If Edwards is such a populist, then why is the NY Times fawning over him?

[cryofan]

The NY Times made Edwards the latest subject of their series on the candidates:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/12/politics/campaigns/12EDWA.html?pagewanted=1&hp

If this guy is such a populist, then why is the NY Times article above such a love fest? We all know the Times wears a liberal facade, but in reality is for the most part the main organ of the corporatist-globalist govt.

Compare the Edwards love-fest article to the near-slam piece they did on a real populist--Dennis Kucinich:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/02/politics/campaigns/02KUCI.html?ex=1074056400&en=c1253c101cec4cab&ei=5070

Given the nascent slide of Dean, Edwards (or Clark) will probably beat Dean, and that is a good thing. I would rather have someone of common background in the White House than a patrician of CryptoRepublican leanings. But I doubt whether Edwards' is a populist. He is likely a conservative, but less conservative than Dean.

[Bombtrack]

1. just because he's not on the hard-left doesn't make him not a "real"

populist.

The reason Edwards probably is loved by journalists is that he is such a likable warm-hearted human being and it's almost impossible to not be impressed by him in one way or another.

The NY times has many writers with many different backgrounds, styles, opinions, and worldviews

[spooky3]

2. Edwards has a well-integrated platform. He shows how he will

pay for the benefits he is proposing (e.g., by eliminating the capital gains tax differential relative to earned income). This may not endear him to the average voter, who does not want to be a policy wonk or doesn't want to hear s/he will pay more taxes or experience some type of program cut. But to a good journalist, it should make a good story, presenting Edwards as a responsible and honest presidential candidate, because it's the responsibility of presidents not to demagogue but to face the music while campaigning.

[cryofan]

4. Why doesn't jack up the taxes on the rich?

Ask him that, will you? Maybe because he is a multimillionaire himself?

[AP]

9. He wants to jack up taxes on people who don't work for a living

Being that he works for a living, your logic applies, but not in the way you meant it.

[cryofan]

10. let's get down to cases and figgers

He wants to raise the tax on unearned income (like dividends, interest income) for upper income earners back up to the same level as what working people on their earned incomes. Is that a correct assesment?

If yes, then I would assert that is NOT a progressive taxation scheme. Progressive taxation is where high income earners pay a higher percent of taxes than low income earners. Edwards plan is not progressive, just less regressive than what we have now, and what we have now is the most regressive taxation we have ever had.

So, now tell me more about our populist multimillionaire, John Edwards......

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

11. tell me more about your populist choice?

because unless it's Dennis, Edwards is probably the best we could do (maybe Gep too).

[cryofan]

14. DK, of course

Right now:
1. DK
2. Gep
3. Clark
4. Edwards

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

15. Edwards should get above Clark, the "free trader"

Unfortunately, Clark is one of them - his tax plan is nice, and he knows there is NO WAY the GOP Congress will pass it - so it's an empty gesture.

I'd say:
1.DK
2.Gep
3.Edwards
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10. Dean/Clark/Kerry

[AP]

12. That's the definition of progressivity

First, take back tax cuts for earners over 200K. Progressive. Second, two tiers of cap gains tax, with threshold determined by your gross income. Progressive.

A progressive tax scheme requires higher income levels to be taxed at higher rates to reflect the fact that the more dollars you have, the lower your marginal valuation of an additional dollar is.

Of course, Lieberman is the only candidate talking about new, higher brackets and rates. But there's nothing in Edwards's philosophy that suggests he doesn't appreciate the need for that approach if more revenue is needed.

And I'll tell you about populist ten or fifteen millionaire John Edwards: He's won about 250 mil for his clients over his lifetime, has about 15 mil today, has paid the highest tax rates on his income that anyone pays (since it was mostly earned income -- he owns some appreciated real estate). The only money his parents or in-laws ever seem to have given him was 2 dollars to pay for a 20 dollar room on his honeymood. His wife isn't loaded. He understands what it's like to be punished for working for a living. He's not going to benefit from inheriting millions or selling stock options, or any of the other ways the Republicans try to reward.

If you get most of your income from working for a living and want a candidate who knows what that's like, your choices are limited to Kucinich, Gep and Edwards. I'd say Clark too, but it looks like he earned a big chunk of change from sitting on corporate boards (ie, trading on connections to military-industrial complex, albeit it seems like he behaved appropriately -- it's just that this isn't an option for people who work for a living).

[bearfartinthewoods]

30. don't forget clark's income as a lobbyist

would that be earned or unearned income................
it's not what you do, it's who you know

[DjTj]

34. that's still earned...

...you can't say that he didn't work for that. His connections were made while serving in the military, and nobody can argue that it wasn't work.

That's a very different situation from inheriting an oil fortune from your daddy. One is "work" and the other is "wealth". Understanding the difference is very very important in tax reform.

Thinking about it only as redistribution of income is short-sighted. We need a tax system that helps people make the climb from son of a mill worker or truck driver to millionaire and then taxes those millionaires heavily once they are there. Bush's changes in the tax code have made it so that we now tax people like crazy while they're trying to move up in the world and then we barely tax them at all once they've made it. Yearly income and wealth are two different things, and Edwards understands that better than anyone.

[AP]

37. taxed as earned income (if it's in form of stock options however, there

would be a cap gains component).

But you don't have to work very hard to make that money.

[spooky3]

19. no, that's not my understanding of his proposal

I understand it to be this: let's say you are in a 35% marginal tax bracket (i.e., relatively high income). Currently your capital gains may be taxed at 15%. Edwards would eliminate the distinction, so that your capital gains are also taxed at 35%.

The $25000 per year waitperson would not be paying a 35% marginal tax rate before or after. S/he may be in a 15% marginal tax bracket before and after. So his proposal is progressive in that the higher earner pays a much higher marginal rate on ALL income, whereas before, s/he paid it only on earned income.

I am pulling these %s out of the air for illustration, but someone else could find the exact #s to verify.

Edwards does not propose confiscatory rates on high middle or highest categories, which may be what some DUers would require to support a candidate. I understand that, but I would not support that, and I don't think a candidate who does has a ghost of a chance of winning.

[flpoljunkie]

16. AP, can you explain why Edwards who is running an "economic populism"

campaign, who speaks of "building one America", would in July 2001, vote for H.333 the bankruptcy bill, a giveaway to the banks and credit card companies.

I would note that Bruce Reed, of the DLC, is one of his campaign advisors. Edwards' economic populism rhetoric does not seem to square with his record on this important issue--bankruptcy laws that are heavily tilted toward the banks and credit card companies do not help regular people. Most bankruptcies result from catastrophic illness and unpaid medical bills.

I know there are a lot of banks in North Carolina, but it appears that Edwards put their interest first rather than the public interest when it came time to vote. The law was passed in the Senate, but was killed later in the House. It passed again in the House in March 2003 and was introduced in the Senate, where it sits with an election looming.

Can you explain this inconsistency? I was very surprised that the voted for H.333; I did not expect this from John Edwards as he had waged an impressive fight for the patients' bill of rights.

[AP]

17. I'll go with the explanation given yesterday:

HR 333 was loaded with things the banking industry didn't want. Wellstone fought to get stuff in. It passed 85-15. It was left to Senators to decide if they wanted to have a vote registered for it or against it for political reasons, however, Democrats must have been pretty sure that they were giving Bush a bill that wouldn't get signed, which is what happened.

I think it was probably more of a chess move and Edwards probably played it right.

Bruce Reed? Lots of people are advisors, but I've never heard his name mentioned in connection with Edwards before, so I'm not sure if he's having an influence.

Dan Schorr said on NPR that the DLC doesn't like Edwards becuase he's not down with the globalism-a-go-go. As Edwards noted recently, in '98 ge ran against NAFTA.

As for the banks, during the Blue v Bowles hooplah, I saw an article which said that Edwards rarely returned the calls of power NC banking lobbyists, and since he started running for president, he never returned their calls. The way it was written was meant to be a criticism (he's ignoring important NC business). Well, I think it sounds good. And I don't know hom much he could be selling out to NC banks if he's not taking their calls.

[AP]

18. Here's what mbali said about HR 333:

mbali (547 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]

20. Yes, but why did they feel compelled to vote for the bankruptcy bill?

Why not vote against the bill? Were they trying to please the banking and credit card industries in their states, playing both sides, knowing that the bill would die in conference?

This does not seem principled to me.

[AP]

22. To keep the heat off at home in an election year? Because he

really felt it was a ticking time bomb for the republicans? I'm not sure, but I do like mbali's reading.

Principle is getting results. The result seems to be that this bill has not passed.

[flpoljunkie]

23. It was not an election year for Edwards in July, 2001. Cleland, upcoming.

Hillary, no.

Principle is not getting results. Principle is standing up for what is right when it matters.

The bank and credit card companies have given millions to both parties to try and get a bankruptcy bill that favors them. The House passed such a bill in March, 2003. The bill awaits action in the Senate.

I can assure you that the banks and credit card companies have not forgotten, and will continue to lobby both parties for a bankruptcy bill heavily tilted in their favor.

[AP]

24. I bet the Republicans don't want action on this bill becuase it's not good

enough. Why do you think it has sat for two years?

They probably think that after 2004 if Bush wins they can get a better one. If it doesn't look good, they'll take this one if they can (but no politician running for election will want to be responsible for reviving this bill). It will be good for people who didn't have to suffer any bad bankruptcy bill. When Edwards gets elected, the fact that he has put consumer debt and predatory lending front and center, and the fact that he doesn't talk to lobbyists at all will mean that we get a better bill from him.

This is basically the explanation mbali gave which you seem to be ignoring so that you can take this up with me.

[flpoljunkie]

26. AP, the Senate bankruptcy bill was condemned by consumer groups as

heavily tilted toward the banks and credit card companies. The House passed bill in March 2003, the same.

These special interest know they cannot get this, or any other bankruptcy bill passed in the current economy and the "jobless recovery"--even Rethugs aren't this politically stupid.

That is why the Senate has taken no action on the bankruptcy bill.

[AP]

35. And according to mbali, they dropped a poison pill in it that might

explain why no bankruptcy bill was passed despite Repub control of congress.

[flpoljunkie]

39. This does not explain why Edwards voted for the bankruptcy bill...

If Edwards and others put a poison pill in it so it would not pass in the House, why did Edwards feel the need for vote for this awful bill?

[AP]

40. So that it passed.

And, perhaps, to confuse all those huge national banks in NC.

When they complain about him not paying attention to the interests of one of the biggest money makers in NC, he can turn around as say that he cared deeply about a bill that dealt with their business, he worked on it, and then believed enough in his own work that he voted for it.

He can leave it to the banks to explain to NC voters why the bill wasn't good enough and why they've asked Republican leadership to stall it until they can figure out a new strategy because of the poison pill.

This is all speculation, but, again, this is basically what mbali said.

[spooky3]

21. Isn't this from another thread? I believe mbali explained this

very well, with facts to back it up.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=99819#99958

mbali said:

"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."

Since you started that thread, I'm not sure why you didn't read and reply to mbali's post?

[anti-bush]

28. Have you read his policies?

He has repeatedly stated that he will repeal the Bush tax cuts for people making more than $200,000/yr. He will close corporate loopholes to prevent them from escaping their tax burdens. He will ensure that non-work income will be taxed at an equal level to work income.

He is a populist because he believes in and supports the working man.

[cryofan]

3. I actually agree--Edwards charms people, including reporters

I actually intended to put that into my post, but forgot. Kucinich is not nearly as charming as Edwards. It is no wonder Edwards made millions through his persuasive charms as applied to juries during his career. Wathcing him work the room on CSPAN was something else.

However, looking his tax plan that his supporters here claim will "soak the rich," I have to disagree with them. Yes, it is more progressive than what we have now, but that bar is way way too low.....

[Doctor_J]

7. and, if charm weren't important,

Gore would've beaten Smirk about 65-35. We need a "people person" out in front.

[Bombtrack]

13. who do you support of the major candidates?

He has a great tax plan. he's the only one to raise the rate on capital gains

[bearfartinthewoods]

31. he has a townhall tonite...cspan 9 PM

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

5. NYT - good cop, WSJ - bad cop

you know how it works. Go Edwards!

[Doctor_J]

6. He's my guy

If Wes weren't in the race I would be for JE. He's also my choice for Clark's VP. I believe he is the face I want on the party for the next 20 years. The anti-Delay in every way.

[AP]

8. This is from a series on all nine candidates...

...and they saved the best for last.

I have no idea how they picked the order. If it was random, Edwards got lucky. Maybe they did want to help him months ago when the series started and so they saved his for the week before the caucus.

However, the fact is (according to a reference to this article on the Edwards blog) that this article is part of a series of nine. Each candidate got their moment under the NYT's sun.

[sandnsea]

25. Edwards is DLC

For real and true, on NDOL site and everything. Maybe he'll get more attention if there's something to bash him on.

[arewethereyet]

27. Edwards is a winner

and isn't this whats importent ?

[rumguy]

29. Edwards does have momentum! He's being attacked in DU! Proud

moment for his campaign...

[arewethereyet]

32. and the attacks are so... so... nerf-like !

they'll be throwing marshmellows pretty soon !

[bearfartinthewoods]

33. i'm sort of savorying it

basking, really, in the glow!

[the populist]

36. He's not a populist.

He's a standard candidate with nothing new to say. The sooner he drops out, the better for Gephardt.

[AP]

38. I love politics. I pay attention to politics. I think Edwards is great.

I think he has a lot of new stuff to say.

I think his class politics are great. Rarely do you make it as far as Edwards in politics without having to make a lot of compromises. Edwards has made none. America needs a president like him.