Friday, November 18, 2005

This Guy Could Win

As opposed to Biden My Time and Shillary.







11 Thoughts:

Blogger pawlr said...

John Edwards is a good guy, no doubt, who has a grasp of the essential problems facing our country and a Clintonesque approach.

I don't know whether he'll be able to project enough gravitas to win over the middle on foriegn policy stuff and immigration - the #1 problem facing the country is going to be dealing with Iraq and its aftermath and his debate with Cheney revealed some serious holes in his game. (Much as I revile Cheney, he came off rather well in their debate).

Edwards's smile's a little too slick when he's uncomfortable - and there are better fighters out there who can do more with his message, which is spot-on.

Friday, November 18, 2005 12:37:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Like who?

I don't see a huge national security problem on immigration, incidentally. We have a socioeconomic problem, and it also highlights an ongoing racism problem.

On foreign policy, he's the only Democrat to come out and apologize for being duped by the Republicans. (Others who weren't duped don't have to have the courage to apologize.)

Who else is there? Hillary? No way. Sellout. Kerry? If he runs, possibly, but he showed his lack of guts by conceding, IMHO. Richardson? Not my cup of tea; not a critic of the war, either.

Edwards screwed up with Cheney because he didn't realize and wasn't prepared for how brazenly duplicitous Cheney would be. His bad (Edwards'). I very much doubt that will happen again.

Biden? Intellectual lightweight.

Kucinich? If he runs, sure. But there's no way in hell he'll get elected.

I actually don't think Iraq is the #1 problem. I would say energy/global warming/water resources, and the connected issue of epidemic disease impacting a broken healthcare system, is the #1 issue. You don't need to be a foreign policy genius to see that we should listen to Lugar and Nunn and lock down all fissile materials ASAP, work with other nations rather than against them, and pull out of Iraq ASAP. We are part of the problem, James Fallows' notions notwithstanding.

Will Dean run again? I think he's been taken out.

Evan Bayh? Not too much depth or conviction; and a bit too easily manipulated by the spooks during the 9/11 hearings.

So, name someone -- and, yes, there may be some unknown we don't know of yet who will be great (a la Dean).

As far as I can see, at this point, Edwards is the guy. He's running a Poverty Center at Chapel Hill, he's visiting Moscow, India, etc.

Anyway, that's my two cents.

Friday, November 18, 2005 1:10:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Ooops -- mixed up Bayh with someone on the 9/11 committee. I actually don't know too much about him.

Friday, November 18, 2005 1:13:00 PM  
Blogger pawlr said...

Doug - agree with all your negatives on the folks you mentioned except Bayh, who I don't know much about either. And I agree that Cheney cheated in the debate, but he's gotta be ready for that shit - these people are proven liars already.

Funny you left out my two frontrunners for who I'd like - Clark and Warner. Clark has gotten a lot better in the lion's den of Fox news dealing with criticism and toughening up his skin. Warner "looks good", has an 80% approval rating from his state (in VA!) I've heard pros and cons about him but I think the Dems definately have to get away from running congresscritters and more toward people with executive experience like governors.

Even Al Gore is a wildcard and I think he would do better than Kerry for sure.

Dean would be fuckin great but not much indication he's going to step away from where he's doing the most good - building the Dem party.

Admittedly there's lots of policy questions I don't know about with these guys, which I admit should be the priority in a perfect world. Continuing to learn more about them.

Some opinions on these guys here

Friday, November 18, 2005 1:59:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

I'd support Gore in a heartbeat, but didn't he already say he wasn't running?

Warner: know very little about him. He's the flavor of the month now, but that doesn't mean he isn't the one.

Friday, November 18, 2005 2:12:00 PM  
Blogger Demotiki said...

I think it's pretty funny that we are already talking about 2008. However, I'll toss in my 2 cents.

Immigration will be a major issues in 2006 and 2008, and Democrats will ignore it at their peril. It also is a national security threat and unregulated immigration has helped to produce a perminant underclass populated mainly by under-skilled and under-educated African Americans. In this sense I agree with Doug that illegal immigration reveals a significant racial element. Aside from that, it doesn't take a Rhodes Scholar to realize that massive unregulated movements of foreign aliens into our country constitutes a serious breach of national security. The argument that it's impossible to stop illegal immigration is laughable on its face since many countries with significantly fewer resources and lower technology have been able to control their borders quite well. The problem is that our economy is dependent on low wage workers from the South. Republicans refuse to do anything because they like the cheap labor and Democrats because they hope that once legal these folks will vote Democratic.

As for who I would support in 2008, any of the names mentioned would be fine. Who do I think has the best chance? I have no idea. Who would be best as a President? I think Edwards, Gore, Clark or Warner would make fine presidents. I agree that Dean is doing too much good where he is to run. I suspect he'll run again in the future, and by that time he'll have plenty of support from those he helped get elected.

The only thing I worry about is Hillary winning the primary. That would be disasterous. I also think that who wins the Republican primary is going to be most important factor is whether we win or lose. If the Christian right maintains its hold on power, and Frist gets the nod, we will be in fine shape. If McCain wins, I think we are in trouble unless we can put up somebody with real charisma like Edwards. We also don't know how the economy will be at that point. If there's a recession, McCain's foreign policy expertise wont amount to a hill of beans.

Basically, we will have no idea until after the mid-terms. I suspect that will change the ground-rules substantially, especially if we win control of the House and start to take down Frist and other corrupt Republicans. McCain ain't clean either.

Friday, November 18, 2005 3:42:00 PM  
Blogger pawlr said...

Andrew - I threw in the immigration thing to provoke you - and it worked!!

Although I do think it will become an issue if a recession takes hold before 2008.

I don't think its _that_ important because the real problem is that our economy isn't growing with enough opportunity for the middle and lower-middle class to get ahead. When there's not enough opportunity, then its easy to get the poor to start blaming each other (immigrant vs. anti-immigrant) for systemic failiures.

Friday, November 18, 2005 5:04:00 PM  
Blogger Demotiki said...


My argument is a macro-economic one. Our economy has grown on the backs of slaves, legal immigrants, and illegal immigrants for over 200 years. That was all good and well when we were predominantly an industrial economy. Today our industrial sector is shrinking fast because no matter how cheaply the illegals work, they will never be able to compete with the Chinese. Given that neither party will (or should) argue for trade restrictions, we need to find a new solution. The future of our economy lies in high value added / high quality manufactured goods, superior design and intellectual property, and services. Our current educational infrastructure is not capable of turning out the workers we would need to compete along these lines. The flood of uneducated, unskilled and generally impoverished immigrants just perpetuates a failed economic model and burdens state and federal human services infrastructures that otherwise might be able to at least start to redress the massive inequalities that poison society.

Immigration is clearly a good thing, but it must be regulated. The United States is in an enviable situation. We could, and should, let in small numbers of world’s best and brightest, who would hit the ground running and really help us to build the sort of economy that would serve as an engine of growth for the rest of the planet.

We need rescue the African American community from being a permanent underclass. This can’t happen until we recognize that illegal immigration has hurt African Americans more than any other sector of our society by taking away millions of much needed jobs. Illegal immigration has also critically damaged the American labor movement. Our nation needs to reinvent itself along the lines of other successful industrialized economies such as Germany, Japan and the Scandinavian countries. Workers must be fewer, better educated, healthier and happier. Until we wean ourselves of cheap low quality labor, we will never make that transition.


Friday, November 18, 2005 5:32:00 PM  
Blogger Demotiki said...

I think we all ought to take a look a Byron Dorgan of North Dekota for a future presidential candidate. He's clean and honest and looks like a banker. He's also sharp as a tack, evident from his questioning on the Indian Affair re: Abramoff. McCain and he are tag-teaming Federici and it's getting ugly.

Friday, November 18, 2005 10:03:00 PM  
Blogger pawlr said...

I actually agree with you. If we spent the money we currently spend on agricultural subsidies and import controls that fund backwards economic sectors that aren't our competitive advantage, and instead used the money to educate and train a workforce, and provide incentives for other sectors you mentioned (high value added / high quality manufactured goods, superior design and intellectual property, and services), we'd be well on our way. This alone would cut down on illegal immigration because the economic sectors that hires immigrants (think central valley, CA) would dry up and be replaced by industries higher up the food chain.

This also requires a commitment to a truly free global market rather than the "free for me, not for you" trade policies Bush and the IMF currently foist on an increasingly hostile developing world.

Friday, November 18, 2005 10:16:00 PM  
Blogger Demotiki said...


Yes, the great irony of the Bush’s Big Lie Movement! Republicans never tire of telling us how they support the free market. Of course this is just as much a lie as the notion that they are "fiscally conservative" or that they "support life." Today's Republican Party is the least market oriented regime to ever run the nation, including the FDR administration. During FDR's time the Federal Government made up a very small percentage of the national economy. Today, government spending is a much large fraction of aggregate consumption. Although the profligate borrowing and spending of the Bush Administration has badly effected both private consumption and investment, its most insidious effects are not as easily appreciated. Much Republican spending has been motivated by the political needs of Republican elites and their corporate sponsors, and not by the wisdom of the market or the desires of American consumers. The result has been the gradual ossification of our formerly dynamic and adaptable economy.

The most glaring example of the damage caused by the anti-market policies of the current administration is the woeful state of the domestic auto industry. Detroit has fallen victim of its own tremendous political influence. While Japanese and European manufactures have successfully incorporated lessons learned from their customers, Detroit has survived only by using its political influence to create incentives in those product categories where higher value added created short-run economic advantages. In particular the tax subsidies handed out by the Bush administration for the purchase of SUVs gave Detroit massive windfall of earning. These profits were not based on the value of Detroit’s designs, but on artificially lower prices for a category of vehicles where trade restrictions and absence of existing alternative designs limited foreign competition. In other words, Detroit’s short-term success came from leaning on the Republicans to interfere with market mechanisms rather than from listening to customers and producing products they needed. Now Detroit is in trouble again, it has no new ideas, no direction, and no plan other than coming to Washington with its hat in its hand to ask for yet another political intervention in the market. This has become a common sight, and if experience is any indicator, the Republicans will prove once again their lack of faith in the power of free markets.


Friday, November 18, 2005 11:32:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home