Monday, January 15, 2007

John Edwards

As the first Australian to mention Nancy Pelosi I consider John Edwards, current candidate for the 2008 Democratic nomination, and 2004 vice-presidential candidate who has received zero media attention in Australia compared to the two unannounced candidates of Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama. What makes Edwards interesting is that he is trying to ride two waves: 1) the blogsphere outsider rebellion against the Democratic party establishment seen as too soft on Iraq and Bush and 2) the economic populist backlash that was significant at the last elections. Edwards has been appealing to former Howard dean supporters, an affluent and educated group. and relying heavily on the Internet, but he has also stacked out a position of opposition to trade liberalization in an appeal to blue-collar voters. The Washington Post has him at number 2 in the list of Democratic presidential contenders, but his performance will be a test of the 'new populism'.

Labels:

5 Comments:

At 5:52 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Edwards is a wolf in sheep's clothing, plain and simple.

Stop for a minute, and consider what he's actually done, and not his talk.

While many members in congress wisely voted against the Iraq war, Edwards not only voted for it, he co-sponsored the disastrous resolution with neocon Joe Lieberman, that made it possible.

Edwards also co-sponsored and voted for the massive increase in H-1b visas, that dumped 195,000 foreign workers on the job market, destroying perhaps hundreds of thousands of American tech careers.

Edwards voted for normal trade relations with China, making American workers have to compete with Chinese labor standards, which of course they can't.

Edwards voted for the DREAM act, forcing states to give in-state tuition (a subsidy) to illegal aliens, when there are poor Americans in these states who can’t afford to send their kids to college, partially because illegal immigration drove down their wages. This act, of course only encourages more illegal immigration because it extends even further the taxpayers obligations to those who break our laws to come here.

But what about civil liberties? Here again, Edwards voted to the Patriot act, perhaps the greatest risk to civil liberties, ever.

Edwards supporters don’t want Edwards to be held accountable for these facts. Yet, Edwards made himself extremely wealthy holding others (such as doctors) accountable - while doctors malpractice premiums rose so much as to make many obstetricians leave their specialty. More illegal alien taxpayer payed births, and fewer obstetricians - could that be why health care costs are skyrocketing?

One simple question - 10 years ago, if you did your job, the way Edwards performed as Senator, do you think he would he advocate that you get a big promotion?

Or do you think he would he have sued you and taken you to the cleaners?

 
At 7:43 AM, Anonymous Andrew Leigh said...

The thing I like most about Edwards is that he's chosen to spend the past few years working in a poverty centre in North Carolina. Not the choice you'd necessarily make if all you cared about was winning the nomination.

 
At 12:56 PM, Anonymous Bring Back CL's blog said...

with Respect if opposing trade liberalisation was a winner then Gephardt would have been a Presidential candidate.

He seems to lack the overall substance of centrist democrats.

On a related but different topic are you enjoying the West Wing and its portrayal of the primaries?

 
At 8:34 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

that simply isnt true

Gephardt supported H-1b visa being raised, both in 1998, and 2000

he was as 2 faced as edwards, only without the charisma

 
At 7:15 PM, Blogger Geoff Robinson said...

it's good to get the negative view on Edwards. Even if he is sincere the evidence seems to be that trade liberalisation is only a part, probabaly a small one, of the trends to growing inequality in the US. However as Andrew points out his psot-2004 activities point in his favour.Overall it is a strong group of Democrat candidates I think and economic policy seems a bigger issuse than in 2004.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home