Wall Street Journal: Corporations are Scared of John Edwards

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

From today's edition, "Political Capital" by Alan Murray (one of their best columns): (WCTV commentary in parenthesis)

www.wsj.com

Senator Kerry isn't the candidate who scares inhabitants of corporate boardrooms most (ha! wonder why?). Nor is it hot-tongued Howard Dean. That honor (and yes it is an honor) goes instead to NC Senator John Edwards. Sen. Edwards has been relentlessly positive in his campaign, focusing on helping the workers, not hurting corporations. But he is a former trial lawyer, financed by trial lawyers. If organized labor was the antithesis of big business in the 1970s, trial lawyers occupy that post today. (Not a good thing, but I'll work with what we've got)

...

The new populism could prove an effective campaign tactic ... It certainly targets some ills worth of attention. Corporate tax shelters have reached startling proportions, corporate subsidies should be on the cutting board and CEO compensation has gone beyond all reason. (Look, they admit it themselves)

But the rift between Democrats and corporate American is dangerous for both....Corporate America needs friends on both sides of the aisle. If it ties too closely to the Republicans, it could face retribution when the winds change.

____

WCTV: Allow me to play weatherman, WSJ. The winds have changed, and retribution is closer than you think. Your gated communities won't help you.

"Watch out, you rich people, weep and wail over your impending miseries...the wages of the workers that you kept back through fraud will be used as evidence against you, and the cries of the workers have reached the ears of God." James 5


I am a Dennis Kucinich Democrat. My vote is transferable to John Edwards and Al Sharpton!!

[kentuck]

1. Scratch off Dean....scratch off Clark.......

Edwards is next...We must destroy those that would seem a threat by their words...

[AP]

2. It's amazing to me that anyone would need to have the WSJ tell them this.

This is something that we should all have been able to figure out just from listening and looking at the candidates.

And it's amazing to me that there will be the inevitable posts which will claim that this is a double secret reverse ploy to get people to think that Edwards is anti-corp when he's really pro-corp.

[flpoljunkie]

3. Perhaps Alan Murray ought to ask Edwards why he voted for the bankruptcy

bill back in March, 2001--it was an egregious giveaway to the banks and credit card companies.

"Regular folks" would be alarmed, if they knew how Edwards voted on this bill.

[magatte]

4. same here,...

Edwards look to me like a fake... Listen to him claorming that he is a Washington outsider! The guy has been a senator for what, 6-7 years....??? He will drown you with populism this, poor people that, but I have the feeling that he is too self-concerned to truly put a fight at the risk of damaging his political power.
Just think about it with a slightly strategic bend: WSJ.... endorses Edwards for his anti-corporation stand.

[tryanhas]

5. At the Edwards blog last night, I can tell

Why didn't you also post the explanation for why he did.

I basically get so SICK AND TIRED of people criticizing voting for a bill, when they don't realize that Bills are not ONE ISSUE DOCUMENTS.

Plenty of Congressmen vote for bills because of a lot of different things in the bill. Things that they feel are necessary, although things may be in there that they disagree with, and their amendments get shot down.

In other words, if there were things in the Patriot Act, for example, that needed to be passed for safety reasons, and the only way to do it at the time was to vote for the ENTIRE BILL, although there were some things in the bill that you disagreed with, there is no reason to throw the entire thing out by voting against it, when you can always vote for something that's necessary and then go back and change the troubled spots.

[flpoljunkie]

6. I would love to hear Edward's explanation for why he voted for this bill

.

[dumpster_baby]

8. If I recall correctly, he voted for it b/c it contained a poison pill ....

....and that poison pill was guaranteed to kill it. My impression is that the bill never became law.

[flpoljunkie]

9. Not in 3/01, it didn't. The subsequent vote in July had abortion protester

provision added-- protesters not being able to write off civil fines in bankruptcy. It passed in the Senate with Edward's vote, passed later in the House, but right wing GOP objected to this provision.

Bankruptcy bill was reintroduced and passed in the House on 3/19/03. This bill, H.R. 975 was placed on the Senate calendar two days later, and there it languishes, no surprise, with the 2004 presidential election looming.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

11. so, it did NOT pass?

Corporations aren't scared of Kerry - they are of Edwards. That's enough for me.

[flpoljunkie]

15. So, you believe what the WSJ is peddling, do you?

They are the worst. Edwards owes the "regular folks" an explanation for his vote in March, 2001.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

heh - nice try flpojunkie - I know the WSJ

I read them everyday. This isn't from the editorial page (which is 100% malarky) this is a column from the news section - and their news section is impeccable.

I'll tell you what I'm NOT buying - whatever Kerry is trying to sell this time.

[AP]

20. WSJ WRITERS have blown cover on important stories. It's the editors who...

suck.

[AP]

16. The poison pills are the things in it about bankruptcy which made MBNA

say 'hold on, let's see if we can get something better if Bush wins in 2004,"

Bush controls all branches of this government, yet MBNA has not asked Republicans to get this bill into law.

Don't you wonder why?

[AP]

19. I'll tell you: so the biggest industry in NC can't run commercials this

fall sayin, "John Edwards claims to care about your jobs. John Edwards voted against the wishes of NC's largest and most profitable employers. Does John Edwards REALLY care about your jobs. John Edwards cares about himself."

[Faygo Kid]

10. Did he really? Wow. Can't support him, if true. Help, please.

That bankruptcy bill is the most Draconian thing going, a giveaway to the credit card companies. Please provide a link. I need to confirm this. Wasn't it just the House that voted?

[AP]

18. Thanks to things Edwards and Wellstone got into it, it's not good

enough for Republicans. It's not law.

Why did Edwards vote for it? Becuase banking is the biggest industry in NC and he has a chance of winning NC and the last thing he needs is commericals to the employees of largest industry in the state saying he voted against their best interests and their jobs.

The way Democrats dealt with this bill is genius. We should be commending Edwards, not criticizing him. He's doing what he needs to do to get elected president, and he's not letting crappy legislation pass.

[Faygo Kid]

31. OK, thanks to all - but this is a core issue for me

I see both my senators, Levin and Stabenow, voted as Edwards did, so OK. But, this is an issue that I will watch carefully. No one who favors this giveaway - which will be pressed hard again by the GOP - can get my vote. Seems to me it's the kind of issue that Edwards should cite in his campaign. Would resonate with most folks. Thanks to all who explained.

[AP]

34. He is talking about predatory lending about the debt crunch as a transfer

of wealth to the wealthy. He's contextualizing it much better than any other candidate. (And for comparison, take a look at Dean's education policy.)

[flpoljunkie]

21. Links to Senate bankruptcy bill votes in March and July 2001.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00036

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00236

[AP]

24. This was far more complicated - and less damning - than made to appear ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=157849#157924

mbali  (598 posts)
Sun Jan-11-04 10:32 AM
Response to Reply #8

17. This was far more complicated - and less damning - than made to appear ...
Edited on Sun Jan-11-04 10:41 AM by mbali

Edwards voted for the Senate version of the bill, but there's more to the story.

Edwards joined most Democrats, including Kerry, Schumer, Wellstone, etc. in attaching an amendment, authored by Wellstone himself, that made the Senate version much harsher on the banking industry and easier on individual debtors. At that point, it became a judgment call whether to vote for the bill or against it since voting for it, with the amendment, would force the bill to conference and increase the likelihood that it would die in conference or that conference would produce a version more favorable to individuals than it otherwise would have been. The odds of this were excellent since Leahy, Kennedy, Feingold, Schumer, Durbin were among the Democratic conferees. The banking industry and corporate interests hated this version, by the way.

And, yes, Kerry, Wellstone and 14 other Democrats voted against final passage. But all of the other Democrats, including Clinton, Cleland and Edwards, voted for final passage, largely because they knew that the version the Dems had forced would probably eventually scuttle the bill. And it has. The bill died at the end of the 107th Congress.

It's important to know all of the facts before condemning anyone for one particular vote. Senate procedure and strategy is extremely complicated and just looking at a yea or nay does not always tell the story. That's why it is sometimes misleading to try to characterize anyone's motives or views just by looking at one vote.

[flpoljunkie]

25. A poor rationalization for this vote on part of Edwards, Clinton,et al.

.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

28. and it didn't pass did it?

Edwards saved us from it.

[AP]

30. And he's saving NC for the win column.

I can't believe people would be happier with a politician who would knowingly step into a republican trap just based on priciple.

I look at the D. Brooks Smith thing and this vote as suggesting these candidate have their eyes on the prize.

If Edwards had a record like Dean's of doing everything possible for big business and of liking conservative judges, I'd be sick to my stomach. But that's so clearly NOT what's happening here.

The guy is doing everything he can to get elected to SAVE us from big business and a fascist judiciary.

[flpoljunkie]

32. Perhaps Edwards has "evolved" on the bankruptcy issue...

now that he is running for president.

I sincerely hope that he has.

[AP]

35. Laura Knoy says that Edwards is the same candidate he was on day one.

What's this new 'evolving' meme? He's the most consistent candidate running.

[flpoljunkie]

37. I meant evolved on voting for consumer protections vs a bankruptcy bill--

that only the banks and credit card companies could love. I truly hope Edwards has evolved on looking out for the "regular folks" and will no longer support such egregious bankruptcy bills.

[AP]

43. He hasn't evolved. He helped build a bill that MBNA would order WH to sit

on, and then he voted for it so that MBNA couldn't run ads in NC saying he was anti-jobs.

That's not evolotution. That's consistent brilliance.

[flpoljunkie]

44. Edwards purports to stand up for the "regular folks". GOP killed the bill

because of the abortion protestor provisions--otherwise it was a done deal. The banks and credit card companies were said to be happy with the bill otherwise.

[AP]

46. Edwars doesn't get credit for getting that in the bill?

And then voting for it?

Why not?

[flpoljunkie]

47. Am pleased that Sen. Jon Corzine who endorsed JK today voted with Kerry

against both these bankruptcy bills in 2001.

[AP]

53. Banking industry isn't about to run ads criticizing Corzine in NC during

his presidential run.

[flpoljunkie]

56. Duh. The true test is when you stand up to powerful special interests...

when it matters. when it might cost you.

You call it brilliant, others might call it craven political expediency.

[AP]

57. The TRUE test is whether you're sitting in the white house next january

or sitting on the sidelines while Bush is entrenching fascism for 50 years.

[flpoljunkie]

60. You just confirmed my point. Political expediency trumps all, including

principle. Happy you made it clear.

[AP]

61. Winning is everything in politics. Duh. I'd rather be President than pass

any single-issue litmus test and not be president. Duh.

And, psst. This bill didn't even get passed, and the Democrats achieved that without even being in control of ANY branch of government. And Edwards didn't set any mindfields in the process which would trip him up in NC.

This is something to be commended.

[Edwards4President]

33. Edwards is no friend of credit card companies

He has been slamming them, along with predatory lenders,unscrupulous mortgage companies and payday loan stores. Not does he blast them and their practices everywhere he goes, he has co-sponsored legislation to crack down on them.

I doubt that any of these companies feel that Edwards has ever provided them any giveaways. He's not exactly a friendly face to them.

[dumpster_baby]

7. Edwards and Clark are neck and neck for me now!

you should join the rest of us ex-Kucitizens over here in the Clark-or-Edwards-or-Bust Camp.....

Edwards is looking better and better as Clark's inexperience begins to hurt him more and more.

[elsiesummers]

12. CNBC did a similar televised piece

yesterday evening.

Knowing that the Pubs have a demonization script for every one of our guys, and I am pro-Edwards:

The gist is that they are going to say Edwards is bad for business and therefore bad for the economy and use his past as a trial lawyer fighting large corporations to tie the package up in a bow. I have also seen Frist pronounce "trial lawyer" as "trial liyar."

I have trouble believing this will sell to average Americans still angry about Enron - but who knows. May just be a way for Bush to raise more corporate money, if Edwards is the nominee.

There is a script for fighting any possible Dem candidate - and I think this Edwards one is less dammaging than some of the others. (Kerry-taxachusettes liberal elitist and Gore like bore, Dean-Crazy/Angry left wing nut, Clark-Fired from military and the Clelland script, plus low on domestic policy, Edwards- trial lawyer/light weight.)

I think Edwards can overcome his demonization script better than the others, would put Clark in second place because the negative script is more dangerous and Clark is not as on message a campaigner. Dean and Kerry have more serious problems that they may not be able to overcome.

In the end, all the scripts are dangerous if the candidate does not have the moxey and charisma to overcome the script.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

14. maybe not Enron, but offshoring jobs?

Yeah, most Americans are pissed.

[AP]

17. Edwards was called a socialist by a caller-in to Laura Knoy's show.

Listen to how he deals with it and you'll see why he's going to beat that rap that Republicans will inevitably try on him.

Here it is: video.c-span.org/project/c04/c04012204_edwards.rm

[elsiesummers]

36. Novak used the "socialist" remar

about Edwards on Crossfire today (while Carville praised Edwards' economic message).

Socialist must be a current RW talking point on Edwards. Wonder if Saphire(sp?) or Will have said this yet - that would be confirmation.

[mlawson]

38. That may well be the way KKKRove will go after him.

And it could work: the public is trained, Pavlov-style, to react hysterically to that word. But most do not understand that in economics, 'socialism' means that factors of production are owned by a state. Redistribution is implied, but not included in the definition. But this is too complicated to explain on the campaign trail.

Still, if anyone can withstand rove's atacks, it's Edwards.

[spooky3]

40. this is hysterical! A self-made millionaire ...

who praises the land of opportunity that made it possible and wants that for everyone else, now is a socialist?

Oh, I can't wait for them to try what they consider to be a smear in that fashion. I can almost hear Edwards giving various parts of his stump speech about his programs for middle class, the poor, and working families, and then, talking to the crowd as though they're neighbors across the fence, saying, "Y'all know who (Karl Rove or whoever) is? (crowd: yeah...) Well, you may have heard what he's been saying about me. (crowd: yeah...laughing) I ask y'all: Does what we've been talkin' about sound like so-shull-is-m (said in a deprecating way) to YOU? (crowd: NOOOOO). How 'bout giving people the chance to go to college, get a good job, and buy a house--is that 'socialistic'? (crowd: laughing, cheering)." and so on. Then, "well, Mr. Rove, we have news for you...that is called "The American Dream"!!"

And the crowd goes wild...

[AP]

42. They got the left calling him too right, and the right calling him too lft

This, friends, is a winning formula.

[spooky3]

49. AP, how do i get to this? I'm at Cspan's site and did a search

but can't find it.

[spooky3]

22. Frist's family has been involved in an Enron-like scandal in the health

care industry. I don't think he really wants to open that can of worms with John Edwards.

[VOX]

13. I'm having a deuce of a time deciding between Edwards and Clark...

Have been donating to both campaigns (also Dean's), but I've been on the seesaw between Clark and Edwards for weeks now.

My primary is on March 2nd, so I've still got some time. But, whew -- both of these guys have strong merits in my book.

[spooky3]

23. it's a much nicer dilemma to have than Bush versus

a Dem nominee who doesn't interest you much, isn't it?

I love your kitty in the sig. line too.

[JohnLocke]

41. Well, I think reading Edward's platform will help you, here's his website

johnedwards2004.com

[Uzybone]

26. At least you are honest

you are not talking about being anti corporations and then making your votes "transferable" to the most pro corporate candidate in the field.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

29. thanks

I know which side I'm on.

[dawn]

27. Go Edwards!

That's one of the many reasons I like him. I'm glad he scares corporations.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

39. If Edwards wins, I'll not only donate

I'll go door to door to gotv for him. Hell, I'll move to a swing state!

[onecitizen]

45. You know, they should be..........

this guy should definitely be VP if not P. He is good at what he does. I wouldn't be opposed to him as P really.

[dumpster_baby]

48. Read this article on Edwards' populism

Entitled "Pretend Populism":

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/16664.htm

[spooky3]

50. sorry, NY Post is not a credible site unless you're interested in Bennifer

[dumpster_baby]

52. can you give any more tangible criticism of the article?

I have been reading a lot of news for many years, and have read many an interesting and informative article in the NY Post.

[AP]

54. Uh, this is right wing criticism of raising taxes on the rich.

Does ANYONE here at DU agree with this?


But he can't reconcile his market-friendly initiatives with his proposed repeal of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest - which would hit the wallets of those who have the most money to invest in the country's future.

Edwards has this to say about job creation: "Our markets allocate capital more efficiently than any bureaucrat." In that vein, he would create a government venture-capital fund to support private-sector entrepreneurs who propose business ventures in rural and inner-city communities.

But Edwards' effort would be dwarfed by the harm caused by his tax hike on the rich.

[AP]

55. More crap from this Op Ed:

Edwards has a similarly schizophrenic view of the stock market. He would use the tax code to encourage middle-class Americans to "build wealth" and "to invest in American businesses." But his fixation on punishing the rich means that he's just working against himself.

Why?

Edwards would slash capital-gains taxes on 95 percent of Americans - all but the superrich - to lure middle-class investors into the market and to drive economic growth.

But Edwards can't see that this modest supply-side maxim - tax cuts encourage more investment - applies to wealthier taxpayers as well. If taxes are slashed across the board, the markets will stay strong - and the middle class will reap the benefits.


Let's not talk about the allocation of the tax burden, eh? The rich already get a free ride with taxes. If they don't have an incentive to do stuff with all the money they have now from being unburdened by taxes, I don't see how letting them participate in the uburdening of the middle class is going to help them any more.


Edwards is also plunging ahead with another traditionally Republican theme - encouraging average Americans to save directly for their retirement. But as with his other modest initiatives, he stops short before it really counts.

Edwards would match some working families' private retirement savings with federal tax-credit dollars - up to $1,000 for couples who earn $50,000 or less. He notes that a typical family could save $200,000 over a lifetime of savings.

The average American is GOING INTO MORE DEBT year over year. This modest plan actually constitutes a huge shift in direction for middle class from being net spenders
to becoming net savers.

This is an odd step for a candidate steeped in the class wars - he's covertly admitting that average Americans shouldn't rely on Social Security or pensions to cover their retirement needs. He's also encouraging Americans to work with big corporations, not against them - Enron or no Enron.

That is such twisted logic, I don't think I need to explain why.

But Americans who earn more than $50,000 deserve the same opportunity to squirrel some savings away. Alas, affluent workers aren't covered under Edwards' plan; they must look to Bush's private-sector retirement-savings proposals.

The rich are getting RICHER. They arleady have their incentives to accumulate wealth. Edwards is talking about getting the middle class in on the benefits the rich are already experiencing.

This auther is trying to pretend the super rich are suffering and that Edwards is only trying to help the middle class. It's a lie.

Edwards isn't quite ready to join the GOP yet - his stealthy overtures toward the free market are wedged between his trademark sunny-side-up attacks on banks, prescription-drug makers, millionaire executives, corporate lobbyists and the rest of the "privileged few" who run the country.

Simply a smear to make the most liberal and class-aware canidate (who has a good shot of winning) sound unappealing to unaware liberals.

[spooky3]

58. It's not worth spending time on articles from such sources

The best thing to do when people make allegations about empirical reality is to go find well-controlled studies and see if the allegations are supported. Anyone know the economic literature on tax cuts and "supply side economics?"

I'll just respond to one of the points AP also responded to:

"Edwards would slash capital-gains taxes on 95 percent of Americans - all but the superrich - to lure middle-class investors into the market and to drive economic growth.

But Edwards can't see that this modest supply-side maxim - tax cuts encourage more investment - applies to wealthier taxpayers as well. If taxes are slashed across the board, the markets will stay strong - and the middle class will reap the benefits."

The person who "can't see" is the writer of this article. Edwards has NOT bought the hypothesis/propaganda that "tax cuts encourage more investment." The reason he supports allowing low CG rates for lower income people is so that they will have more income to live on and be able to spend this money on necessities and education. Does empirical evidence show that, ceteris paribus, tax cuts in general spur investment that then creates jobs? Or do tax cuts in general encourage spending? Or is it necessary to specify what types of tax cuts, who is getting them, their magnitude, etc.? and so on.

This is why reading this type of article is useless.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

59. NYPost, owned by Murdoch

part of the FOX family of companies. I can see why they don't like Edwards.

----> My Fantasy Ticket: Edwards/Kucinich!

[Darranar]

51. Edwards would be an excellent president.