The DMR lets the cat out of the bag: The MSM doesn't like Edwards because he is anti-corporate.

[jsamuel]

link

"Edwards was our pick for the 2004 nomination. But this is a different race, with different candidates. We too seldom saw the "positive, optimistic" campaign we found appealing in 2004. His harsh anti-corporate rhetoric would make it difficult to work with the business community to forge change."

The thing is that this message is resonating with Iowans as evidenced by the Des Moines Register's own debate.

[Double T]

1. ANY candidate that is ANTI-CORPORATE is a candidate...........

worth strongly considering in the primary elections. Free Market capitalism doesn't work and drastic changes are necessary immediately.

[Lucinda]

2. I thought that viewpoint was pretty apparent all along.

He is forcing them to pay more attention, because he is doing well in spite of them.

None of the others (Hillary and Obama excluded) are getting the press they deserve though, so I still question just how much Edwards rhetoric is squashing his coverage.

[jsamuel]

4. apparent, but never stated

[Lucinda]

6. True. You never really see anyone laying it out like that.

[ashling]

7. OT, but I notice that

none of the candidates in your sig line have any wrinkles LOL

[derby378]

3. God forbid that corporations might have to (gasp!) OBEY THE LAW instead of rewrite it

When Steve Wilson and Jane Akre tried to get the word out on rBST in milk on a FOX News affiliate in Florida, they were told by a FOX News suit: "We just paid $3 billion for these stations. We'll tell you what the news is. The news is whatever we say it is."

So yeah, I have no problem with an anti-corporate mindset in the White House.

[tsuki]

11. And didn't they take it to court, and the courts said that the news

networks did not have to give the public the truth?

[derby378]

22. That's how the appeals court ruled

Akre and Wilson won the first court battle, and FOX News immediately appealed. Several media outlets, including Belo Corporation (publishers of The Dallas Morning News, Cox Television, Gannett, Media General Operations, and Post-Newsweek Stations filed amicus curiae briefs on behalf of New World Communications of Tampa (the FOX affiliate). According to the legal ruling from the appeals court that all of these media outlets signed off on, much to their disgrace:

While WTVT has raised a number of challenges to the judgment obtained by Akre, we need not address each challenge because we find as a threshold matter that Akre failed to state a claim under the whistle-blower's statute. The portion of the whistle-blower's statute pertinent to this appeal prohibits retaliation against employees who have "<d>isclosed, or threatened to disclose," employer conduct that "is in violation of" a law, rule, or regulation. § 448.102(1)(3). The statute defines a "law, rule or regulation" as "includ<ing> any statute or...any rule or regulation adopted pursuant to any federal, state, or local statute or ordinance applicable to the employer and pertaining to the business." § 448.101(4), Fla. Stat. (1997). We agree with WTVT that the FCC's policy against the intentional falsification of the news – which the FCC has called its "news distortion policy" – does not qualify as the required "law, rule, or regulation" under section 448.102. <Emphasis mine>

In short, these soulless freaks claim that since "the FCC has never published its news distortion policy as a regulation with definitive elements and defenses," and since that FCC policy did not qualify as a bona fide "law, rule, or regulation," it's okay for the news media to lie to the American people. This argument caused Akre's whistle-blower status to be revoked, and her jury award of $425,000 turned into fairy dust. And schoolchildren all over America continued to be fed milk laced with rBST.

Kinda makes you want to cry, doesn't it?

[Catchawave]

5. Of course he is, that's why I love him :)

DMR is MSM and corporate owned, not to mention the ad revenue they lose because smaller local businesses are probably scared sh*tless of him.

Did you see the background on the Clinton Schmooze Campaign:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/15/us/politics/15register.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

...now if they had only sent Mark Penn instead of Bill...:rofl:

[bullwinkle428]

8. Thom Hartmann has been saying this for months

on his radio show - regular listeners can confirm this! :)

[burythehatchet]

9. Leys correct the terminology - JE is anti corporate CORRUPTION

[jsamuel]

14. good point

[OHdem10]

10. Populism is anathema to a Corporate run Country.

Corporate Journalists must serve their corporate masters.

I assumed this was understood.

Added This also explain why HRC and Obama are very general
in talking policy--not many specifics.

At the GOP Debate in Iowa: Guilliani in discussing economic
policy , plainly state his first move
would be a Corporate TaxCut.

[BeyondGeography]

12. Pretty remarkable that Edwards is singled out for being "negative"

in so many words and they had nothing to say about the actual negative campaigning of the chosen one. The whole thing is so hollow.

[JDPriestly]

15. I was just saying today that one of the things I like about Edwards is his optimism.

He is not negative at all.

[BeyondGeography]

16. I'm chalking it up to the change of ownership at the DMR more than anything

Whole new set of editors there, too. How do you go from the creative and gutsy choice of endorsing Edwards (who was nowhere near the most experienced candidate) in 2004 to HRC (who's basically selling nothing more than an inflated resume) this time around? Also, if you re-read the two endorsements, one resonates with conviction (2004) and the other is superficial, bordering on incoherent.

Must suck to work there; companies are usually better at hiding their bullshit than this.

[Armstead]

13. The business community HAS TO work with us

It's not like Corporate America is supposed to graciously grant us favors.

They ought to be just like us. It's not a matter of my choice whether or not to kill someone or rob a bank. It's required that I not do those things as a member of society.

The public ought not to have to go to the Corporations and beg them to please, please work with us.

John Edwards is right.

[OHdem10]

17. I will never forget one those press conferences on the

Hill. There stood all the Key Republicans and Key Democrats from House
and Senate. One by one they gave a little spiel. The Purpose of the
Presser was to announce One Hundred and Thirty Nine BILLION, Dollars.
as a Christmas gift for Corporate America. Example GE alone received
8 Billion Dollars. Folks this is working taxpayers money. I do not
mind helping Corporate America when they are in a bind. It would
be foolish not to. What has soured me is these same people who
quickly put the 139Billion together for Corporate America, go around
screeching if you want to give a few pennies to average Americans
who are facing hardship. We could not afford and it is not government's
role --Katrina. Every night it seems someone on Fox News and some
other places. We cannot afford Social Security , we must turn it
over to Wall Street. Business report the other day , the reason
for WS pushing Privatization---Employers do not want to pay social
security match. In other words, shaft the working people once more.
The other reason WS wants all that cash (they can count on it because
it comes from the Government.

Here is the way I see it. Businesses in this country are not required
to pay a living wage. Businesses are not required to provide health
care and many are dropping the pracitice, if at one time, they did provide
this benefit. Businesses with a wink and a nod can employ illegal
workers and not even pay them minimum wage. These companies get richer
and richer on the backs of salt of the earth decent Americans. And
indirectly the upper classes get richer and richer while the Middle
Class lose ground and poor get poorer.

We are better society than this. I can remember when Corporations
looked askance at Companies,if they dared make profits more than
20 times the worker. This was the way people got
raises. The Company prospered and the workers were rewarded.
There was morality then.

I know we cannot and it is impossible to go back. I would not
want to go back. It does not hurt to remind ourselves that
"Greed is GOOD" was not always the Mantra of our Country.


Billions in Corporate Welfare and Pennies to workers whose
taxes pay for this.

I am not an anti-corporatist. Just Fairness is all I ask.

[Triana]

26. BINGO...

...corporations are predatory. Asking them not to kill, maim, or damage us - ain't gonna work. You have to fight them - or you LOSE. And I for one, am TIRED of losing to them.

You cannot negotiate with a predator. You HAVE TO LEVEL THE FIELD to have any chance of survival. Edwards is about levelling that terrain.

[dmosh42]

18. Listening to the people? What a change!

The biggest enemy to our constitution and way of life has been the corruption engineered by our 'biggest' corporations. Teddy Roosevelt caused a big change with his anti-trust attitude last century, So Edwards will lead the charge this century. Go Edwards!

[Azathoth]

19. I hate to say it, but the DMR may have unwittingly given Edwards a huge boost

Criticizing the guy because he isn't cozying up to every business interest he can find certainly isn't going to hurt his chances among Iowa Democrats.

[chimpymustgo]

20. Agreed. The DMR has shown itself to be craven, corporate, status quo. Thanks for pointing out why

we love JRE.

I think this endorsement will help both JRE and BSO.

[Evergreen Emerald]

21. that is not what they said in their endorsement

that is a superficial take on their reasoning.

[jsamuel]

24. no, that is what they said. it is a quote

[Tom Rinaldo]

23. Unfortunately for leftists in America, Capitalism still has a "good name" in this nation

I mean that literally. Most Americans embrace what they view as the Free Enterprise System. There is a reason, I am not even saying it is a good one, why more people didn't take to the streets after Michael Moore's "Sicko" came out. There is a reason why single payer heath care can get attacked for being "Socialized Medicine" and have that line of attack be politically effective with tens of millions of middle class and even working poor Americans. And of course I am aware of corporate management of the news and all the rest of it, and of course that is a huge part of the reason. But the results are real none the less.

I see America as engaged in a long standing and ongoing cold civil war between the agenda of the concentrated forces of capital and that of the less priveledged sectors of our society. In a macro sense I agree with John Edwards' position regarding that. I disagree that the highlighted use of harsh anti-corporate rheroric at a National level by someone seeking to lead this nation will be the most effective means toward realizing political goals consistent with that rhetoric. It's not that I am bothered that such a political tone is polorizing; not in the slightest. I am bothered by my sense that the resulting polorization (factoring in the media's ability to distort intentions) results in too few people flocking to our pole in that resulting divide to effectively enable us to move a change agenda.

And I am intentionally making a distinction between the terms "rhetoric" and "message". I think there are ways for a relatively radical progressive message to break through and be heard AND accepted. I think John Edwards often hits on langueage that does just that, but he dances near the edge where he risks being tuned out and marginalized also. Because of that enduring cold civil war that I referred to above, progressive forces do not have a clear upper hand to dictate results of our choosing. In some societies where major power divides exist, it evolves to a point where the adjective "cold" gets dropped from "civil war" with real fighting breaking out as a result. Americans overwhelmingly are no where near to wanting to go down that road, and they have their very good reasons for that. The alternative, to varying degrees, involves "working together" with some people who start out on the other side of one or more divides from us, until such time as one side or another (hopefully the progressive side) gains enough trust from the American people that fewer compromises on principle become necessary. That is what politics is about. Rhetoric, in politics, is a double edged sword.

[IndyOp]

25. Because we can only have change if the business community says we can...

:eyes: