Corporate America Fears Edwards- Guardian UK article

sweetpotatosweetpotato Posts: 1,278
edited January 2008 in A Moving Train
... and so they should.



U.S. Corporate Elite Fear Candidate Edwards

Reuters Friday January 11 2008

By Kevin Drawbaugh

WASHINGTON, Jan 11 (Reuters) - Ask corporate lobbyists which presidential contender is most feared by their clients and the answer is almost always the same -- Democrat John Edwards.

The former North Carolina senator's chosen profession alone raises the hackles of business people. Before entering politics, he made a fortune as a trial lawyer. In litigious America, trial lawyers bring lawsuits against companies on behalf of aggrieved individuals and sometimes win multimillion-dollar settlements. Edwards won several.

But beyond his profession, Edwards' tone and language on the campaign trail have increased business antipathy toward him. His stump speeches are peppered with attacks on "corporate greed" and warnings of "the destruction of the middle class." He accuses lobbyists of "corrupting the government" and says Americans lack universal health care because of "drug companies, insurance companies and their lobbyists."

Despite not winning the two state nominating contests completed so far, with 48 to go, Edwards insists he is in the race to stay. An Edwards campaign spokesman said on Thursday that inside-the-Beltway operatives who fight to defend the powerful and the privileged should be afraid.
"The lobbyists and special interests who abuse the system in Washington have good reason to fear John Edwards.

"Once he is president, the interests of middle class families will never again take a back seat to corporate greed in Washington," said campaign spokesman Eric Schultz.

Open attacks on the business elite are seldom heard from mainstream White House candidates in America, despite skyrocketing CEO pay, rising income inequality, and a torrent of scandals in corporate boardrooms and on Wall Street.

But this year Edwards is not alone. Republican candidate Mike Huckabee, former governor of Arkansas, sometimes also rails against corporate power and influence, tapping a populist current that lies just below the surface of U.S. politics.

One business lobbyist, who asked not to be named, said Edwards "has gone to this angry populist, anti-business rhetoric that borders on class warfare ... He focuses dislike of special interests, which is out there, on business."
Another lobbyist said an Edwards presidency would be "a disaster" for his well-heeled industrialist clients.

After this week's New Hampshire primaries, where he placed a distant third behind New York Sen. Hillary Clinton and Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, Edwards might not seem so scary. He ran second in the Iowa Democratic caucuses last week, trailing Obama and just ahead of Clinton. Edwards suffered a blow on Thursday when Massachusetts Democratic Sen. John Kerry snubbed him and endorsed Obama. Edwards was Kerry's vice-presidential running mate in Kerry's failed Democratic bid for the White House in 2004.

BUSINESS'S FAVORITE UNCLEAR

Asked which candidate their clients most support, corporate lobbyists were unsure. Clinton has cautious backing within the corporate jet set, as do Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain and former Republican Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, they said. These candidates represent stability to executives who have much to lose if November's election brings about the sweeping change some candidates are promising.

Obama and Huckabee register largely as unknown quantities among business owners, both large and small, say lobbyists.

"My sense is that Obama would govern as a reasonably pragmatic Democrat ... I think Hillary is approachable. She knows where a lot of her funding has come from, to be blunt," said Greg Valliere, chief political strategist at Stanford Group Co., a market and policy analysis group.

But Edwards, Valliere said, is seen as "an anti-business populist" and "a trade protectionist who is quite unabashed about raising taxes." "I think his regulatory policies, as well as his tax policies, would be viewed as a threat to business," he said.

"The next scariest for business would be Huckabee because of his rhetoric and because he's an unknown."
"Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States, Barack Obama."

"Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore

"i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
~ed, 8/7
Post edited by Unknown User on

Comments

  • my2handsmy2hands Posts: 17,117
    i was waiting for you to post this...

    i saw it yesterday and had a feeling it was coming ;)
  • jeffbrjeffbr Seattle Posts: 7,177
    Luckily Edwards is already done and irrelevant.

    My prediction is that he'll spend as much time as President as Ron Paul will.
    "I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
  • Yeah.

    Well they should.

    Socialize the country!
    Take back America,
    by giving it to the government!

    :rolleyes:
    If I was to smile and I held out my hand
    If I opened it now would you not understand?
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    Yeah.

    Well they should.

    Socialize the country!
    Take back America,
    by giving it to the government!

    :rolleyes:

    I'll never understand that way of thinking.
  • RainDogRainDog Posts: 1,824
    jlew24asu wrote:
    I'll never understand that way of thinking.
    Ideally, a government that's decided by votes, i.e. the governed population, would be more representative of the population at large than a multinational corporation governed only by profit margins - which, by the way, can be generated by any willing customer, at home or abroad.
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    RainDog wrote:
    Ideally, a government that's decided by votes, i.e. the governed population, would be more representative of the population at large than a multinational corporation governed only by profit margins - which, by the way, can be generated by any willing customer, at home or abroad.


    I was talking about socialism. it doesnt work.
  • jeffbrjeffbr Seattle Posts: 7,177
    RainDog wrote:
    Ideally, a government that's decided by votes, i.e. the governed population, would be more representative of the population at large than a multinational corporation governed only by profit margins - which, by the way, can be generated by any willing customer, at home or abroad.


    Why do you think a multinational corporation should be representative of the population? That is a strange notion. Of course any good business should look at profit margin as a measure of success.
    "I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
  • CommyCommy Posts: 4,984
    jeffbr wrote:
    Why do you think a multinational corporation should be representative of the population? That is a strange notion. Of course any good business should look at profit margin as a measure of success.
    Using "good" may not be the best use of the word here.
  • jeffbrjeffbr Seattle Posts: 7,177
    Commy wrote:
    Using "good" may not be the best use of the word here.

    Fine. Substitute smart, efficient, productive, rational, reasonable, long-term, etc...
    "I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
  • CommyCommy Posts: 4,984
    jeffbr wrote:
    Fine. Substitute smart, efficient, productive, rational, reasonable, long-term, etc...
    rational? reasonable?

    Shipping a factory off to a third world country to by-pass environmental laws so the company can dump its toxic waste straight into the river will yield higher profits, is it rational? Smart? Long-term, etc...

    Or how about outsourcing jobs, that will affect the profit margin. Long term?

    How about assissinating union organizers (AS the cocacola company has done). That will affect the profit margin-less pay no rights, no comp right? Rational?
  • jeffbrjeffbr Seattle Posts: 7,177
    Commy wrote:
    rational? reasonable?

    Shipping a factory off to a third world country to by-pass environmental laws so the company can dump its toxic waste straight into the river will yield higher profits, is it rational? Smart? Long-term, etc...

    Or how about outsourcing jobs, that will affect the profit margin. Long term?

    How about assissinating union organizers (AS the cocacola company has done). That will affect the profit margin-less pay no rights, no comp right? Rational?

    It is easy to take extreme examples to illustrate "the evils" of corporations. It is even more easy for someone like me to highlight the evils of government. You are free to chose to have government control your life and business. I will continue to fight to minimize the size, scope and reach of government. For that reason I will continue to belittle Edwards.
    "I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    jeffbr wrote:
    You are free to chose to have government control your life and business.

    WHY?????????
  • CommyCommy Posts: 4,984
    jeffbr wrote:
    It is easy to take extreme examples to illustrate "the evils" of corporations. It is even more easy for someone like me to highlight the evils of government. You are free to chose to have government control your life and business. I will continue to fight to minimize the size, scope and reach of government. For that reason I will continue to belittle Edwards.
    I have not advocated the need for more government in this thread-and incidentally, a people have meaningful say in their government insofar as it is democratic, ie more government amounts to more freedom. But I am not advocating that here. As it stands a representative democracy seems to be about all a large population can handle, but I'm more of an anarcho syndicalist. Libertarian socialist even. same thing.

    The point is, these things can and do happen. These terrible things corporations are capabale of, and happen far more often than most people think I'd imagine. As you said, at the end of the day the only thing that matters is the profit margin. People dont' care care how, they just want results.
  • jeffbrjeffbr Seattle Posts: 7,177
    Commy wrote:
    I have not advocated the need for more government in this thread-and incidentally, a people have meaningful say in their government insofar as it is democratic, ie more government amounts to more freedom. But I am not advocating that here. As it stands a representative democracy seems to be about all a large population can handle, but I'm more of an anarcho syndicalist. Libertarian socialist even. same thing.

    The point is, these things can and do happen. These terrible things corporations are capabale of, and happen far more often than most people think I'd imagine. As you said, at the end of the day the only thing that matters is the profit margin. People dont' care care how, they just want results.


    Again, this thread was about Edwards, who keeps calling for more and more government intervention in business. Business interests have expressed a dislike for him, no surprise there. Clearly CEOs have a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders to widen margins, grow earnings, increase return on investment, etc... So the choice in this thread is for Edwards or for business. I will vote against Edwards every single time.

    That doesn't mean I agree with everything every corporation does. Just as I don't disagree with everything every government does. I just jumped in here because I didn't and still don't understand why RainDog thinks a multinational corporation should be representative of the population.
    "I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
  • KannKann Posts: 1,146
    jeffbr wrote:
    Again, this thread was about Edwards, who keeps calling for more and more government intervention in business. Business interests have expressed a dislike for him, no surprise there. Clearly CEOs have a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders to widen margins, grow earnings, increase return on investment, etc... So the choice in this thread is for Edwards or for business. I will vote against Edwards every single time.

    That doesn't mean I agree with everything every corporation does. Just as I don't disagree with everything every government does. I just jumped in here because I didn't and still don't understand why RainDog thinks a multinational corporation should be representative of the population.

    I think that's because corporations are starting to make decisions for the people, or at least influencing decisions makers. And nobody actually votes in corporation leaders. They'll make choices for you and leave you in front of the fact with absolutely nothing you can do.
    It's like a government, but without the voting part.
    WHY?????????
    Because there was a time when the government was you and that the sentence "you control your life" actually made sense. I don't actually believe that in todays world less govermnent means more freedom. You'll win some, you'll loose some
    I was talking about socialism. it doesnt work.
    How would we know? It's never been tried. Just like pure free market.
  • RainDogRainDog Posts: 1,824
    Kann wrote:
    I think that's because corporations are starting to make decisions for the people, or at least influencing decisions makers. And nobody actually votes in corporation leaders. They'll make choices for you and leave you in front of the fact with absolutely nothing you can do.
    It's like a government, but without the voting part.
    Thanks. That's exactly what I meant.

    I don't believe a multinational corporation should be representative of the people. They, like all businesses, exist to generate profit. I'm O.K. with that. But they also heavily influence our country and others. An overarching beauracracy voted on by the people (our government) is necessary to keep them in check. Otherwise, the only ones who get a say are the ones who get the pay. There's too much of that already.
  • my2handsmy2hands Posts: 17,117
    jlew24asu wrote:
    I was talking about socialism. it doesnt work.


    the European Union is now the worlds financial superpower...

    i think a government set up to benefit it's people needs can be quite succesful... as we are seeing


    americans happily cheer a $1 trillion yearly defense budget... but oh my god please dont provide health care or schools?

    this country is going to deserve its fate... with all these brainwashed, short sighted jackasses walking around waving the flag... they wave the flag and have NO CLUE what is going on around them
  • my2handsmy2hands Posts: 17,117
    jeffbr wrote:
    I just jumped in here because I didn't and still don't understand why RainDog thinks a multinational corporation should be representative of the population.


    the problem is our "representative" government is currently completely controlled by corporate/elite interests


    that control and influence has to be eliminated... to think differently is cowardly and unamerican in my opinion

    thsat is what John Edwards is saying... and if you dont see this going on and as a major problem then my boy Stevie Wonder can loan you some glasses
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    my2hands wrote:
    the European Union is now the worlds financial superpower...

    i think a government set up to benefit it's people needs can be quite succesful... as we are seeing


    americans happily cheer a $1 trillion yearly defense budget... but oh my god please dont provide health care or schools?

    this country is going to deserve its fate... with all these brainwashed, short sighted jackasses walking around waving the flag... they wave the flag and have NO CLUE what is going on around them

    that is one thing I am not happy about. defense needs to be drastically cut. I would happily support universal healthcare for children and seniors.

    whats funny is that donald rumsfeld was in a meeting on the morning of sept 11, 2001 to CUT military spending. true story.
Sign In or Register to comment.