John Edwards has Dave "Mudcat" Saunders Advising Him

[RamboLiberal]

I've heard Mudcat a couple of times on TV and a local radio show. IMHO this guy is the Carville of this decade. I've been thinking whatever candidate gets this guy has a helluva shot at the WH in '08 and a good chance of reversing the Repukes Southern Strategy. I have to get and read Mudcat's book - Foxes in the Henhouse: How the Republicans Stole the South and the Heartland and What the Democrats Must Do to Run 'EM Out.

FROM THE PUBLISHER
Foxes in the Henhouse is a political blueprint for how the Democrats can win again in the South and rural America. The authors document the Republicans' rise in the South and Midwest, expose the hypocrisy that marked their ascent, and offer a take-no-prisoners plan to kick them out.

Edwards has been one of my favorites since I first started seeing him on CSPAN in 2003. Damn I'm excited he has Mudcat in his corner.

In the Senate, Democrats were bogged down debating troop withdrawals from Iraq. But across town last week, an ex-senator was talking about a different war: the war on poverty. John Edwards, the former veep candidate, has followed the issue at his think tank at the University of North Carolina. The result: a proposal to eliminate poverty in 30 years by raising the minimum wage, creating 1 million extra housing vouchers and reviving rural life with better community colleges and small-business centers. "I have the freedom to focus on something that I care about deeply," he told NEWSWEEK, "and work on it in great depth, which is very difficult to do if I were still in Washington."

It looks as if he's laying the foundation to get back there. He hasn't yet declared himself a presidential candidate, but he has wooed away an adviser to former Virginia governor Mark Warner, Edwards's rival to be the Southern alternative to Sen. Hillary Clinton in '08. Dave (Mudcat) Saunders, an architect of Warner's successful NASCAR-themed strategy in 2001, will join Edwards to reach out to former Democrats in rural areas. Edwards's embryonic campaign—his One America political committee—may be less splashy than his rivals' organizations, but he's already raised a healthy $6.1 million for '06 candidates by head-lining fund-raisers for them. And according to one recent Iowa poll, Edwards is the front runner for his party's '08 nomination.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13531835/site/newsweek/from/RS.4/

[Viva_La_Revolution]

1. If Gore doesn't run

I could vote for Edwards.

[marmar]

2. De acuerdo...

He'd be my second choice behind Ozoneman (used affectionately, of course). :)

[lildreamer316]

12. WITH Edwards.

Just watch. Edwards is doing the legwork (reg. campaigning, finance work, advisors, garnering support, setting up offices, etc.). This is expected, does not raise any flags, etc. Keeps the main candidate away from the dirty work and swiftboat attempts.Edwards would make a wonderful VP, ready to take the next step....
Boy oh boy...I can't WAIT.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

28. Wouldn't that be lovely!

:bounce:

[saltpoint]

3. I may track down this book. I'm not very familiar with Mudcat

but if he's good, I'm glad he's suiting up in the blue uniform.

Play ball!

[RamboLiberal]

5. Mudcat helped get Warner Elected

He plays well on TV as well. For the most part I think the pundits will lap him up. He and Edwards I believe really understands the southern voter and may win many of those disaffected voters back to the Democratic vote. BTW, I just ordered the book.

Dave Saunders has the makings of a perfect pitchman. He's witty, forcefully blunt and supremely confident in what he's selling.

But the Roanoke County property developer never expected to emerge as a spokesman for a political movement when he helped Democrat Mark Warner get elected governor in 2001.

Saunders became a bit of a celebrity in that campaign - partly because of his role in crafting an innovative, highly publicized strategy to win over conservative rural voters and partly because of the colorful commentary he offered to sound-bite-weary reporters. Having a nickname like "Mudcat" didn't hurt, either.

Warner captured 51 percent of Virginia's rural vote, an achievement not lost on national Democrats already looking ahead to the 2004 presidential campaign. Warner's campaign manager, Steve Jarding, became a hot commodity. And Saunders, the "Bubba coordinator," was ready to go along for the ride.

<snip>
In other words, Saunders said in a recent interview at his home along Back Creek , Democrats have to overcome "the wuss factor."

"The lie is that the Republican Party is better for the white male than Democrats and that's bull----," said Saunders in his mountain drawl.

http://www.roanoke.com/roatimes/news/story160387.html

<snip>

The book itself, as Mudcat describes it, will "take a wire brush to Republicans" for peeling off traditional Democrats in southern and rural areas under false pretenses,
first through Nixon's race-tinged Southern Strategy, then by suckering Reagan Democrats after preaching the gospel of limited government and heartland values while selling their jobs out to big business and socking the country with runaway deficits. But the screed is not only a prescription for how to bring those Democrats home on issues such as gays and guns. It's a stink-bomb lobbed at fellow Democrats--or as Mudcat often calls them, "f--in' Democrats," the northeastern liberals who he feels have contempt for his culture, and whom he dislikes more than he dislikes Republicans. (While the "foxes" in their tale are Republicans, Democratic leaders aren't so much hens as they are "possums--the ones who roll over and play dead.")

By now, it should be clear that Mudcat has a foul-language problem. It is the rare utterance that goes by without some similar indelicacy. But he doesn't curse for shock value so much as for percussion, working the blue words like a kick-drum to help his sentences get off on time. "My vocabulary is less than 200 words," he says by way of apology, asking at one point, as a favor to his aged mother, that I not quote him saying he no longer goes to "goddamn church." I accede. (What he actually said was "f--ing church.")

Which is not to say the lifelong Baptist isn't big on Jesus. As a kid, he preached a youth service in which two congregants got saved. Unlike most political types, particularly of the Democratic persuasion, he is unabashed about his faith, to the point that he calls it "blasphemy" to employ it for political ends. He thinks the pulpit is no place for politics, and vice versa. It's part of the reason he quit attending.

"I got sick of preachers telling me how great Reagan was." (He voted for Reagan in 1980, though he now claims, "I was drunk.") "Jesus don't give endorsements," Mudcat thunders. "He don't give a damn about partisan politics. G-O-P, God's Only Party--that's bool-sheet. And it's bool-sheet that He's a Democrat--they'll tell you to doomsday about Him healing the sick and clothing the nekkid, as if that's proof. He's too big to get involved in partisan politics. I know this, because when I'm in politics, and pray about it, I don't get any answers. But when I pray about my heart, I get an answer right now."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/716psthq.asp


Political tacticians: Dave "Mudcat" Saunders, left and Steve Jarding want to get Democrats back on track with Foxes in the Henhouse.
By Tim Dillon, USA TODAY

[Stinky The Clown]

6. I didn't know he worked for Warner

I wonder what it means now that he seems to be with Edwards. (That's an 'Inside Baseball' question ..... not a candidate commentary.)

[Awsi Dooger]

11. Like a jockey changing horses?

I don't know. I've seen Mudcat on TV a few times and loved everything about him.

Warner and Edwards are my two top choices so I'm wondering if an advisor moving from my #1 to my #2 might mean he thinks Edwards has more natural ability, and greater chance to be nominated.

[saltpoint]

8. He sounds like just what we need for the Southern white male voter.

Too many of them are palsy-walsy with Republicans like George Allen and Dubya.

Which is pretty hard to take, since they wind up voting against their best interests, and their families' and friends' best interest.

Ok. Bring it on. Let's do Dean'ss 50-state strategy and where it counts most in those Southern states, let's bring on the talent.

[Stinky The Clown]

4. My comments here go only to Mudcat .....

.... not to say anything against Edwards ..... I just do all I can to **avoid** 08 candidate discussions.

But to Mudcat ..........

I agree with you. He may well be the Carville of this decade. He even favors him a bit, but maybe that's just that beautiful bald head. I could listen to him talk all night long. Smart as can be and still sounding like a slow, refined, cultured country gentleman. Some twangy Southern accents are a bit annoying to my Northeastern ear, but his accent is pure, joyous music.

Did you know he's also working with Jim Webb in the VA Senate race against Cementhead George Felix Allen, Junior?

[RamboLiberal]

7. That's great that he's working with Webb

I'm really rooting for Webb to take out Cementhead Allen! What a dunce. Allen makes my Repuke Santorum look smart!

I see he and Edwards worked together back in '03 till they had a parting of the ways. Saunders went on to work for Graham. Hopefully both he and Edwards learned from the '04 election the strategy to grab back a few of the southern states and deny the Repukes any chance to steal the '04 election by a slim electoral margin and their usual hijinks.

[calmblueocean]

9. Love Edwards, Love Mudcat. Not crazy about the word "poverty."

I'm hoping Mudcat can get John Edwards to understand some of the lessons that Lakoff teaches. I think one of Edwards' biggest mistakes is constantly framing his message using the word 'poverty'. It's a negative frame that turns off too many people -- the middle-class who have spent their lives running away from poverty, and those who actually live in poverty and are insulted by the label.

Moreover, his website says that he thinks the nation should "set a goal of eliminating poverty over the next three decades." I applaud the idea, but "eliminating poverty"? Ask 10 people if they think poverty can ever be completely eliminated, and you'll get at least 9 no's. Language makes a difference. Edwards has a habit of talking about poor people failures, and not often enough about their successes. Instead of framing this question as a negative, he should be defining specific positive metrics that people can get excited about.

For instance, we're heading towards a major shortage of qualified nurses in America in the near future, with drastic effects on the care baby boomers receive as they age. Why not propose a program offering free education to those who come from low-income households if they agree to work as an RN for 5 years? We get skilled healthcare workers, a way out of poverty, and better medical care for our citizens. The whole subject naturally dovetails into a discussion of how our healthcare system is broken and can be vastly improved. Universal healthcare, anyone?

I hope Edwards learns how to speak more effectively about poverty, because I really like him, and I think his concern is genuine. But it may be almost too genuine. Sometimes the difference between success and failure is in the words we choose, and I believe that if Edwards doesn't reassess his words, he'll knock himself out of the running before the race is even started.

[1932]

10. Lakoff says difference between Dems and Repubs boils down to the

difference between strict-father authoritarians and compassionate, caring parents.

Does poverty turn people off because it's not sushine and rainbows? Or is it exactly the "lift up the weakest" "don't let people have miserable lives if we can prevent it" sort of frame Lakoff thinks Democrats need to get across.

[calmblueocean]

17. "Don't Think of an Elephant!"

That's the title of Lakoff's book. His point is that merely by referencing a word, you call up a number of associations with it. "Poverty" is a word with a lot of negative baggage associated with it, and by using that word and that frame, Edwards is forced to drag that baggage with him everywhere he goes. He has to overcome the mental picture most people have when they hear the word "poverty", that puts him behind from the get-go.

"Lifting up the weakest" is a better phrase than "war on poverty", perhaps even better would be something along the lines of "spreading opportunity" or "re-envisioning the economy". Or maybe neither. The point is that it's the word and the baggage that comes with it, not the issue itself.

On a personal level, I do think Edwards needs to broaden his scope as a campaigner. I was crestfallen when Edwards' speech at the 2004 Democratic convention turned out just to be another word-for-word repeat of his "two Americas" stump speech. He needs to show that he's not just a humanitarian, but has a keen eye for foreign policy, environmental policy, fiscal policy, etc.

[1932]

25. I'm not convinced.

I think caring about poverty -- talking about poverty -- is precisely the sort of nurturing parent issue that the democrats need to embrace.

I don't think Lakoff's argument is, "don't use negative-sounding words."

I think his argument is that Democrats need to identify what the believe in and talk about it and not let Republicans RE-frame it according to their strict-father authoritarian frames.

[lildreamer316]

13. It's a safe word.

No one can effectively argue against it with any very poarizing points. See my post above, but the gist is that he is treading safe water....and building great support underneath where it dosen't create any ripples.
He's very smart, Gore is brilliant. I am SO excited........

[AmericanDream]

31. Edwards likes Lakoff

At a tech conference yesterday, Edwards said that Lakoff's book is "a very good book." So he has read it and obviously thought about it.

[tinfoil tiaras]

14. Ooh, I've been reading that

it's really good!

[SeaNap05]

15. Edwards has appeal....

in the South and the Midwest. Mudcat should make things interesting.

[Clark2008]

24. No he doesn't.

He's in the wrong profession to break much ground in the South: no street creds in the two issues in which Dems are sorely lacking - national security and foreign policy.

That's why so many mushy voters end up voting for the Republican, particularly since this isn't 1992 anymore.

The Dems already beat the Republicans on social issues in polls, but people, for a variety of reasons, are still too scared NOT to vote for who they perceive is stronger on national security and foreign policy issues, and that is the Republicans in most Americans' minds, like it or not.

The Dems need to be a full-service party.

His appeal was media-made. As you saw, he didn't really help Kerry much in the South and mid-West at all - the only red state Kerry flipped was up north.

[FrenchieCat]

16. Well, I don't get it......

But I Guess these days, one can make a bigass mistake of judgement on an issue as dire as War and Peace that ends up costing hundreds of billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives.....and then line up to become President (but only, only if they say "really sorry" and use the word poverty as often as possible and are cute)-- What-E-ver! :eyes:

[calmblueocean]

18. Ha!

Nicely said. :)

[SeaNap05]

20. You want a War President

does anyone get it?

[Clark2008]

23. No. She wants a president who understands war.

And that means not going into it at the drop of a hat.

[wisteria]

19. I don't beoieve in the Southern strategy, it didn't work for Gore and

ir didn't work for Edwards or Kerry Edwards before.

[Clark2008]

22. Because they have it wrong - it's not about all this "ism" stuff

It's about not allowing the rest of the country to constantly beat up on one region without calling 'em on it.

[1932]

27. The only southern state Gore contested was Florida. Does anyone remember

the last two weeks of 2000? Gore went back and forth between NE and Florida and the only thing he talked about was health care and social security.

That's not a Southern Strategy.

Kerry ran in the primaries on NOT having a southern strategy. At the debates he said that Democrats could win without winning a single southern state. He pulled out of Missouri when it was still within his grasp.

Clinton was the only Democrat since Carter when contested the south.

If you want to jar your perception of reality, flip through a presidential election electoral vote map back to 1992. You'll be stunned by how competitive Clinton was in the southeast and midwest. You'll wonder how we lost so many states that we won as recently as the '90s. The answer is easy: Gore and Kerry did not even try to compete in almost all the states outside the northeast and west coast (because they weren't the kinds of candidates who are appealing to people in those areas).

[Clark2008]

21. After much ballhoo about him, I saw him on Hardball and was NOT

impressed.

I'm a Southerner, but he wasn't too quick on his feet in that interview.

[Stinky The Clown]

26. Which Hairballz interview was that?

The one where he was on with Allen's advisor?

[TheFarseer]

29. From what I know of Mudcat

and that is limited to one TV appearance and what I've been hearing and seeing from the Jim Webb campaign, he seems like one hell of a good guy to have in your corner. I hope Edwards can ride him to victory.

[w4rma]

30. So many great candidates for '08. (nt)

[Texas_Kat]

32. This isn't "New" news... Saunders has been working for Edwards for years

From GWU (Updated February 1, 2003):

On the Political Front
In August 2001 Edwards formed a leadership PAC, the New American Optimists. The "Optimists" brought on Steve Jarding, a top-notch operative, as its director starting January 2002. Despite Edwards' support for campaign finance reform legislation, the Optimists went after major donations far more aggressively than any of the other 2004 presidential prospects' PACs; all told it took in 30 contributions of $50,000 or more, 28 from attorneys or law firms. Steven Bing, the Los Angeles producer, was most generous, contributing $900,000.

The Optimists put considerable resources into the key states of Iowa and New Hampshire. In April 2002, the Optimists sent 123 computers to Iowa and 53 computers to New Hampshire, on loan, for Democrats to use on their 2002 campaign efforts. Also in Iowa, the Optimists produced literature pieces for many state House and Senate candidates--15,000 each of 45 different pieces for 56 candidates. There were also direct contributions to candidates and party committees; all told the Optimists poured at least $288,000 into Iowa and $197,000 into New Hampshire. The Optimists also made a significant investment in Edwards' home state of North Carolina, not only supporting candidates and the party, but making its biggest expenditure on a get out the vote TV spot that featured Edwards.

In the 2000 election, Vice President Al Gore fared poorly in the South and in rural areas. The Optimists demonstrated how Edwards may be able to make a strong appeal for support from these parts of the country. David "Mudcat" Saunders focused on rural outreach for the Optimists. In Iowa the Optimists sponsored a dirt late model car driven by state Rep. David Schrader. It also signed up an official band, the Lonesome River Band. "You got to understand the culture, and Johnny Edwards understands the culture," Saunders stated.

During 2002 Edwards was profiled in The New Yorker (May), Vanity Fair (June) and GQ (December), but he got a taste of how fickle publicity can be when his May 5, 2002 appearance on "Meet the Press" received generally unfavorable reviews. On a more positive note, in August 2002 Edwards has signed with Simon & Schuster to write a book "that will focus on the lessons learned during his distinguished legal career;" the book will be published in late 2003.

More... http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/edwards/edwards.html

[AmericanDream]

33. But he left the Edwards campaign in mid-2004

Mudcast left to work for Graham in the middle of the 04 campaign (this was before Edwards hit it big)...