LTE from David Wade on Kerry 2004 proposals

[MBS]

Good letter from David Wade in NYT this morning!
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/09/opinion/l09kerry.html

Kerry’s Policy Proposals



Re “The Edwards Effect” (column, Feb. 1):

Paul Krugman ridicules John Kerry’s 2004 campaign as “cautious” and “without strong, distinctive policy ideas.”

Talk about a flip-flop that would even make Mitt Romney jealous: Mr. Krugman suggests that Mr. Kerry’s policies weren’t distinctive, but in 2004 when writing about health care policy he said, “The difference couldn’t be starker.” He wasn’t alone: Joe Klein of Time magazine called Mr. Kerry’s health care reinsurance plan the first new big idea of the campaign season.

The ripples of Mr. Kerry’s policy innovations can be seen across the Democratic field. Indeed this newspaper reported that “the Obama campaign revives an idea advanced by the Kerry campaign — using the federal government to cushion employers from sudden, disastrous spikes in health expenditures, by reimbursing health plans for the cost of catastrophic illnesses among their employees” (front page, May 30, 2007).

Every time candidates talk about a “Manhattan Project” for alternative energy, service for college plans or ending tax subsidies that encourage shipping jobs overseas, they echo principles that Mr. Kerry campaigned on in 2004.

How is it that so many of the same policies Mr. Krugman found “cautious” in 2004 have become “bold” in 2008?

David Wade
Washington, Feb. 1, 2008

The writer was national press secretary for Kerry-Edwards 2004.

[ProSense]

1. Excellent!

Thanks for the link!

[Noisy Democrat]

2. He said it

Obama is standing on Kerry's shoulders -- which is fine (good thing JK has strong shoulders), but JK should get credit, or at least not get dissed.

[ginnyinWI]

3. I've noticed those things too.

He is carrying Kerry's ideas forward and I think it's wonderful! Because they are excellent ideas.

[Luftmensch067]

4. Absolutely!

We heard all of JK's policy proposals in Obama's Monday Boston speech. Clearly, Obama has excellent judgement and taste, good qualities in a future president!

Edited to add: OUTSTANDING letter from David Wade, as always! :-)

[karynnj]

5. Excellent

I saw that line in Krugman's editorial and was furious, because it doesn't take a genius to figure out that Edwards' 2008 proposals look far more like Kerry's 2004 ones than Edwards' 2004 plans. Even then he never came close to Kerry on sounding knowledgeable on the environment. In 2004, he said Kerry's healthcare plan was too conservative. I think that Krugman for some reason is inexplicably against Obama to the extent that he has made mandates on issue way out of proportion to its importance.

I personally think that insisting on mandates from day one would create a plan that is DOA on day 1. I'm not sure it would pass if we got to 60 Democrats.

[MBS]

6. I agree totally with this sentence

"I think that Krugman for some reason is inexplicably against Obama to the extent that he has made mandates on issue way out of proportion to its importance" . .. and also with your sense that a mandate would reduce the chance of passage.

Most of all, I agree with Tom Oliphant (I think he was the guy), who wrote recently, "Mandate schmandate". .there is, in fact, not much difference in the health care proposals, and mandates is not all this election is about.

[MarjorieG]

7. Smiled that LTE. Krugman is the arrogant academic.

When we agree with Krugman it's a yeah, but more often he's just an annoying academic without self-doubt. A political tin ear, who is not always right on policy. He hurts us more than helps us. In NY, I really think an article and Hallmark's infomercial with charming Hillary with all SHE'LL do, not the inclusive we, a blistering of facts, swayed some to her.

Obama is exciting voters without so policy specific PUBLICLY to divide, or to insist on policy before perception other views will be considered. I think an effective tightrope.

Kerry seems to love the promoting of shared ideas, the possibility of success with them. This his second campaign, done more boldly, in a way that still couldn't be done by the candidate himself.

Interesting David Sirota on racial and class concerns when delivering of the message. (Not always a Sirota fan, but he does walk a line between doable and not.) http://action.credomobile.com/sirota/2008/02/caught_between_race_and_class.html

[MBS]

8. totally agree with you about Krugman!

.. and Kerry, too. As an expert on annoying academics who aren't always right about everything, even though they think they are ( I know all too much about the type. :)), I say with authority that your characterization of Krugman is right on target.
Nice to hear from you! :hi:

[MarjorieG]

12. Back at ya.

:hi:

[Luftmensch067]

9. Beautifully articulated!

Kerry seems to love the promoting of shared ideas, the possibility of success with them. This his second campaign, done more boldly, in a way that still couldn't be done by the candidate himself.

This is indeed his style and this really is his "second campaign!!!" He's building success with each new campaign, from 2004 to 2006 to 2008. I don't think he'll stop getting better at it anytime soon!

[MarjorieG]

13. JK would have foreign policy impact impossible with Hill and Bill.

He'd love a hand in tackling some of our problems, helping in an appropriate, pitch perfect way. Obama would love and make use of such varied perspective. That excites me.

[blm]

10. Hope this pops up in GD-P

.

[karynnj]

11. I actually don't

Krugman became an enormous Edwards fan and this LTTE is from a Kerry staffer backing Kerry. That Wade was the virtue of being right will not be given as much weight as them saying that Krugman is an independent expert and he sees Edwards as better. Before things got political, I liked that Krugman did a great job in making economic ideas easy to get - though my daughter always corrected me to say easy to get if you already have a background in economics.

This would just ignite an Edwards is better than Kerry fight - which is counterproductive. Unless something totally unexpected happens - Edwards is given a position in a prominent Democratic administration n(which I don't see), becomes a real activist on poverty issues, or wins a third run for President - Kerry is the one who will be better remembered in history.

I think that editorial was a gift to the disappointed people who had followed Edwards and may reflect Krugman's own disappointment. (Maybe even from a professional perspective as well.) I know how I felt in January 2007 and I knew that he had the potential to contribute as a gifted legislator. I imagine it is harder for the Edwards people - in his case, he could have ended up President or out of government. I do think he is out of government for some time. He went so far to the left, that he may now be unelectable in NC. Given his lack of being a good team player in 2004, I think Obama and HRC would have some concern giving him a vp position or attorney general (a position his supporters push for him). Imagine how much harder that time would have been had Kerry also said he didn't want to continue in the Senate.

[JI7]

14. he could do what Gore is doing on the environment, but focus on poverty instead

and maybe even work with Gore and maybe Carter.

so far i see Carter and Gore as being examples of great things you could do even if you are out of office. it would be a good idea for Edwards to look to them as an example unless he does plan on running for political office or join in an administration.

[karynnj]

20. Yeah - that is what I was meaning by becoming a real activist

Looking back at what I wrote, it was my own cynicism that included it in a list of not likely things. That wasn't fair, though I do not really see him as an activist at heart. He was relatively apolitical and even uninterested through most of his life. (Contrast to Kerry who was an activist in college, in the Navy (where he was one of the officers that, while doing what he was told, questioned what they were doing, and in the 1970s against the war and for the environment. Edwards, while a favorite of Daily Kos, never managed the interaction that seemed natural to Kerry.

[WildEyedLiberal]

15. Kudos to Wade for calling out the revisionist history of the punditry

And I always liked Paul Krugman, too. What a shame. I am sick and goddamn tired of liberal pundits rewriting the history of the 2004 campaign - and contradicting their own then-statements - to make excuses for why JK didn't win and why the 2008 candidates are better. They can put lipstick on a pig all they want, but JK was and is the superior candidate and all their bloviating and revising won't change that.

[MBS]

18. perfecto! That last sentence is a gem : )

I 'm sending you a pm in a few minutes. .

[ray of light]

16. That was excellent. Good for Wade for pointing out the facts.

I'm sick of history being re-written about 2004 even while it was being re-written in 2004!

[Mass]

17. I find it amazing to see the anti-DLC Krugman support Hillary Clinton by distorting history.

Talk about a 100% turn around.

[beachmom]

19. Great LTE. This, of course, was the healthcare plan that was completely

ignored. I didn't read blogs much in '04 (not until Oct.), but I was a pretty conscientious reader and viewer of current events: Jim Lehrer News Hour. daily local newspaper, Time magazine, The New Yorker. I never understood much about Kerry's plan except what he said in the debate -- that it was the same healthcare that Congress members received.

So I suppose Krugman thought he could get away with dissing the plan, since not many knew what was in it. Good to see Wade's retort.

[wisteria]

21. Krugman has no credibility left after this. First he goes after Obama and now Kerry.

It is obvious who his is pimping for. What as shame for him to behave in this way and spread misconceptions and lies.


Bravo to David Wade too, for telling it like is was and is.