Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Edwards adviser David 'Mudcat' Saunders on winning back the South and Midwest

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
JohnLocke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-19-07 01:02 PM
Original message
Edwards adviser David 'Mudcat' Saunders on winning back the South and Midwest
Edited on Tue Jun-19-07 01:19 PM by JohnLocke
q&a: david 'mudcat' saunders
John Edwards's campaign adviser talks with Joe Hagan about rural Americans getting screwed by the GOP, why his candidate will win back the "Bubba" vote for the Dems, and how his good buddy Cooter from The Dukes of Hazzard sometimes calls on him for a little help.

"Let me tell you," David Saunders says. "John Edwards is one tough son of a bitch."
----
David Saunders, a wiry, chain-smoking, 59-year-old adviser to Democratic presidential aspirant John Edwards, is as bald and blunt as Edwards is coiffed and controlled. Known by his backwoods nickname, "Mudcat," he's a self-described "rural liaison" who is helping Edwards craft a populist message of economic equality for "Bubba," that catchall for the traditional white, male voter living in rural America. In real time, that means Saunders, a native of Roanoke County, Virginia, can put John Edwards on a stage next to bluegrass legend Ralph Stanley while reminding voters that Democrats like guns, too. With consultant Steve Jarding, Saunders co-authored the 2006 book Foxes in the Henhouse: How the Republicans Stole the South and the Heartland and What the Democrats Must Do to Run 'em Out. Having helped Mark Warner get elected as Governor of Virginia in 2001 (in part by concocting a bluegrass jingle for his campaign), he used some of the same populist themes to aid Jim Webb's successful 2006 bid for senator.
(...)
MEN'S VOGUE: You picked John Edwards early while Mark Warner was still in the race. Why did you go with Edwards at that point?

SAUNDERS: It's very simple. I am much, much more a rural advocate than I am a Democrat. And I'm plum fed up with the way rural America—56 million of us—have been screwed. What deregulation and these trade treaties, what corporate pirates have done to us is unconscionable. And Johnny Edwards is right where I am. He's plum fed up. You can go through the South now—you know where we were raised—and they all look the same now, like Sherman went through there and didn't burn anything. But nobody really wants to talk about economic fairness.

MEN'S VOGUE: What convinced you that Edwards meant it?

SAUNDERS: I know the guy. God, I've known him since December of 2001. Johnny's one of the most misportrayed people in the history of American politics.

MEN'S VOGUE: Why?

SAUNDERS: In 1980, one percent of the people made eight percent of the money, now one percent of the people makes more than 20 percent of the money. Disparity is at an all-time high. And it pisses me off that anytime anybody asks a question about John Edwards and his strong beliefs on economic fairness, everybody talks about how he isn't qualified to talk about it because he has a highfalutin haircut and lives in a high-powered house. What they're saying is only the uneducated can talk about education, only the sick can talk about health care. That's how ludicrous that whole mindset is.

MEN'S VOGUE: There's a debate about whether Democrats can make any headway in the South, where one of the challenges is getting white, working class people to vote on economic issues. But often they're voting on so-called moral issues.

MEN'S VOGUE: You know, we finally broke through on God.

MEN'S VOGUE: How is that?

SAUNDERS: Because Democrats are starting to stand up and say, "Wait a damn minute, the GOP doesn't stand for God's Only Party." God is neither Democrat nor Republican. He could care if you're a Democrat or a Republican. He's about the individual heart, not your party.

MEN'S VOGUE: But why do you think that Democrats now have some sort of credibility on that issue where before they didn't?

SAUNDERS: Maybe the Republicans haven't lived up to the buck. You know you can't take a confusing single issue like abortion, and continue to use that as evidence that you're continuing to do God's work when you destroy God's will in every other facet of what you do.

MEN'S VOGUE: Are you talking about the war? The environment?

SAUNDERS: No Child Left Behind—not funding it. You know, here are the Republicans, they could put a smart bomb down an elevator shaft in Baghdad from a ship out in the Mediterranean but they can't put a pill in the pocket of a damn World War II veteran? Give me a break. Gays—hell, they've had so many state amendments banning . I think people are sick of talking about gays. And see the racial wedges are definitely crumbling.
(...)
SAUNDERS: Let me give you an example. If you say the word poverty, what kind of people come to your mind?

MEN'S VOGUE: The inner cities, maybe.

SAUNDERS: I'd say! That's the first thing. Now when Bubba hears about poverty—now he's lost his job, his kid wants to go to college but he can't pay his tuition, so he's getting ready to send him off to the army so he can get some money off the G.I. Bill, he don't have any health insurance, he's got a little garden out there in his yard, and he just picks up odd jobs, throws some hay bails or something, and is just sitting there completely devastated. But if you tell him he's living in poverty, he'll fight you over it. And the reason is because of pride. He's broke but he isn't poor. You say, "Are you living in poverty?" He'll say, "Hell no, I'm not in poverty." But if you ask him if he's being treated unfairly, he'll say, "F---, yes."
(...)
SAUNDERS: Oh, I've gotten that for sure. It's like Harry Truman said, "The president of the United States is the lobbyist for the regular people." It drives me berserk when someone says that Johnny's a wuss or something. Let me tell you something, John Edwards is one tough son of a bitch.
(...)
SAUNDERS: No, I just know him. Look at his track record. He's born poor as a church mouse. And his dad works up a little bit so by the time he gets out of school, he's pretty much middle class even though he didn't have much. So he decides he's going to earn a football scholarship at Clemson University, so he goes down there and he's one of these Rudy guys and he gets the absolute dog crap beat out of him. The guy is quicker than a hiccup, he really is, but he weighed a hundred and nothing and they beat the hell out of him. And he did that for a year, and at the end of the year they said no scholarship is coming, so he transferred to NC State. Then he starts his career as a trial lawyer and he immediately takes on the biggest, toughest, baddest legal firms in America and whips their asses taking up for little people. You don't do that unless you're tough. And I will say this: I'd hate to fight him cause you'd have to kill him, because he would fight you to the last second. I want that toughness in my president, because we can't win on a freakin' haircut.
(...)
----
Read the rest here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
IndyOp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-19-07 01:17 PM
Response to Original message
1. Nice article - Thanks JL! (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-19-07 01:18 PM
Response to Original message
2. "I'd hate to fight him cause you'd have to kill him, because he would fight you to the last second.
Saunders said speaking of John Edwards!

What Universe would this be in? Didn't see much "fight" in Edwards in 2004 for John Kerry. Is it that Edwards fights for himself well, but not so much for others? Don't we need someone who fights for this country, period? :shrug:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Syrinx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-19-07 01:40 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. if you'll remember...
On election night 2004, Edwards promised to fight to have every vote counted. The next morning, Kerry waived the white flag.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-19-07 01:45 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Right....that's the recollection from the Edwards camp currently......
although Edwards didn't make a peep about this subject, even months after the race. It wasn't until he decided to run again, that he conveniently "remembered" that he wanted to "fight" for all of the votes to be counted. I don't buy that Edwards' a fighter. I buy that he'll say that he is if that will help him win the presidency that he has been wanting since 2001!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Syrinx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-19-07 01:52 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. that's the way I remember it too
I watched Edwards give that speech very late on election night. It made me excited that they were going to fight. Too bad Kerry vetoed him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-19-07 01:59 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. Because Edwards got to give his speech that early morning before
it was concluded that fighting wouldn't mean a win. Edwards didn't make a peep after that. If he was such a fighter, why didn't he continue on? Did he need everyone else behind him to do so? Edwards ain't no more of a fighter than anyone else. This is just pure propaganda from the Edwards' camp. Edwards is a follower, not a leader.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Syrinx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-19-07 02:05 PM
Response to Reply #7
11. Kerry was the head of the ticket
It wouldn't have made sense for Edwards to be out fighting after Kerry had surrendered.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-19-07 02:08 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. Why not? Wasn't Edwards supposed to be fighting for our country on this?
Mudcat states that Edwards would fight to the death.

Doesn't sound like that's what happened at all. Saying a few words in a speech prior to the head of the ticket making an assessment as to where things stood does not a fighter make.

Words without action mean nothing.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
draft_mario_cuomo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-19-07 03:02 PM
Response to Reply #11
15. Why is this so hard for the DLC'ers to understand? Kerry was in charge
Edited on Tue Jun-19-07 03:03 PM by draft_mario_cuomo
Plus, Kerry is not a quitter like some others who have run for president... He lost. Period.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-19-07 01:59 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. Because Edwards got to give his speech that early morning before
it was concluded that fighting wouldn't mean a win. Edwards didn't make a peep after that. If he was such a fighter, why didn't he continue on? Did he need everyone else behind him to do so? Edwards ain't no more of a fighter than anyone else. This is just pure propaganda from the Edwards' camp. Edwards is a follower, not a leader.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mnhtnbb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-19-07 01:55 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. From the USA Blog on election night 2004. I was up. I remember. FrenchieCat, you're wrong.
2:30 a.m. ET: Edwards: 'We can wait'

Vice-presidential candidate John Edwards vowed to fight to ensure every vote counts, clearly signalling that the Democratic ticket would not concede without Ohio's provisional ballots being counted. Bush was leading by more than 120,000 votes in Ohio with 97% of precincts reporting. Kerry campaign manager Mary Beth Cahill said around 250,000 provisional ballots were outstanding, but Republican Secretary of State Ken Blackwell said the number was "trending toward" 175,000.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2004/electionsBlog.htm

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-19-07 02:01 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. That was the night before the morning.......
But he didn't really fight....he only said that they would. It was rethoric prior to a decision being made. Good timing as to who spoke first and what the circumstances were at the time that they spoke does not a fighter make. Sorry. But sure, it sounds good now. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mnhtnbb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-19-07 04:22 PM
Response to Reply #9
16. Not rhetoric. Edwards meant it. Kerry rejected the fight. And he was 'the decider'.
Edited on Tue Jun-19-07 04:23 PM by mnhtnbb
Skull and Bones member, just like the current 'decider'.

I never liked Kerry--and when he gave up without a fight--he validated the reason
why I didn't like him.

You can believe what you want about Edwards. I was a fanatical Deaniac in '04,
but I've come around to liking the way Edwards has moved left since then.
My opinion of him started to change election night when he wasn't ready to quit without counting the votes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RamboLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-19-07 05:18 PM
Response to Reply #9
18. And Elizabeth Edwards went to the hospital that day for tests
Which were positive for breast cancer. As others have said, Kerry was the head of the ticket and if Kerry didn't want to fight Edwards couldn't go around him. Plus as I posted Edwards certainly had other priorities that morning. Hell as far as I'm concerned John and Elizabeth did a helluva job carrying on those last couple of weeks with them knowing that Elizabeth had a lump in her breast.

But I think you're too darn stubborn to recognize any argument on this point!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
draft_mario_cuomo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-19-07 03:01 PM
Response to Reply #2
14. Yeah, we need someone who quits after 2 weeks
;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
waiting for hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-19-07 02:04 PM
Response to Original message
10. Thanks for the article - K&R!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Robeson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-19-07 02:09 PM
Response to Original message
13. Interesting read....
...thanks for posting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GeorgeGist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-19-07 05:04 PM
Response to Original message
17. Y'all get rich now ...
Greed's an itch that's never satisfied.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Nov 03rd 2024, 09:03 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC