January 2, 2008
Edwards: Too Cute by Half (Peter Fenn)
John Edwards may very well win Iowa. He has a strong organization, four years in the making, and a message that goes to the anger and frustration of many voters.
His central theme is that Washington is corrupt. Lobbyists and money control the process. He alone can fight it and fix it.
Even if you accept that this rather over-arching, simplistic notion has some merit, Edwards is probably not the best one to be making the argument.
After all, he is the recipient of over $6.5 million in trial lawyer money by July of this year alone, and he and his surrogate organizations, One America and Alliance for America, respectively, took over $750,000 from one donor (“Bunny” Mellon, a descendant of the Mellon family of whom Edwards recently spoke disparagingly as part of the “Gilded Age” of America, though he has since dropped the reference). And, as we know, he never attempted to change the system as a senator.
Most important, he decided to take federal matching funds on Oct. 8, precisely when he knew that an independent group, run by his friend and former campaign manager, Nick Baldick, was poised to spend millions on his behalf in Iowa and New Hampshire. Lobbyist money. Independent expenditures. Special interests, as he defines them.
Not only did John Edwards fail to stop the questionable special interest activity, it appears that he was counting on it as part of his strategy to win Iowa.
These 527 organizations are part of the political landscape for both parties. They exist. They are legal.
What I object to is the self-righteous quality of the Edwards campaign and the hypocrisy of taking the money while railing against the very practice he is embracing — and making “the corrupt system” the very centerpiece of the campaign! He is pretending to “bite the hand that feeds him.”
Here is Mike Glover’s AP story from Dec. 31, 2007. Judge for yourself:
Edwards has been getting more than $2 million in help from labor-backed independent groups that have drawn criticism from watchdog organizations and from Obama in particular. The groups, called "527″ organizations for the section of the IRS code that authorizes them, have been running ads supporting Edwards' policies in Iowa during the closing days of the campaign.
Appearing on CBS' "Early Show" Monday, Edwards said he has no control over those organizations — one of which is run by Nick Baldick, a Democratic strategist who managed Edwards's 2004 campaign.
"It's my understanding that the guy who runs the organization worked for me years ago. Yes, that is true," Edwards said when asked about the connection.
Edwards' campaign retained Baldick's firm earlier this year to provide political strategy consulting. Edwards spokesman Eric Shultz said Edwards was referring to Baldick's role as campaign manager in 2004.
Good grief. This response from Edwards stretches one’s patience — “the guy worked for me years ago”??? Come on, John, this smells — and it runs totally counter to what you say you are campaigning against. You could have stopped it with one phone call. You could have prevented it from happening months ago when you knew what they were up to in October. But instead you dialed up the rhetoric on the other candidates and how they were examples of Washington corruption but argued you were clean precisely when your campaign was hatching the plot to pour millions into a separate, special-interest media blitz.
If the system is so wrong, John, why did you play it? If you are so opposed to special interests and lobbyists, why did you take their money, millions of it? It all sounds pretty cynical to me, really, and not the kind of campaign you ran in 2004 or the kind of campaign you started to run earlier this year.
This may get you through Iowa but, in the end, you will box yourself in and you will get called on it.
Permalink TrackBack EMail This Post
Share this post
What's This 15 Comments
»
The Hill welcomes comment from anyone and will almost always post it whether it is favorable or critical, as long as it is substantive and advances debate.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
[…] The Hillâs Pundit Blog created an interesting post today on Edwards: Too Cute by HalfHere's a short outline […]
Pingback by Democrats @ 2008 Presidential Election » Edwards: Too Cute by Half — January 2, 2008 @ 9:31 am
I can't think of any time when Edwards said he alone can solve the corruption in Washington. Painting him in such a way is disengenuous and smells Rovian.
No one can solve a problem they do not recognise. At least, Edwards sees a problem. That's all he is saying. Do you see a problem with corruption in Washington? If not, then you are part of the problem.
Comment by Smedley Valet — January 2, 2008 @ 11:09 am
[…] I've noted some of the questions regarding Edwards' fund raising in several posts, most recently here. Writing at The Hill's Pundit Blog, Peter Fenn reviews some of these issues in a post entitled, Edwards: Too Cute by Half. Normally I would just provide an excerpt from a post such as this but in this case it is important to read the entire post. For those who might not follow the link I'll reprint it under the fold and hope the author would see this exception more as flattery than a violation of intellectual property rights. Edwards: Too Cute by Half (Peter Fenn) […]
Pingback by More Attention Beng Paid To Questions Regarding Edwards Fund Raising - Liberal Values - Defending Liberty and Enlightened Thought — January 2, 2008 @ 1:06 pm
On these kinds of articles, the following piece from Mr. Fenn's bio explains quite aptly his position:
Since its founding in 1983, the Fenn Communications Group has become one of the nation’s premier political and public affairs media firms. It has worked on over 300 campaigns, from presidential to mayoral, elected more members of the House of Representatives than any other firm and represented a host of Fortune 500 companies.
He's part of the target. Of course he won't like Edwards' message.
Comment by PSoTD — January 2, 2008 @ 1:48 pm
527s are beyond a candidate's control yet this is the repetitive slur used to question Edwards.
I guess evidence of corruption is too much to ask for because that's how beltway politics works.
Edwards words seem to cause a lot of consternation to those within the beltway. I've heard more critique of him the past year than Bush got in his first 4 years.
Keep it up. It'll probably work. Edwards would shake up the in crowd too much and we mustn't have that. It might really upset the lap poodles.
Comment by Kevin Hayden — January 2, 2008 @ 2:35 pm
Kevin -
Give me a break. The 527 was obviously set up by Edwards' people to help him. We can't really blame him for that…he's working within the law…but we also can't blame folks like Obama for defending themselves.
And your paranoid delusions about corporate "in crowd" conspiracies against Edwards are complete and utter silliness. I've read this tripe all over the internet…and it's ridiculous. We've had economic populism before, and we'll have it again. The real question is whether voters will vote against the general idea of evil corporations (see: their employers)? It rarely works…
At any rate, good luck, I'll definitely take Obama or Edwards!
Comment by Democrats Against Hillary — January 3, 2008 @ 9:47 am
"He’s part of the target. Of course he won’t like Edwards’ message."
Actually, 527s give tons of money to groups like Fenn and other media/political consulting firms. Edwards is their bread and butter!
Comment by Democrats Against Hillary — January 3, 2008 @ 9:48 am
Fenn is just a Clintonista political hack. And he talks about money sources?
Comment by wyatt newman — January 3, 2008 @ 9:57 am
Yes, there is a problem with corruption in Washington, and trial lawyers are part of it.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — January 3, 2008 @ 9:58 am
Thank god a side benefit of Edwards' populist campaign is that a lot of corporate Democrats have had to reveal themselves in order to attack him. Mr. Fenn's use of Republican talking points against trial lawyers is very revealing.
People like Fenn, Rothenberg & Klein call Edwards the "angry man" but it is very clear that it is the corporate Dems like them that are so angry at Edwards traction in this race that they have been spewing venemous vile about him during this entire campaign.
Thank you for OUTING yourselves.
Comment by pmorlan — January 3, 2008 @ 10:43 am
[…] http://pundits.thehill.com/2008/01/02/edwards-too-cute-by-half/ Published in: […]
Pingback by Edwards: Too Cute by Half « Rebel Weblog — January 3, 2008 @ 12:34 pm
Voted for NAFTA. Now opposes it. Voted for the Patriot Act. Now opposes it. Voted for Bush tax cut plan. Now ooposes it. Voted for the war. Altogether everyone - now opposes it. Trade, domestic security, taxes, and war policy - these are the real issues of the day. How could anyone be surprised that this very small man would game a system he rails against?
"It is my understanding…" - PLLLEASE. Why no rep for flip flopping? Name another candidate of either party who is 4 flips on 4 flops on these issues.
Comment by Michael Hanrahan — January 3, 2008 @ 1:06 pm
Hillary.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — January 3, 2008 @ 3:49 pm
People are missing the point. Depending on who’s backing them and what their intent is there may be nothing inherently wrong with a 527 if it’s meant to spread a “positive” message (i.e. not to slander, misrepresent a candidate’s record, etc.). The hypocrisy here (regardless of what the ad’s messages are) is that John Edwards rails against 527s (“special interests”), meanwhile his campaign has a history of having its own aides (Jonathan Prince in 2004, Nick Baldick for 2008) leave before the Iowa caucus to help establish a 527 designed to funnel advertising dollars into Iowa on Edwards’ behalf.
He’s not just remaining silent while some group he has no control over spends money in Iowa to support him. He’s getting his own people to set up these 527s to spend money on his behalf. It is fundamentally different and reeks of hypocrisy.
Comment by Joan — January 3, 2008 @ 4:44 pm
After watching Fenn during this primary I can tell you that I would never support anyone that he backs. He obviously has sold his soul for the almighty dollar so anyone he supports would not be an honest candidate.
Comment by pmorlan — January 3, 2008 @ 7:03 pm