.jpg)
John Edwards brought his Presidential campaign to middle Georgia yesterday and unveiled a plan to help rural America. The Macon Telegraph reports that Edwards stressed his Southern, working class roots:
http://tinyurl.com/23qme9
It's where I'm from and I take it very personally," said the former North Carolina senator. "I grew up with eating fried chicken for dinner, going to Friday night high school football games, going to church on Sunday morning, Sunday night, Wednesday night.
"I know very well what it means to grow up in the rural South. I think the president has a responsibility to help strengthen the rural areas of America."
The son of a textile mill worker, Edwards said he spent part of his childhood in Thompson before the family settled in North Carolina where he attended middle school.
Because of his upbringing, Edwards said he also understands the economic struggles brought on when manufacturers close the doors to their rural factories and relocate elsewhere. He likened Middle Georgia to the community where he grew up in Robbins, N.C., where manufacturers left town and many people were out of a job.
Edwards said he plans to introduce on Monday a specific agenda to create incentives for employers to locate in rural areas and to provide the infrastructure to support their success.
"That means tax incentives to come there and it also means having a technology infrastructure, broadband, having water and sewer infrastructure, having highway infrastructure and having all the pieces you need that will support the relocation of new employment opportunities," he said.
As president, Edwards said his hope would be to increase the number of opportunities available to not only Americans living in rural areas, but everywhere.
"I want everybody in the country, no matter where they live or the color of their skin to have the same chances I have had," he said. "I came from nothing to having everything.
"I think that's increasingly hard in America," Edwards said. "I think we have lots of work to do to make sure that opportunity is available to everybody." http://www.macon.com/
A new poll by Angus Reid Global View indicates that John Edwards may be the strongest Democratic contender. The poll showed Edwards leading former New York Mayor Rudy Guiliani by a 49 to 43 margin and a 14 point lead over former U.S. Senator Fred Thompson. http://tinyurl.com/2d9e9t
Among the serious Democratic contenders, only Edwards has taken a strong stand for fair trade policies to protect American workers.
I don't always agree with David Sirota but he makes an excellent case as to why Edwards is the best hope for working and middle Americans. Sirota points out in a recent Huffington Post column that the Wall Street interests favor the candidates in both parties who support the economic status quo that has given us the greatest income inequality since 1928. http://tinyurl.com/32jnvu
Back in 1992, the famous campaign mantra was "it's the economy, stupid." This was the seemingly populist motto that people like Wall Street CEO Bob Rubin piggybacked on to help vault Bill Clinton into the White House, and himself into the corner suite at the Treasury Department. Today, there is Today, there is a slightly amended motto operating in advance of the 2008 election: "It's the economic ideology, stupid."
The variation may appear semantic. But like the differences between the classic TV show What's Happening!! and its can't-conjure-the-old-magic update What's Happening Now!!, there is a vast chasm between the two economic campaign slogans. Whereas in the good ol' days of 1992, candidates were campaigning against the real-life consequences of a crushing recession on working folks and for concrete real-world goals to help working folks, today candidates are campaigning against even recognizing real life, and for an ideology that their own economic advisers acknowledge has no connection to actual information.
A new piece in Businessweek gives you a good idea of how this works. The article starts out exploring how a number of Wall Street CEOs are "refining" the presidential candidates' economic positions (ha! and you thought the candidates decided their own positions). We are asked to sympathize with the plight of these CEOs because the presidential campaign has gotten off to an earlier start, and they are a little behind on shaping the key positions of the candidates they finance. After the obligatory threats against candidates who dare challenge "free" trade fundamentalism, we get this nugget:
"Like most voters, Wall Streeters are also trying to size up candidates' personal qualities. At a meeting on Feb. 3 in Manhattan, bankers grilled Obama about how he makes decisions. Present were Eric Mindich of Eton Park Capital, Frank Brosens of Taconic Capital Advisors, Michael Froman of Citigroup Alternative Investments (C ), and James S. Rubin of JPMorgan Chase's (JPM ) private equity fund, among others. Obama said a President must be able to make important decisions with little information...That message 'appealed to them because it was similar to the decisions that they make every day about risk, returns, and probability of various outcomes,' says Froman, a law school classmate of Obama. Similarly, Dalio, the Bridgewater chief who trades currencies, debt, and stocks around the world, likes the way McCain arrives at his positions. It's different from relying on academic knowledge or creative brilliance, says Dalio."
Scores of lobotomized politicians doing exactly what they are told, making information-free decisions, without looking at the hard data - this is K Street's dream. It is the domestic version of the Bush administration's reality-free march to war, with Wall Street financiers playing the role of preening neoconservative think-tankers. Remember this from Ron Suskind's now-famous New York Times article about the Bush White House:
"The aide said that guys like me were 'in what we call the reality-based community,' which he defined as people who 'believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.' ... 'That's not the way the world really works anymore,' he continued. 'We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality--judiciously, as you will--we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.'"
No wonder Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charlie Rangel (D-NY) had absolutely no idea how many new freshman Democrats were elected on platforms against lobbyist-written trade deals.
No wonder Democratic politicians trumpet Bob Rubin as a great guru of job creation at the same time his company is laying off tens of thousands of American workers. No wonder Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (news, bio, voting record) (D-MT) is huddling with corporate lobbyists for strategy sessions on Capitol Hill about how to pass President Bush's request to reauthorize fast-track trade authority at the very moment his own state has the lowest wages in the United States.
No wonder Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama (news, bio, voting record) and John McCain (news, bio, voting record) and Mitt Romney are running for the highest office in the land, and yet are simultaneously refusing to offer anything other than "world is flat" propaganda about globalization - the most important economic issue facing the planet. Why should they behave any differently? To paraphrase the Bush White House, they don't live in the reality-based community anymore. http://huffingtonpost.com/
Trade was a major issue benefiting Democrats in key 2006 contests as noted by Chris Slevin and Todd Tucker in the Democratic Strategist:
2006 has shown us that fair trade is not only good policy, it's smart politics. A fair trade position showed that a candidate was willing to fundamentally challenge the outdated corporate consensus that government must be hands-off when it comes to supporting the middle- and working-class, while being hands-on when pushing policies like NAFTA and WTO that redistribute income upwards. Contenders and donors in 2008 hoping to sweep even more elected offices will have to recognize that voters are ready to move beyond "staying the course" on the failed trade policies of the past and to embrace an agenda which promotes economic security and mobility for all. http://tinyurl.com/268cd3
http://tinyurl.com/23qme9
It's where I'm from and I take it very personally," said the former North Carolina senator. "I grew up with eating fried chicken for dinner, going to Friday night high school football games, going to church on Sunday morning, Sunday night, Wednesday night.
"I know very well what it means to grow up in the rural South. I think the president has a responsibility to help strengthen the rural areas of America."
The son of a textile mill worker, Edwards said he spent part of his childhood in Thompson before the family settled in North Carolina where he attended middle school.
Because of his upbringing, Edwards said he also understands the economic struggles brought on when manufacturers close the doors to their rural factories and relocate elsewhere. He likened Middle Georgia to the community where he grew up in Robbins, N.C., where manufacturers left town and many people were out of a job.
Edwards said he plans to introduce on Monday a specific agenda to create incentives for employers to locate in rural areas and to provide the infrastructure to support their success.
"That means tax incentives to come there and it also means having a technology infrastructure, broadband, having water and sewer infrastructure, having highway infrastructure and having all the pieces you need that will support the relocation of new employment opportunities," he said.
As president, Edwards said his hope would be to increase the number of opportunities available to not only Americans living in rural areas, but everywhere.
"I want everybody in the country, no matter where they live or the color of their skin to have the same chances I have had," he said. "I came from nothing to having everything.
"I think that's increasingly hard in America," Edwards said. "I think we have lots of work to do to make sure that opportunity is available to everybody." http://www.macon.com/
A new poll by Angus Reid Global View indicates that John Edwards may be the strongest Democratic contender. The poll showed Edwards leading former New York Mayor Rudy Guiliani by a 49 to 43 margin and a 14 point lead over former U.S. Senator Fred Thompson. http://tinyurl.com/2d9e9t
Among the serious Democratic contenders, only Edwards has taken a strong stand for fair trade policies to protect American workers.
I don't always agree with David Sirota but he makes an excellent case as to why Edwards is the best hope for working and middle Americans. Sirota points out in a recent Huffington Post column that the Wall Street interests favor the candidates in both parties who support the economic status quo that has given us the greatest income inequality since 1928. http://tinyurl.com/32jnvu
Back in 1992, the famous campaign mantra was "it's the economy, stupid." This was the seemingly populist motto that people like Wall Street CEO Bob Rubin piggybacked on to help vault Bill Clinton into the White House, and himself into the corner suite at the Treasury Department. Today, there is Today, there is a slightly amended motto operating in advance of the 2008 election: "It's the economic ideology, stupid."
The variation may appear semantic. But like the differences between the classic TV show What's Happening!! and its can't-conjure-the-old-magic update What's Happening Now!!, there is a vast chasm between the two economic campaign slogans. Whereas in the good ol' days of 1992, candidates were campaigning against the real-life consequences of a crushing recession on working folks and for concrete real-world goals to help working folks, today candidates are campaigning against even recognizing real life, and for an ideology that their own economic advisers acknowledge has no connection to actual information.
A new piece in Businessweek gives you a good idea of how this works. The article starts out exploring how a number of Wall Street CEOs are "refining" the presidential candidates' economic positions (ha! and you thought the candidates decided their own positions). We are asked to sympathize with the plight of these CEOs because the presidential campaign has gotten off to an earlier start, and they are a little behind on shaping the key positions of the candidates they finance. After the obligatory threats against candidates who dare challenge "free" trade fundamentalism, we get this nugget:
"Like most voters, Wall Streeters are also trying to size up candidates' personal qualities. At a meeting on Feb. 3 in Manhattan, bankers grilled Obama about how he makes decisions. Present were Eric Mindich of Eton Park Capital, Frank Brosens of Taconic Capital Advisors, Michael Froman of Citigroup Alternative Investments (C ), and James S. Rubin of JPMorgan Chase's (JPM ) private equity fund, among others. Obama said a President must be able to make important decisions with little information...That message 'appealed to them because it was similar to the decisions that they make every day about risk, returns, and probability of various outcomes,' says Froman, a law school classmate of Obama. Similarly, Dalio, the Bridgewater chief who trades currencies, debt, and stocks around the world, likes the way McCain arrives at his positions. It's different from relying on academic knowledge or creative brilliance, says Dalio."
Scores of lobotomized politicians doing exactly what they are told, making information-free decisions, without looking at the hard data - this is K Street's dream. It is the domestic version of the Bush administration's reality-free march to war, with Wall Street financiers playing the role of preening neoconservative think-tankers. Remember this from Ron Suskind's now-famous New York Times article about the Bush White House:
"The aide said that guys like me were 'in what we call the reality-based community,' which he defined as people who 'believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.' ... 'That's not the way the world really works anymore,' he continued. 'We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality--judiciously, as you will--we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.'"
No wonder Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charlie Rangel (D-NY) had absolutely no idea how many new freshman Democrats were elected on platforms against lobbyist-written trade deals.
No wonder Democratic politicians trumpet Bob Rubin as a great guru of job creation at the same time his company is laying off tens of thousands of American workers. No wonder Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (news, bio, voting record) (D-MT) is huddling with corporate lobbyists for strategy sessions on Capitol Hill about how to pass President Bush's request to reauthorize fast-track trade authority at the very moment his own state has the lowest wages in the United States.
No wonder Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama (news, bio, voting record) and John McCain (news, bio, voting record) and Mitt Romney are running for the highest office in the land, and yet are simultaneously refusing to offer anything other than "world is flat" propaganda about globalization - the most important economic issue facing the planet. Why should they behave any differently? To paraphrase the Bush White House, they don't live in the reality-based community anymore. http://huffingtonpost.com/
Trade was a major issue benefiting Democrats in key 2006 contests as noted by Chris Slevin and Todd Tucker in the Democratic Strategist:
2006 has shown us that fair trade is not only good policy, it's smart politics. A fair trade position showed that a candidate was willing to fundamentally challenge the outdated corporate consensus that government must be hands-off when it comes to supporting the middle- and working-class, while being hands-on when pushing policies like NAFTA and WTO that redistribute income upwards. Contenders and donors in 2008 hoping to sweep even more elected offices will have to recognize that voters are ready to move beyond "staying the course" on the failed trade policies of the past and to embrace an agenda which promotes economic security and mobility for all. http://tinyurl.com/268cd3
No comments:
Post a Comment