Edwards to jab rivals again, calling them "corporate Democrats"

[antigop]

http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/08/edwards-to-jab-.html

>>
"We cannot replace a group of corporate Republicans with a group of corporate Democrats, just swapping the Washington insiders of one party for the Washington insiders of the other," Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards plans to declare today in what the Associated Press is calling his "toughest" attack yet on his rivals for the party's presidential nomination.
>>

More here...
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2007-08-23-edwards-change_N.htm

[KittyWampus]

1. Edwards, trying desperately to pretend to be something more than he is. Face it John, you are

just as moderate and corporate friendly as the rest of the pack.

Edit- and we have your record to prove it.

Edwards should stop play-acting the populist.

[antigop]

2. I, personally, am glad to see this...let his rivals rebut his statement..

It keeps the issue out there re: lobbyists and their control over this country.

<edit to add> Let his rivals prove they are not "corporate Democrats".

And if his rivals claim he is hypocritical, then they can put the evidence out there for all to see.

It's time to bring the "sellout of America" out in the open for discussion.

[MuseRider]

6. I agree.

Nothing ever is accomplished by the "unity" and not "bashing" each other. This IS a battle and it is too important for those with thin skins or those who are worried about what the other side will say to stop this. We have to be able to see them for what and who they are and it takes them to bring those things out. If they all played nice and never challenged each other we would be left with a roster of "the sames" to choose from. It is a contest and it is too important to be controlled. The other side will say crap anyway and if something bad comes out that is true then there it is, why shouldn't they use it? It is important we know these things.

[1932]

7. Here's his voting record (100% AFL-CIO rating, 17% CATO free-trade rating):

Voted NO on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime. (Mar 2004)
Voted NO on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions. (Jun 2000)
Voted NO on banning partial birth abortions. (Oct 1999)
Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record. (Dec 2003)
Voted NO on prioritizing national debt reduction below tax cuts. (Apr 2000)
Voted YES on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002)
Voted YES on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation. (Jun 2000)
Voted YES to Increase subsidies for women-owned non-profit business. (Mar 2004)
Rated 15% by the US COC, indicating an anti-business voting record. (Dec 2003)
Voted YES on $1.15 billion per year to continue the COPS program. (May 1999)
Voted NO on increasing penalties for drug offenses. (Nov 1999)
Rated B- by VOTE-HEMP, indicating a pro-hemp voting record. (Dec 2003)
Voted YES on funding smaller classes instead of private tutors. (May 2001)
Voted YES on funding student testing instead of private tutors. (May 2001)
Voted YES on spending $448B of tax cut on education & debt reduction. (Apr 2001)
Rated 83% by the NEA, indicating pro-public education votes. (Dec 2003)
Voted YES on removing consideration of drilling ANWR from budget bill. (Mar 2003)
Voted NO on drilling ANWR on national security grounds. (Apr 2002)
Voted NO on terminating CAFE standards within 15 months. (Mar 2002)
Voted NO on preserving budget for ANWR oil drilling. (Apr 2000)
Voted NO on confirming Gale Norton as Secretary of Interior. (Jan 2001)
Rated 0% by the Christian Coalition: an anti-family voting record.
Voted NO on cap foreign aid at only $12.7 billion. (Oct 1999)
Voted NO on establishing free trade between US & Singapore. (Jul 2003)
Voted NO on establishing free trade between the US and Chile. (Jul 2003)
Voted YES on granting normal trade relations status to Vietnam. (Oct 2001)
Voted YES on removing common goods from national security export rules. (Sep 2001)
Voted NO on expanding fee trade to the third world. (May 2000)
Rated 17% by CATO, indicating a pro-fair trade voting record. (Dec 2002) THIS WAS LOWEST CATO RATING FOR ANYONE RUNNING IN '04
Voted YES on banning "soft money" contributions and restricting issue ads. (Mar 2002)
Voted NO on require photo ID (not just signature) for voter registration. (Feb 2002)
Voted YES on funding for National Endowment for the Arts. (Aug 1999)
Voted YES on background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
Voted NO on more penalties for gun & drug violations. (May 1999)
Voted NO on loosening license & background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
Voted YES to require health insurance for every child. (Aug 2003)
Voted NO on $40 billion per year for limited Medicare prescription drug benefit. (Jun 2003)
Voted YES on allowing reimportation of Rx drugs from Canada. (Jul 2002)
Voted YES on allowing patients to sue HMOs & collect punitive damages. (Jun 2001)
Voted NO on funding GOP version of Medicare prescription drug benefit. (Apr 2001)
Voted YES on including prescription drugs under Medicare. (Jun 2000)
Voted NO on limiting self-employment health deduction. (Jul 1999)
Voted YES to let states make bulk Rx purchases, and other innovations. (May 2003)
Rated 100% by APHA, indicating a pro-public health record. (Dec 2003)
Voted YES to end government propaganda on Medicare bill. (Mar 2004)
Voted YES on adopting the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. (Oct 1999)
Voted YES on military pay raise of 4.8%. (Feb 1999)
Voted YES to federalize aviation security. (Nov 2001)
Voted YES to hiding sources made post-9-11 analysis impossible. (Jul 2004)
Voted YES to CIA depends too heavily on defectors & not enough on HUMINT. (Jul 2004)
Voted YES to administration did not pressure CIA on WMD conclusions. (Jul 2004)
Voted NO on repealing Clinton's ergonomic rules on repetitive stress. (Mar 2001)
Voted NO on killing an increase in the minimum wage. (Nov 1999)
Rated 100% by the AFL-CIO, indicating a pro-union voting record. (Dec 2003)
Voted NO on using the Social Security Surplus to fund tax reductions. (Jul 1999)
Voted NO on Social Security Lockbox & limiting national debt. (Apr 1999)
Rated 100% by the ARA, indicating a pro-senior voting record. (Dec 2003)
Voted YES on More tax cuts and tax credits for 98% of Americans. (Jul 2004)
Voted NO on $350 billion in tax breaks over 11 years. (May 2003)
Voted YES on increasing tax deductions for college tuition. (May 2001)
Voted NO on phasing out the estate tax ("death tax"). (Jul 2000)
Voted NO on across-the-board spending cut. (Oct 1999)
Rated 22% by NTU, indicating a "Big Spender" on tax votes. (Dec 2003)

[polichick]

12. Thanks for posting this...

Very helpful ~ looks pretty good to me!

[Hieronymus]

13. Thanks .. more people need this information. Edwards can beat GOP.

[jgraz]

23. Just mailed this to myself

Anybody talking this "edwards hypocrisy" shit is gonna get a big fat paste of data in their face.

[Hieronymus]

11. Actually, he's not. Edwards made his millions by defending the poor against

corporations.:eyes:

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Milo_Bloom]

25. Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

The people being fooled by Edwards' latest reinvention of himself are going to get upset at you.

[Divine Discontent]

41. there's nothing wrong with this statement

but you should know your pandering sentiment towards someone that just called John a MORON in the new video, and called him another name 'little john'. nothing wrong with not believing a candidate of ours, but don't prop up the frauds who come on here to insult them like this bloke.

[calteacherguy]

32. I agree. He's simply parroting what he knows his internet base wants to hear. nt

[Divine Discontent]

42. his INTERNET base?

wow... over 5 million Democrats nationally support him for president as their #1 choice. your comment is extremely way off base and downright NASTY. also, John gets the best #'s in polls that are open to members of any party. thanks for showing your true colors. "his internet base"... nice. this may come as a shock to you, but most people that vote use the internet.


seriously, what site am I on again? there's nothing wrong with disputing issues and talking, but when these people make such outlandish comments like the one I refer to in the title of this post, you wonder who's side their on. can't they just say, "he's just trying to reinvent himself" instead of adding in some childish slam that somehow he only appeals to some small group of a few thousand on the internet. either these people are foaming at the mouth for another Dem candidate, which is shameful, or they're not on our side at all - so which is it? to go around attacking candidates and agreeing with jerks who do attack them on a PERSONAL level is downright nasty - shame on you all who do this.

[Divine Discontent]

40. enjoy your short stay here

your type is so transparent, you just called John a MORON and "little john" in the video forum. go take your arrogant, self centered, joke of a self and your comments and go get a hooker with Sen. Vitter you self righteous hack. you start calling any of our candidates a moron and calling them "little" then you've worn out your welcome. John has fought the corporations from day one... go hug you photo of George.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

18. Corporate america disagrees. Show us the contributions they have made to candidates

Edwards lags far behind Clinton, Obama, Giuliani, Romney (first tier), and McCain, Dodd (second tier). Don't give us unfounded declarations. Show us the facts.

[NYCGirl]

19. Of course, if you figure what was given as a percentage of the total amount raised,

Edwards doesn't lag that far behind.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

20. 1) That is false 2) It is irrelevant. If he was as pro-corporate he wouldn't be well behind Dodd...

...and McCain and being crushed by Obama, Clinton, Giuliani, and Romney...

Quick example from the ultimate embodiment of corporate America, Wall Street. Overall Clobama raised roughly twice as much as Edwards. Yet on Wall Street Obama raised 17 times more than Edwards and Clinton 10 times as much.

Why? Ask CEO's themselves about Obama: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3471041

[NYCGirl]

21. He's well behind the others because his chances of getting elected are smaller...

as far as Dodd, he's been in the Senate for decades, so he's picked up some friends and bad habits.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

22. What evidence is that opinion based on?

On what evidence does McCain have a far better chance of being elected than Edwards? On what evidence does Obama, who is ahead by 8-11 points over Edwards (while he trails Clinton by 20+), 17x more likely than JE to win? What you said makes no sense in light of the facts. Using that logic Clinton, by far the most likely to win, would be crushing Obama among corporate America. Yet he is even with her overall in corporate support. Why?

[NYCGirl]

30. Just let Edwards move up in the polls, if he can, and the hedge fundies and

lawyers will be giving him LOTS more money than they do now.

Actually, McCain was doing somewhat better a while ago — he's only recently sunk in the fundraising and polls.

While Clinton and Obama are closer in fundraising, Obama has by far the larger number of small contributors.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

31. That doesn't comport with the facts

You are claiming the polls are the reason for the disparity in corporate support. If that was true Clinton would be crushing Obama among corporate America. That is not the case. They are roughly even. What is your explanation for this? McCain would not be beating Edwards. Dodd would be light years behind Edwards. Campaign contributions from corporate sources would be proportionate to the polls. That is clearly not the case.

==Actually, McCain was doing somewhat better a while ago — he's only recently sunk in the fundraising and polls.==

He raised over 8 times as much as Edwards on Wall Street last quarter.

[NYCGirl]

34. According to opensecrets.org, they're just about even:

From Hedge Funds and Private Equity:

John McCain (R)

$270,150

John Edwards (D)

$223,300

McCain's raking in a lot more from commercial banks:

John McCain (R)

$490,650

John Edwards (D)

$127,200

Here's Securities and Investments:

John McCain (R)

$1,392,950

John Edwards (D)

$660,450

[draft_mario_cuomo]

35. Even among those three industries you chose McCain has raised over twice as much as Edwards

So even data you cite refutes your argument. If what you say is true Edwards would be, at minimum, on par with him if not beating him solidly since Edwards is substantially more likely to become president than McCain. Edwards leads in Iowa, North Carolina, and Oklahoma (tie with HRC) and is 3rd nationally. Edwards is the only candidate aside from HRC to lead in more than one state. McCain leads nowhere outside of AZ, is tied for 4th in Iowa at 8%, and only the fourth most likely Republican to win at this point behind GHouliani, Romney, and Thompson. Huckabee is arguably also more likely to win than McCain at this point. Contrast that to Edwards, who has almost as great of a chance of winning as Obama.

[asjr]

3. Maybe I am just naive, but I

wish the Democrats would not bash each other. It creates more fodder for the media and politicos. We deserve better than that.

[frogcycle]

4. well, we also need Edwards as the nominee

[antigop]

5. If it keeps the lobbying issue in the news, I'm all for it.

I'm tired of the sellout of this country.

I'd like to hear EVERY CANDIDATE on this issue.

[Joe Chi Minh]

28. Who said they're all Democrats. Milo fondly imagines were getting upset at

the views of interlopers. Back to sleep again, Milo. there's a good chappie.

[paulk]

8. this didn't work for Dean and it's not going to work for Edwards

Attacking your own party with this kind of rhetoric - rhetoric that a very small number of Democrats even care about, is a loser. All it does is alienate the supporters of those other candidates. It may earn you a hard core of followers, but it won't win a nomination.

This strategy has Joe Trippi written all over it.

Joe Trippi is an idiot and Edwards is a fool for listening to him.

imo

[antigop]

9. Well, then, that's just sad -- if a small number of Democrats care about lobbyists

and the selling out of America.

[mopinko]

15. i think you are wrong about the small number. look at approval

ratings of the congress right now. what is it you think people are pissed about? it ain't just the war. it is the patty cake that is d.c. it is time for the go along get along to END!
i applaud him for doing this, even though i am waiting for al. i would work hard for john, should he be the nominee.

[paulk]

17. it's not a large enough number to swing an election -

even a primary election, where there are more politically active people involved. The approval ratings reflect a lot of things; you can't point at them and say they're reflective of just this, IMO.

I'm talking voters where this is the number one issue - there just aren't enough of them to put a candidate over the top - what gets remembered is the attack, not the specifics.

[mopinko]

26. so we are sold

told, whatever. sorry. go along get along is what got us where we are.

[Mythsaje]

29. The only reason Americans don't care about it

is because Americans aren't HEARING about it.

Thank the corporate media for that.

[PATRICK]

10. He left the Senate,

from one possible perspective, because his regional seat was vulnerable and Blue Dog and the things he really believed in and wanted to do not only couldn't be done but likely couldn't keep him a Joe. L. or Bayh type seat either. So running for President he launched out of the compromised war record(JFK ran as a hawk to the endangerment and peril of commitments to the Cold War and arms race) even in the first campaign- but was buried by the Dean and Kerry quick drama.

This time he further and more clearly states what he is running on. They may be red meat for the left but all we have had outside DK has been weak tea and pablum if not the cold shoulder to reality itself. In politics, to intelligent people and over against the powerful corrupt establishment, such a clarion statement of clear battlelines and intent IS important. Desperate. Insincere. Just more of the same. Other bases do not rush to throw dirt on people clearly raising their banner. Admittedly they do not follow the hypocrites and those who actions counter their changing words, but that is case by case not the cynical tar brush that does not look carefully at anything outside one's prejudice.

Against electronic voting, even paper trails. Against corporate government. Against the war but still not qualified as a peace candidate like DK. For the poor. For a wise health care initiative that radically sidelines the profiteers in a way they can hardly argue against. For a strong environmental response. The direction that some characterize born of desperation(or necessity at least) is pointing the dem presidential campaign in the right direction. Without that direction it will be weak and wrong and poorly accepted and for sure the best and most necessary progressive or merely restorative measures will never see ink on paper. And the party will not move one inch beyond the absurd strangulation of underperforming center-DINO leadership. We have people committed to starkly and clearly advancing the cause along with their career. Edwards and Kucinich. And to make OUR voice heard we should take our vote for them in the primary seriously. Or we are left with nothing and no credibility to support a people's party or decent issue legislation out of the ashes of the Bush Reich farce.

Maybe we have a right to be desperate too. And just maybe it isn't desperation but fight.

[polichick]

14. Since the msm seems to have chosen its candidates...

Edwards really has to spell out the differences between himself and the others.

[surfermaw]

24. What you and I both need to do is fing out ?

Which candidate, the republicans are feeding, and they are big ti me!

[rndmprsn]

27. good for him!

[calteacherguy]

33. Folks, don't understand yet he's just mouthing what he knows his base wants to hear?

It doesn't mean a thing.

[antigop]

36. Yes, it most definitely DOES mean something because it keeps the issue on the table.

I'm sick of the corporate hostile takeover of this country.

I'm sick of lobbyists and their access to Congress.

I'd like to hear from EACH candidate about this issue and let them defend their positions.

It's unbelievable that bringing up lobbyists is pooh-poohed here.

[Inspired]

37. It doesn't mean a thing when the candidate you support

isn't saying it.

It means everything to Democrats like me.

I don't care why he is saying it to be honest.

I'm just glad someone has the guts to do so.

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

39. he's been on our side for years

yes, he screwed up on the iraq war, but he did try to make amends for that long before Hillary even began to think of giving up cheerleading the occupation.

On labor and trade, Edwards has always been our man.

If you want to talk "telling us what we want to hear," talk about Hillary's suddenly opposing the war only after she saw how the '06 midterms went. Or sudden hilarious attempt to call herself a progressive. Yeah, I'm sure that was in effect when she was on the Wal-mart board or when she pals around with Murdoch.

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

38. Edwards is the only chance we have of a progressive direction

Is he perfect? No. But he gets it and is talking real ideas.
I like Kucinich and I love gravel, but Hillary and Carville destroying all the grassroots has worked for over the last 5 years is unthinkable.
So Edwards has the best real chance to move us forward.