The Democratic Establishment Can't Stand John Edwards

Cypress

Well-known member
The insurance companies hate him, the Iraq War defense contractors hate him, the ivory tower Democratic establishment hates him. That's why I like him. :)



The Democratic Establishment Can't Stand John Edwards

From MSNBC transcripts

CHUCK TODD: The only problem that Edwards would have, even if he won Iowa and New Hampshire, is that the Democratic elite can‘t stand Edwards. There is this weird establishment problem that Edwards has and they take it as a badge of honor. And they say, see, these people in D.C., they don‘t like me because I‘m speaking the truth or I‘m a populist. But you know what, at the end of the day, if he ends up as her chief challenger, I think she could rally the establishment and win this thing in one of these delegate fights. And that‘s the real hurdle Edwards would have if he...

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Give me some names of the establishment? Who are these people? Anne Wexler? Ann Lewis? Who are these people?

TODD: Yes, it‘s called the Democratic National Committee.


If we are to believe Chuck Todd, which I certainly do, I think this little moment of candor, uttered late at night after the one of the recent Democratic debates, speaks volumes about the state of the Democratic party. What kind of people "can't stand" John Edwards? The same kind of people who stood with AT&T and Verizon against the American people. The same kind of people who are benefiting from the way our corrupt Washington culture operates, and so therefore feel threatened by any upstarts coming along trying to change things.

The same kind of people who bow at the feet of radical right-winger, disciple of Ayn Rand, Alan Greenspan. When Ayn Rand, whose philosophy of sociopathic individualism, and an enemy of everything Franklin D. Roosevelt stood for, infiltrates the ideological center of Democratic power in Washington, you can pretty much pronounce our party dead. And now that Alan Greenspan has revealed he can't stand Edwards too, watch the jackals howl with delight.

The fundamental issue facing our nation is as old as dirt. And it is the issue from which almost all other issues derive - monied interests versus the public interests. You can call it Wall Street vs. Main Street. And Franklin Roosevelt, a child of the monied establishment himself, became a champion of the public interests. He understood full well that the inevitable tendency of capitalism to concentrate wealth and power into the hands of the few was a threat to our democracy and our way of life. And so he fought through measures that helped reign in capital power and ensured a more equitable distribution of wealth. He demonstrated that democratic government can be an agent of common good, and exemplified our commitment, not just to ourselves, but to society as a whole.

And the jackals have been chipping away at it ever since. I think we can safely say, in the year 2007, that FDR's social compact is dead, Ayn Rand's dream of social and economic Darwinism has been made real under the auspices of the "free market", and the party of the people has been overthrown by its traditional enemies.

Big money never liked the New Deal and its interventions on business. But it wasn't until the 70s that they decided to get nasty. As Markos points out in Crashing the Gate, the infamous Powell Memo was a call to arms and inspired the launch of a massive political campaign by a coalition of business interests to influence politics and policy. But what few know is how that campaign, led by a newly formed lobby group called the Business Roundtable, resulted in one of the greatest political realignments in American history and, eventually, resulted in the rise of the Democratic Leadership Council.

It wasn't just the Powell memo. As Clawson, Neustadtl, and Weller write in their book 'Dollars and Votes - How Business Campaign Contributions Subvert Democracy':

From I969 through I972, virtually the entire American business community experienced a series of political setbacks without parallel in the postwar period. In the space of only four years, Congress enacted a significant tax-reform bill, four major environmental laws, an occupational safety and health act, and a series of additional consumer-protection statutes. The government also created a number of important new regulatory agencies, including the Environmental Protection Administration (EPA), the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), investing them with broad powers over a wide range of business decisions. In contrast to the I960s, many of the regulatory laws enacted during the early I970s were broader in scope and more ambitious in their objectives. As a result, corporations felt under attack and vulnerable.

So what did big business do? They retaliated.

Continued...







http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/12/21/15416/155/830/425311
 
Not any time soon he isn't. He wants to keep a good bit of troops there and/or in the region. Only three democrats want to totally pull out of Iraq: Richardson, Gravel, Kucinich. Richardson though just wants to keep troops at the US embassy. And again Edwards helped to give them these jobs in the first place.

He's going to pull out of iraq, and not establish any permanent military bases there.
 
98 senators out of 100 voted for the Tonkin gulf resolution.

By that logic, not a single senator could ever be given credit for ultimately trying to end the vietnam war.
 
With big business though I do think he'd be good on them however. I don't think he was in the Senate long enough to get any corporate money. I'm not too sure but he did fight corporations as a trial lawyer. However out of the current top three he'd be the one I would vote for if Richardson doesn't get any higher by the time my state votes because I do like his domestic issues.
 
and only 10% of dems can stand that phoney poser, if he had a mullett he'd be your cousin cypress.
 
I won't vote for him. He perputuates class envy in this country, he pretends that he and few other leftist millionaires are the only good rich people in the country and the rest are a bunch of greedy robber barons working hard to elimate all health and saftey regulations and move all the jobs overseas. That and he is a gun grabber, he thinks that handguns aren't firearms and that it is a privledge to own them but it should be a right for everyone to have internet access. He is a looney a populist as Huckleberry Hound with out all the Jewish Zombie stuff though I am sure that Edwards believes in the Jewish Zombie.
 
98 senators out of 100 voted for the Tonkin gulf resolution.

By that logic, not a single senator could ever be given credit for ultimately trying to end the vietnam war.

One of the biggest problems with a deliberative chamber, I think, is the lynch mob effect. If people talk and deliberate on something, the minority, or even the majority, may very well be bullied into taking the side of a few charasmatic members. The vast majority will give into social pressure. Think about how often 12 completely different people in juries come to outragous, unanimous verdicts, for instance.

There is usually a wisdom in crowds; the people who don't know what they're talking about vote in all different directions, while experts in a subject usually vote in one way. This is destroyed if the crowd voting is whipped into a frenzy. It's one reason I think that we should have one huge, non-deliberative chamber, where there is no debate, and people simply vote up and down on measures presented to them by the other house based on their own personal gut feeling.
 
I like him too. At least he saying the truth. whether he would do anything about is another story. But it is nice to hear someone call a spade a spade. Our government is controlled by corporate money.
 
Back
Top