Romney lobs a grenade at Edwards

Yes, yes, elections are all about divisions, splitting the primary or general election electorate into little pieces like a jigsaw puzzle and then meticulously reassembling us through promises, platforms and personalities into a new coalition that theoretically adds up to more votes than the opponent.

In the primaries, candidates of each like-minded party are usually trying to split hairs to concoct distinctions among themselves. O.K., that doesn't include Ron Paul and Mike Gravel. But occasionally it's useful for a candidate to lob a grenade over at another party's candidate just to help emphasize his own stance using the media.

Such was the case this week with Democrat John Edwards, who is successfully trying to stake out a populist position among the major candidates so far to the left that he is unflankable way out there. That gives him more to live down during the drive to the center if he makes it to the general election.

But first come the primaries. Recently, he did his poverty tour, as described by The Times' Richard Fausset. All the major Democratic candidates agree on letting the Bush tax cuts expire during the next presidential term, meaning taxes will increase. But now Edwards....

. has one-upped Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama by coming out with the most detailed tax plan of any candidate. He calls it reform. But you'll never guess. It proposes more taxes on what he calls the rich by hiking taxes on capital gains, hedge funds and corporations to help pay for new tax breaks for lower-income families.

That created an opportunity for Republican Mitt Romney to grab the public spotlight from his GOP compatriots, all of whom favor extending the Bush tax cuts. So Romney went after Edwards. "Lower Taxes For All Americans: The Romney Vision vs. Edwards." "Our Democratic friends," Romney says, "think that the best thing that you can do for our future is to give more money to the government."

Which gave Edwards an opening today to contrast himself again: "Every time another radical Republican running for president speaks, the American people are reminded of how out of touch with economic reality they are."

Until the new tax bills come, there is something patently hilarious about watching a couple of well-coiffed multimillionaires each with estates argue about the taxes we're all going to pay in the near future.

But it looks like they know what they're doing to reach their targeted audiences because guess what? Both of these guys are leading in a new Iowa poll. The poll of 600 voters, by KCCI-TV in Des Moines, found Edwards jumped 5% to 27% while both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama dropped 6% to 22% and 16% respectively. Bill Richardson moved up 4 points but still only sits at 11%, while Joe Biden increased to 3%, Chris Dodd and Dennis Kucinich hold steady at 2% and Gravel has 1%.

On the GOP side, Romney increased to 25%, 11 points ahead of undeclared Fred Thompson at 14%. Rudy Giuliani slips to 13%, John McCain, the leader in Iowa as late as May, to 10% and undeclared but noisy Newt Gingrich at 6%. Mike Huckabee and Tommy Thompson sit at 2% while Tom Tancredo, Sam Brownback, Duncan Hunter and good old Ron Paul bring up the rear at 1% each.

It's a long time until January, but wins in Iowa would not only give both Romney and Edwards significant momentum heading into New Hampshire, but put quite a dent into the inevitability aura that Clinton has worked so hard to create.

Next stop for the Republicans: the Ames straw poll Aug. 11, which may winnow that list down some.

--Andrew Malcolm

Comments

[Menlo Bob]

Lobs a grenade? That wasn't a grenade...just the sound of a valid point being made. Happens every day in a campaign.

[megan adams]

Wow, what biased language!
"He calls it reform. But you'll never guess. It proposes more taxes on what he calls the rich..."
'what he calls the rich'? In this, what everyone now calls the new gilded age?
Of course it's reform. It's putting balance back into a system which has been warped into a cash register for the top 1 tenth of 1 per cent. If you have a problem with that, there are a lot of oligarchies who could probably use a press spokesman. Try Latin America, it may agree with you.
No wonder Edwards jumped 5 per cent in Iowa. He's making sense, unlike the corporate controlled media.
And by the way - cut it with the trashing Edwards because he was successful. Judging from the bias you show, you'd be much happier if the populist candidate was poor as a stump. Sorry. Running for president requires talent and smarts and success - unless of course you inherited the office, like Dubya.

(Ans: It's a blog. Get used to it.-AM)

[Sheryl]

Here's the problem with John Edwards talking about money:

HE MADE ALL HIS ON CONTINGENCY. He's s nothing but another shyster attorney. Every dime of his millions came straight off the top of people the courts determined had been legally wronged, usually at the rate of 40% before taxes.

Mitt Romney, on the other hand, made HIS millions working at--wait for it, you'll be utterly amazed--AN ACTUAL JOB!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes, it was a financial firm, and yes, he also got paid a whole lot more for what he did than is probably reasonable by the standard of the average US voter. NONETHELESS, I have absolutely no doubts whatsoever that Mitt Romney has a much, much firmer understanding of the relationship between a regular paycheck and the tax deductions that come out of it than John Edwards does.

I think I'll be listening to the guy who understands paychecks, rather than the trial lawyer.