Posted on 07/06/2004 4:15:02 PM PDT by yoe
John Edwards, Sen. Kerry's newly chosen running mate is no friend of America's taxpayers, says taxpayer advocate Grover Norquist.
Moreover, the choice of Edwards as Kerry's running mate carries with it a lot of negatives for Bill and Hillary Clinton - and any democrat who has his eyes on the White House.
Norquist, who heads Americans for Tax Reform in Washington, D.C., and is considered one of the shrewdest political, observers in Washington told NewsMax.com in an exclusive interview: “One week ago, the United States transferred power to a sovereign government in Iraq. By choosing John Edwards over Dick Gephardt, the Democrats today transferred power in their party from the labor unions to the trial lawyers."
“Like Kerry, Edwards has a nasty record of voting against taxpayers," Norquist explained. "In six short years he has amassed an anti-taxpayer record rivaling both Kerry and the other Massachusetts senator, Kennedy.
"Edwards voted against the 2001 and 2003 tax relief plans, voted 12 times against repealing the marriage penalty, 8 times against repealing the Death Tax, against the per-child tax credit, against suspending the gasoline tax, and is an ardent protectionist.
"In the last six years, if a policy was good for taxpayers, Edwards was on the wrong side every time,” said Norquist.
According to Norquist, Edward's background as a trial lawyer will inject tremendous energy into both the business and medical communities.
By choosing Edwards, Norquist said, Kerry declared war on on both groups. "This choice was a declaration of war on doctors, hospitals and the entire business community.
"It also has another problem. Vice President Cheney as Bush's nominee is a guy who obviously could become president because he has a serious leadership history, which Edwards doesn't."
The selection of Edwards also has great political significance, Norquist said. "Every Republican who wants to be president someday wishes Bush well. If you are a governor or senator who'd like to be president in 2008, you want Bush to win - you don't want to be running against Edwards in 2008. You want Bush to retire and give you an open shot at it.
"On the Democrat side, should Kerry win, the presidency isn't open in 2008 - it won't be open until 2012. With Edwards as vice president, if Kerry wins, it's not open until 2016."
This, he said, was "bad news for Hillary Clinton. It means her career is over. She'll never be president. The whole point of being Hillary will be she's just another vote in the Senate unless everyone you talk to believes that someday you'll be president. Then you're not just another Senator from a liberal state, you're important.
"As a result, every significant Democrat who might be president knows that they would be better off if they woke up the day after the election and Kerry lost."
It's not just Hillary and her fellow Democratic hopefuls who would be the big losers if Kerry won.
"The biggest loser will be Bill Clinton who, if Kerry wins, will no longer be the titular head of the Democrat party, which he is today."
Norquist continued: "Kerry will take over the Democratic National Committee and put his own people in, and Bill Clinton will just be an interesting guy who used to be president. He'd have as much clout in the party as Jimmy Carter."
The fact is that Clinton still has a lot of assets - fund raising ability and a knack for rallying the African American vote among other things. Norquist wonders, "How hard does he work" for Kerry?
After all, Norquist said, "if [Clinton] helps Kerry win the presidency he slits his own political throat. And when has Bill Clinton every done something for the greater good rather than his own personal interests?"
Summing up, Norquist said that "the incentives for the establishment are negative. The question now becomes are you with 20,000 trial lawyers or several million small businessmen?"
I sense we are witnessing the beginning of the destruction of the Democratic party. Heheheh.
Norquist is correct about the trial lawyers, but I believe he has overlooked the all-powerful Government Unions - this is where the labor unions' power base has transferred. And the teachers unions and the huge NEA, which has nothing to do with real education, it is all about money for their union in order to “vote” their candidate into office, in this case Kerry...like trial lawyers, they vote their pocket book, not for America.
If this was part of Kerry's calculation in picking Edwards, it's a bit of a no-brainer. The labor unions are shrinking in numbers and dollars, whereas the trial lawyers are increasing their earnings, some of which they contribute to the Dems.
Crossing my fingers!
I hope the media jumps all over their combined tax history! It gets me so mad when he says he is looking out for the middle class. He is looking out for us all right and he is going to tax us to death!!
I think most people who pay attention knows that the labor unions have not been the Demorats power base for a while. They still get lots of votes from them, but the unions like the blacks have started to figure out that the Demorats are all about Demorats and one one else.
Can't be. The alphabet networks have been telling us this is the most united the Democrat party has been in many years.
And, that amounts to peanuts!
Bill and Hillary surely do not want to see Kerry/Edwards drink from **Their cup..and offshore banking : )
Clintons and their ilk will manuver to undermine the Undertaker and his smiling puppy.
If blacks are figuring it out, their actual voting patterns aren't reflecting it yet. As for the labor unions, in a State like Michigan, they offer organization which is invaluable. Having said all that, as long as trial attorneys appear to be on the same side of the issues as blacks, unions, Hispanics or whomever else, I doubt they will sense a transfer of power in the selection of Edwards.
Has Norquist taken a break from kissing the butts of Islamists long enough to think this through and write it?
I still don't think we've really figured out what is going on here on the Dem side. Unlike Clinton, who was purely evil, I think Kerry is 100% incompetent, which makes him no less dangerous in office.
Rush Limbaugh had a funny way of putting this today: Now that Kerry has made his VP choice, Hillary is switching her gun mode against him from stun to kill.
And, when these 'Establishment' Democrats step into the voting booth, may we count on their support, there behind the closed curtain, as they make a checkmark beside the Bush/Cheney Electors' entry on the ballot?
But that would be counting on lifelong Democrats to be doing the right thing. Always an uncertain proposition.
Even if sKerry/Fratboy win (*GAAK*) Shrillary will get what she wants...first biologically female Chief Justice.
Leaves her out.
So exclusive that he gave the same interview to FNC twenty minutes later.
Republicans are going to be in for a big surprise on election day if the Democrats are able to get out a large voter turnout! Norquist's reasoning if perfectly logical but not very realistic, in my opinion.
Tune in to C-SPAN any morning, and you'll hear every stripe of Democratic thinking from far-leftists to blacks, gays, and especially nearly all women callers. They HATE GWB with a passion, and would vote for anybody to see a Democrat win the White House in November, and perhaps even one or both houses of the Congress.
President Bush should be running scared, but from what I read in Human Reports recently, mostly liberal Repulicans are going to be prime time speakers at the convention. Is Sen. Rick Santorum going to be able to speak? If not, Pennsylvania may go Democratic. How about Senators Mike DeWine and George Voinovich of Ohio. No Republican has won the White House without carrying Ohio. Both states are up for grabs, and all it will take is for a large turnout of Democratic voters.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.