singrdave

Join Date 07/2004

John Edwards: Populist

Not the candidate, but still shaping the Dem debate

External Link

John Edwards: 2004 Presidential primary candidate, then Vice Presidential candidate with John Kerry. He's campaigning again. This time he's positioning himself as a populist, appealing to middle-class and lower-class voters with his progressive policy stances on Iraq, health care, poverty, and the hue and cry of global warming.

His policy stances:
Iraq: American troops out of Iraq immediately. Overnight reduction of 40,000-50,000... followed by an "orderly and complete" withdrawal of combat forces within a year. The overall war on terror is a "bumper sticker, not a plan" according to Edwards.

Foreign policy: In a larger scheme, he wants to re-engage the nations of the world using America's innate moral leadership. This implies that he would sign onto Kyoto or a similar global warming regime, more to solidify America's participation in international agreements than to make major economic and social decisions. He's announced his intention to enact a cap-and-trade emissions scheme that would reduce America's greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050. In foreign development, he wants to recruit a "Marshall Corps" of 10,000 bankers, political scientists, and other experts to help failing states. Presumably this "Delta Force" of economists would try to keep failed states like Zimbabwe and Sudan from falling over the edge into chaos.

Domestic policy: This is where he really appeals to a lot of people. According to The Economist,
He offers plenty of standard populist cant: lots of talk about “fairness”; rants against oil firms for price gouging and drug companies for rocketing health costs; and—this year's favourite villain—anger at mortgage lenders for ripping off poor home-owners. (He calls it the “wild west of the credit industry, where...abusive and predatory lenders are robbing families blind.”) A recent speech decried an economy that rewarded “wealth not work”, a tax system that favoured the rich and a government that served only special interests. Yet for all that Mr Edwards is less a redistributionist firebrand than a big-government do-gooder. He is intent on helping the poor more than soaking the rich; his inspiration is Robert Kennedy, not Huey Long.

He has cohesive programs for helping the poor (remember, he's the one who came up with the "Two Americas" concept in 2004) and for federally-managed universal health care based on Mitt Romney's Massachusetts model. He wants to eliminate poverty by 1/3 within a decade by increasing the Earned Income Tax Credit, topping up the working poor's earnings, effectively eliminating taxes for lower incomes. He also wants to give poor people "work bonds" to boost their savings and housing vouchers to help poor families live in better neighborhoods.

Edwards has his faults, too... his gigantic house and $1,400 haircuts have reminded people that there are actually Two Americas, and John's in the upper half. And his trial lawyer experience makes him another Slick Willie... but this time without the McDonald's fixation.

His ideas may or may not have merit, but they are certainly livening up the Democratic debate. The concepts Edwards addresses are probably going to find their way onto the ticket, whether he's the candidate or not. He may appeal to Dems, but he's not raising the kind of money that the Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton machines are.

So I would pay attention to the John Edwards campaign. Be prepared to see his policy ideas come November 2008, even if you don't see John Edwards.

democrat

Locked Post

Advanced Search

Watch this post

Do not email me updates for this post Email me updates for this post

Successfully updated karma reason!

And darn, he looks good with that $1,400 haircut.

Successfully updated karma reason!

And darn, he looks good with that $1,400 haircut.

Good enough for Miss America.

For now, I am not going to pay him too much attention. From 04 and the little I have paid attention, it is obvious he is living in a dream world, and does not understand anything about governing. He is an idealist, which in itself is not bad. However he is an ignorant idealist, and unless he starts learning about his ideals, he would be a very dangerous one. He wants to be king, not president. Kyoto was never signed because a president cannot make treaties unilaterrally. And the senate was not partisan in its rejection (nor was the president wanting to sign it) when it was created in 97 (for the slow learners - the president was not GWB).

He is the darling of the kook fringe - more so than probably any other candidate. And with the possible exception of Hillary, the least electable (having won that mantle from Howard Dean).

Successfully updated karma reason!

Kyoto was never signed because a president cannot make treaties unilaterally.

True, except when the treaty doesn't require any relevant laws to be changed. If no laws need to be changed, then the President can sign without ratifying it through Congress. Kyoto would have overhauled the whole system, shackling all emitters to serious restrictions... thus requiring Congressional approval. Which neither Clinton nor Bush was willing to present to Congress.

For now, I am not going to pay him too much attention.

I am trying to look at each of the candidates, or at least the somewhat interesting ones. And I found him interesting in that he is setting the terms of the Democratic debate.

Successfully updated karma reason!

True, except when the treaty doesn't require any relevant laws to be changed. If no laws need to be changed, then the President can sign without ratifying it through Congress.

No, the Constitution does not mention anything about laws. It is quite unambigous on the issue of treaties:

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;

Successfully updated karma reason!

No, the Constitution does not mention anything about laws. It is quite unambiguous on the issue of treaties

It's a power delegated back to the President by Congress. Part of his responsibilities as Chief Diplomat.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Good to see you writing again singerdave. Been a while.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Good to see you writing again singerdave. Been a while.

Thanks. Life is hectic.

Successfully updated karma reason!

And darn, he looks good with that $1,400 haircut

Hey get your facts straight, that was a bargain basement $400 haircut. Jeesh, that's not very much when you're as loaded as he is. It's like me or you spending a $1. I still like him even if he does have a televangelist/gameshow host hairdo.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Hey get your facts straight, that was a bargain basement $400 haircut.

I remember that figure being bandied about, but this morning on WMAL AM the morning guys said the additional $1,000 was paid to compensate the hairdresser for his time and effort to make a house call to Mr. Edwards (transportation, etc.). But a quick Google search on john+edwards+haircut brings back no mention of a $1,400 haircut. I stand corrected.

Jeesh, that's not very much when you're as loaded as he is. It's like me or you spending a $1.

True, looks like we know where he is in the Two Americas.

Successfully updated karma reason!

i have one question who is going to pay.

Successfully updated karma reason!

i have one question who is going to pay.

I'll be happy to address that question if you elaborate: pay for what? The social programs Edwards recommends, or his haircuts?

Successfully updated karma reason!

either both

Successfully updated karma reason!

I'll be happy to address that question if you elaborate: pay for what? The social programs Edwards recommends, or his haircuts?

His haircut has been paid by those who contributed to his campaign

The social programs will be paid by every citizen. It's up to you to use it or not.

True, looks like we know where he is in the Two Americas.

He is in the "rich" one, but tell me how could someone poor try to become the president of the U.S.A.? It would be stupid if only poor people could fight for the poor.

And some of the ideas Edward propose aren't as idealist as you think. His healthcare program, for one, is really doable, and much more "efficient" than the one in Canada (which everyone has to contribute. It's good on many side, but bad on others).

But yhea, a little idealist. But I kinda like idealists in the top jobs.

Successfully updated karma reason!

tell me how could someone poor try to become the president of the U.S.A.? It would be stupid if only poor people could fight for the poor.

See your point, but tell me how someone who stands up against poverty and for lower income vouchers/subsidies has the chutzpah to flaunt his own riches so flagrantly? I find him to be very two-faced in that manner.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Island Dog

Join Date 06/2003

+1048

The social programs will be paid by every citizen. It's up to you to use it or not.

I believe anyone making over $200,000 will pay for his social programs.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I believe anyone making over $200,000 will pay for his social programs.

I don't know. Can you find me where it is said, or is it simply a populism, unbased argument made against him?

I find it funny that a lot of conservatives denounce lefty populism with cons populism.

Isn't a conservative opinion that riches should not be taxed, because when they spend their money, it makes the economy turn?

I know that it's pretty ironic to defend a Liberal using conservative arguments, but what good would be his money if he didn't use it? What good would it do to the poor peoples? (do you have tax sales in the U.S.?)

Successfully updated karma reason!

Isn't a conservative opinion that riches should not be taxed, because when they spend their money, it makes the economy turn?

Nope. Some say we should (all poor and rich) not pay taxes at all. But I have yet to find anyone who says that some should pay taxes, just not the rich.

I have found many who said that taxes should be proportional, and not confiscatory.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I have found many who said that taxes should be proportional, and not confiscatory.

what do you mean by confiscatory?

Successfully updated karma reason!

what good would be his money if he didn't use it? What good would it do to the poor peoples? (do you have tax sales in the U.S.?)

Well, I suppose he could use his additional income as donations to worthy charities and live a more middle-class lifestyle. That would probably take the bad taste out of the mouths of those who perceive him as two-faced in this regard. (I misread your parenthetical as "sales tax." What's a "tax sale?")

Successfully updated karma reason!

Island Dog

Join Date 06/2003

+1048

I don't know. Can you find me where it is said, or is it simply a populism, unbased argument made against him?

"Democratic U.S. presidential candidate John Edwards on Sunday said that he would raise taxes, chiefly on the wealthy, to pay for expanded healthcare coverage under a plan costing $90 billion to $120 billion a year to be unveiled on Monday""

Successfully updated karma reason!

(not, I mean Sales tax. You know, a % you pay when you buy something)

Successfully updated karma reason!

thanks. but did he said where he will take the money, and where did you took that quote?

Successfully updated karma reason!

Island Dog

Join Date 06/2003

+1048

SAN DIEGO - Democratic presidential contender John Edwards said Sunday he would consider raising taxes on corporations and the wealthy to fund programs such as universal health care.

Edwards has long said he wants to repeal the tax cuts on upper-income earners enacted during the Bush presidency, but Sunday he seemed to go further, by saying he was open to raising them higher than they were before George W. Bush took office. He also said he would consider taxes on “excess profits,” including those made by oil companies.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18387728/from/RS.4/

Successfully updated karma reason!

You don't have to be poor to care about the poor. Some of the wealthy feel an added responsibility to use their money to care for the less fortunate. FDR was loaded but he was a strong advocate for those struggling financially through the great depression with his New Deal program.

And how is JE flaunting it? Because he built a new home? Would it be any different if he lived in smaller home? He worked for the money, he gets to enjoy the benefits of it. That's our capitalistic society. Are the Republican's now for communism when it comes to the opposing party's candidates?

Successfully updated karma reason!

Some of the wealthy feel an added responsibility to use their money to care for the less fortunate.

Then why does he not? He is using OUR money for his salvation. Hardly a noble endeavor.

Successfully updated karma reason!