes Americans are willing to make the sacrifice.

Yet, the Politico.com – a news and politics Web site – revealed Thursday that all major Democratic presidential candidates including Edwards are not traveling around the country in fuel-efficient vehicles, even as they scold Americans to drive them.

For his part, Edwards showed up in Iowa after announcing his presidential bid in New Orleans in a Cadillac SRX Crossover, which gets about 15 miles per gallon. Barack Obama, meanwhile, travels the country in an RV, while Hillary Clinton has ridden in an 18-wheeler.

His Web site says, “Edwards believes that everyone should be able to drive the car, truck or SUV of their choice and still enjoy high fuel economy,” according to the Politico.com.

Newsroom America

http://www.newsroomamerica.com/politics/story.php?id=390110

A year ago, Edwards finished third in the New Hampshire Democratic primary behind two New Englanders, Kerry and former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean.

Charlotte News Observer, 2/6/05
http://www.newsobserver.com/politics/politicians/edwards/story/2094948p-8473846c.html

Edwards finished fourth in the 2004 New Hampshire primary, behind John Kerry, Howard Dean and Wesley Clark.

John Edwards has the best smile, the best hair and the most effective populist discourse of all the Democrats who want to be president. His endlessly repeated “Two Americas” stump speech — flaying the haves for fleecing the have-nots — has been carefully honed over months on the campaign trail. It won him second place in Iowa. But it takes more than one speech to give a contender real staying power — as the cash-strapped Edwards discovered when, by an eyelash, he lost the third-place ticket out of New Hampshire to a treasury-rich general with a weightier résumé.

But what’s under the hair and behind the smile? He was born Johnny Reid Edwards in a small mill town, but abandoned this moniker as too Snopes-y when he began the legal career that made him super-rich. He constantly says he’s the “son of a mill worker,” and to hear him tell it, he pulled himself up from poverty so crushing it evokes images of shoeless Li’l Abner. His “Two Americas” rally-pleaser gets much of its power from this poor-boy autobiography, but in making this tale his central campaign theme, Edwards gave his family history a cosmetic make-over, like the one he gave his name.

“The Edwardses were solidly middle class” when Johnny was growing up, according to a four-part profile of the North Carolina senator in his home state’s most prestigious daily, the Raleigh News and Observer. It’s true that for a few years as a young man Edwards’ father worked on the floor of a Roger Milliken textile mill. But Edwards père (a lifelong Republican, like his reactionary boss) quickly climbed upward, becoming a monitor of worker productivity as a “time-study” man — which any labor organizer in the South will tell you is a polite term for a stoolie who spies on the proletarian mill hands to get them to speed up production for the same low wages. Daddy Edwards’ grassing got him promoted to supervisor, then to plant manager — and he finally resigned to start his own business as a consultant to the textile industry. As a Boston Globe profile of Edwards put it last year, the senator never “notes that his father was part of management . . . ‘John was more middle class than most of us,’” says Bill Garner, a high school friend and college roommate.

Edwards’ legislative record — what little there is of it — is hardly populist. In fact, Edwards is a classic, corporate-friendly, centrist New Democrat. In his five years as a freshman senator, Edwards on his own produced little legislation, much less than some other first-termers — although he was assigned by Tom Daschle to represent the Democrats in negotiations over a patients’ bill of rights, and so can boast he was a co-sponsor of the final, but aborted, bill.

However, there’s one highly significant chapter in his Senate career omitted from Edwards’ campaign Web site. Edwards, who comes from a state where banking is big business, played a critical role in brokering legislation to allow banks to sell mutual funds and insurance, and to engage in other speculative ventures. This law, worth hundreds of billions to the banks, blasted a gigantic hole in the Glass-Steagal banking law’s firewall of protections designed to prevent the kinds of bank collapses that marked the Great Depression of the ’30s — meaning that it put the money of Joe Six-Pack depositors at risk. Such a gigantic boon to the banking lobby can hardly be classed as a populist victory.

LA Weekly 1/29/04
http://www.laweekly.com/news/news/a-populist-make-over/2034/

Raised a strict Baptist, John showed little sign in college that he would become a politician. He skipped most anti-Vietnam protests, and missed being drafted because he drew a high lottery number and the war ended before he was called up.

”John was very conservative,” said his college roommate, Bill Garner, a textile company executive. ”I had long hair and a beard and was into the antiwar marches and stuff, but John never participated in that.”

New York Times 1/12/04
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9807E6DD1530F931A25752C0A9629C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print