I'm sure most of my regular readers have known I have had a bias for John Edwards in the Democratic presidential primaries for quite a while. While privately I decided who I will vote for, I have yet to formally endorse a candidate, primarily because I like to keep a modicum of objectivity on my blog. So much for that- the time has come to make my case and explain exactly why I think Edwards is the best choice for America.
I'd like to take a minute and try to convince those progressives out there who are still wobbly and looking for the right candidate to attempt to clean up the mess George Bush will be leaving behind. Of all the Democratic candidates, John Edwards is the best choice to reform our broken system and bring ordinary folks back into the political process.
To illustrate my point we'll take a look at the government reform pages on the websites of the top three candidates. In my opinion, the biggest problem since Bush took office (and the biggest change needed to right our wayward system) is the oppressive influence of corporations and the wealthy top 1% of America on our political process. Until the scales can be balanced, with better lobbyist controls, campaign reform, and other measures, the system will always tilt in favor of the very rich, and leave regular Americans out in the cold. Let's start with the supposed national front-runner, Hillary Clinton. I'll list her points on reform, then Obama's, then try to contrast them with John Edwards's substantive and complex plans.
Hillary's Government Reform Plan
On Hillary's site is a bulleted list detailing her plan to curtail a system bloated with money-driven politics;
Banning Cabinet officials from lobbying a Hillary Clinton administration.
Strengthening whistleblower protections.
Creating a public service academy.
Ending abuse of no-bid government contracts and posting all contracts online.
Cutting 500,000 government contractors.
Restoring the Office of Technology Assessment.
Publishing budgets for every government agency.
Implementing Results America Initiative to track government effectiveness.
Tracking and eliminating corporate welfare.
Expanding voting access and safeguarding voting machines.
Looks good so far, I guess. It seems like a good plan to eliminate excess in any organization. These points don't convince me this plan will be able to overcome the enormous built-in governmental advantages gained by big business during the Bush years, however. Let's see if Obama can one-up her.
Obama's Government Reform ("Ethics") Plan
Obama's page is called Ethics, and to be fair is far more detailed than Hillary's- I've included just the bulleted points to save space, but there's far more on his page, so go check it out. Anyhow;
Centralize Ethics and Lobbying Information for Voters
Require Independent Monitoring of Lobbying Laws and Ethics Rules
Support Campaign Finance Reform
Create a Public "Contracts and Influence" Database
End Abuse of No-Bid Contracts
Sunlight Before Signing
Shine Light on Earmarks and Pork Barrel Spending
Hold 21st Century Fireside Chats
Make White House Communications Public
Conduct Regulatory Agency Business in Public
Release Presidential Records
Close the Revolving Door on Former and Future Employers
Free Career Officials from the Influence of Politics
Reform the Political Appointee Process
This list goes a lot farther on issues such as open White House records, but still seems to primarily skirt the big issues. There's a lot of good ideas, but in my opinion nothing really stands out except the "fireside chats," which are a great idea but lack the punch needed to extricate corporate influence from government. On to John Edwards's plan...
John Edwards's Government Reform Plan
I won't preface it, let's see the list- edited as above to just the main points;
Create a Citizen Congress
Reform Election Laws
Promote Open and Democratic Media
Reform Presidential Campaign Finance Laws to Empower Small Donors
Provide Full Public Financing in Congressional Campaigns
Make Corporations Accountable
Take on the Lobbyists' Power with a Constitutional Line-Item Veto
Prohibit Lobbyists from Giving or Raising Campaign Cash
Close the Lobbyist Revolving Door
Expose Lobbyist Contacts to Sunlight
Prohibit Executive Branch Employees from Accepting Corporate Gifts
There's a great deal more to it- John's plan is quite complex, so go see the page for details on the more vague points above. But right off the bat I see a strong populist influence. Lots of good progressive measures such as full public financing for all candidates, not mentioned on the other candidates sites, and reforming election laws, amongst quite a few singular ideas (at least amongst the top tier candidates.)
My point here is that one person in this race is truly ready with an effective plan to possibly end, or at the least limit, corporate influence on government for the first time in decades by attacking the source of the problem- money. It starts in the fundraising process every elected official must endure, and continues through their careers, with George Bush as the clear evidence of why such reforms are vital to our democracy.
John Edwards has proven his ability to lead for those less fortunate amongst us throughout his life. He showed his political skills by winning the caucuses before, and displayed his electability, despite the loss, by being a major part in one of the biggest election turnouts in American history in 2004. With his detailed plans for meaningful government reform alone it's clear he aims to truly change the system in a fundamental way that his opponents' plans don't come close to matching.
For this reason I wholeheartedly endorse John Edwards for President of the United States of America, for what it's worth. I wish all the candidates the best of luck tomorrow- I know no matter who wins I will be proud to have been a progressive Democrat, and pleased as punch to see the last of George W. Bush.
http://indigentahole.blogspot.com
Mike Kuykendall is a progressive, patriotic veteran of the U.S. Air Force, fighting hard to save our democracy.
My theory is most die-hard Ron Paul fans would run screaming if they truly understood his positions.
However, this is a post on John Edwards. Everyone online is throughly sick of your candidate and his rabid supporters, to the point that the radical edge and swarm behavior is more likely losing Dr. Paul support, rather than adding to it.
Let's keep on topic, shall we?
by
Mike Kuykendall (36 articles, 61 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 87 comments)
on Thursday, January 3, 2008 at 10:06:29 AM
The closer John Edwards' platform gets to Dennis Kucinich's, the better I like him. Perhaps he does actually have the most 'practical' chance of winning but I would sure love a chance to vote for who I consider to be the best man.
Veteran '66-68
by
Roger (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 392 comments)
on Thursday, January 3, 2008 at 9:34:58 AM
Poor Kucinich- he has a great platform, but he's unlikely to make the 15% viability threshold. He'll likely hand his support to John, as will most of the caucus goers.
by
Mike Kuykendall (36 articles, 61 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 87 comments)
on Thursday, January 3, 2008 at 10:08:13 AM
If I had to vote today I would support John Edwards too.He is the only one standing up to big corporations and for restoring the constitution.None of the others except for Kucinich, Gravel, and Paul have made much about the loss of our rights and the Edwards is the only candidate that has a chance to win in this field.
by
Michael Chavers (50 articles, 0 quicklinks, 15 diaries, 181 comments)
on Thursday, January 3, 2008 at 10:17:21 AM
I'm sick of this silly generalization of attorneys. I'm not an attorney NOW. I may go to law school in a few years, I havent decided. If I do, will something magically evil happen to me on graduation day?
by
Steven Leser (228 articles, 49 quicklinks, 34 diaries, 1647 comments)
on Thursday, January 3, 2008 at 6:47:27 PM
JOHN EDWARDS IS NOT A MEMBER OF CFR, HE JUST HANGS OUT WITH THEM AND MAKES SPEECHES AT THEIR HEADQUARTERS IN NEW YORK CITY. LAST YEAR EDWARDS MADE A SPEECH TO THE CFR TURE BELIEVERS AND MADE THEM SWOON WITH ENVY, HE ALSO CO-CHAIRED A CFR TASK FORCE WITH JACK KEMP. EDWARDS IS NOTHING BUT AND ESTABLISHMENT STOOGE AND CONSUMMATE INSIDER.
PEOPLE LIKE JOHN EWARDS ARE THE VERY RESON WE ARE IN THE MESS THAT WE ARE IN. THEY SERVE AS WOLVES IN SHEEP'S CLOTHING WHILE WE ARE THE SHEEP. JOHN EDWARDS TALK THE TALK WHEN HE HAS TO. BUT WHEN THE POLITICAL CURTAIN IS LOWERED HE WILL BE SERVING THIS NATION'S SOVEREIGNTY AND OUR REPUBLIC ON A SILVER PLATTER TO THE GLOBALIST AND BANKER ELITE. (GOOGLE JOHN EDARDS AND GLOBALIST OR CFR)
by
RICHARD SHADE (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 460 comments)
on Thursday, January 3, 2008 at 11:44:31 AM
I'm very much against demonizing people for group membership
... with a few noteable exceptions, I'm not inclined to demonize people for being members of a group. Jimmy Carter is a member of CFR, and his foreign policy bent since FOREVER has been very much anti-war. The following group membership conspiracies are completely unconvincing to me:
1. CFR
2. Bildberger group
3.Skull and Bones
Whenever I see people demonizing someone for being a member of the above, I roll my eyes. Skull and bones is a college fraternity, and its active members are kids from the ages of 18-21 who then graduate and have a life. I almost joined a frat in college. If I had been in Yale and joined Skull and bones, would that necessarily make me a bad person? What if I had joined A E PI (the frat I almost joined) and some people from A E PI did something wrong? Is the whole group and everyone who joined evil?
CFR membership does not seem to imply anything bad OR good. As there are people from various ideologies in the group, it seems to be ideologically neutral. A neocon can publish a work under the CFR banner, and so can a progressive. This is not the same as Project for a New American Century that has a specific bent and general attitude.
The Bilderberg group is basically a fancy name for around 130 people who have a conference once a year and otherwise seem to do not much of anything as a group. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilderberg_Group . As wikipedia notes, there are various conspiracy theories out there about them. Might as well attribute theft of the Lindbergh baby.
Thanks, but I am plenty enough occupied by the real and obvious bad people and bad things going on. I dont need to invent additional bad guys from groups just because there are a few groups around that like to keep some of their proceedings secret.
I realize that as long as there are groups that have secret proceedings, there will be people that concoct ridiculous conspiracy theories about them. I guess the best I can do is plead to anyone who is a progressive that, as I said, there is enough to be concerned about and work on/against that we really cannot afford people of good will to go off on a tangent chasing non-existent dragons.
by
Steven Leser (228 articles, 49 quicklinks, 34 diaries, 1647 comments)
on Thursday, January 3, 2008 at 6:49:17 PM
DO YOUR HOMEWORK, MY DAD ALWAYS TOLD ME SON BELIEVE NOTHING YOU HEAR AND HALF OF WHAT YOU SEE. SO WHEN A CANDIDATE TELLS ME SOMETHING I WANT HEAR, I WANT KNOW IF THIS HOW THEY ALWAYS STAND ON THIS. VOTED YEA ON EVERY IRAQ SPENDING BILL, AND NOW TO GET YOUR VOTE HE SAYS HE WILL END THE WAR. JUST TRICKS OF THE TRADE.
by
RICHARD SHADE (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 460 comments)
on Friday, January 4, 2008 at 3:29:29 AM
They are all or will be restrained by circumstances one of which is 'the checks and balances in the system" some checks and balances are good prevent or slow down excesses and at the same time other agendas act as a ballace against wholesale change. A reformist president will resort to devious methods to get what He thinks is most important through.....eg GWB and the Sesspit that is his administration (sic).
It is human nature that the first to be jetisoned will be that which doesn't involve the individual personally.
The people need to remain focused and be as demanding of their Congress persons and reps. These individuals should be under no illusion as to what is expected and the consequences if they fail to deliver.
Most of all a new system needs to be divised see my piece "1 out of 3 isn't that good" in this edition.
Mike is right in that Americans need to start by close analysis of their policies. Knowing full well that they are unlikely to be implimented or if they are it will be in a much watered down way unless the representative have similar objectives.
One word of warning though A republican candidate is a republican candidate and "one can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear.' of course it goes both ways.
Well done, full marks Mike on the effort.
by
Andris (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 531 comments)
on Thursday, January 3, 2008 at 9:33:57 PM
I'd vote for Ron Paul before I'd vote for Edwards. The only great candidate is Dennis Kucinich so I'm voting for him.
Here is a message from Dennis Kucinich about Edwards.
"In answer to your questions about why I didn't support former Senator John Edwards on the second ballot in Iowa: I have serious concerns about his connections to a Wall Street hedge fund, Fortress Investment Group. While attacking others for accepting campaign money from Washington lobbyists, he is up to his ears in money from Wall Street special interests.
He made half a million dollars in a single year for attending a few meetings for Fortress and has invested a substantial part of his own personal wealth in the hedge fund whose portfolios are responsible for sub-prime predatory lending practices, Medicare privatization, and an entire range of corporate sharp dealings that are driving the middle class into poverty."
by
Ty (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 888 comments)
on Monday, January 7, 2008 at 2:43:54 PM
15 comments
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
