Now Edwards debates Cheney in the fall...*giggles*
He'll give the man a heart attack. Oh wait....been there, done that.
The Halliburton crony vs. the silver-tongued lawyer and mill worker's son.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Wow. Millworker's son vs. Halliburton crony. Truly, this will be a battle of good vs. evil!
Of course, I'm very much hoping Bush will drop Cheney and pick up Giuliani. I'm not fond of Cheney for practical and personal reasons.
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
In all seriousness, though, I think Kerry made a good pick. Edwards probably won't be able to carry the south, but he'll force Bush to spend more resources there than he otherwise might have. He has incredible personal appeal -- something Kerry's candidacy is sorely lacking, aside from the untamed presence of Teresa Heinz. And he'll appeal to swing voters, especially in states like Ohio and Pennsylvania who will identify with his upbringing as the son of a millworker and his personal experience with a working class life.
Yes, perhaps he is short on experience. But I think he balances Kerry very well -- Kerry, after all, has a wealth of legislative and foreign policy experience and has nuance by the ton. Edwards presents a more youthful, pragmatic and fresh face, someone from 'outside the Beltway' in many respects.
I think this is good news for the Democrats. Personally, I think it's good news for the country.
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
quote: I'm very much hoping Bush will drop Cheney
Bwahahahaha...
The opposite is more likely.
fil
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Oh, I think this is among the best possible choices Kerry could've made. Although I wonder if there will be some friction between the two of them, seeing as how not only did Kerry win in the primary, he wanted McCain (which was highly amusing), and got Edwards.
There are very, very few people with a 'wealth of foreign policy and Beltway experience' whom I trust to think of the country first, other things second. John Kerry's history places him very high on that list for me. I can understand someone being excited about his candidacy when placed vs. Dubya, but on its own?
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
Oh, come on! Edwards is pathetically underqualified. A decision of pure politics--he may be unqualified, but when you talks, you forget it. Kind of like some other politicans...
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
Rakeesh,
I'm more excited than I was because I would have preferred an Edwards candidacy to a Kerry candidacy. But hey, the voters have spoken, right?
It's interesting, actually...I always harbored this incredible distrust for politicians. But after living in Washington and now meeting with an enormous number of British politicians since I've been here, I've come to believe that most politicians are decent people who legitimately want to make people's lives better. This doesn't mean I agree with what they stand for, or that I'll support legislation they agree with, but it doesn't mean that they're inherently bad *people*. Some are, sure, but most...
And sometimes I think people underestimate the value of coming from 'inside the Beltway'. There's something to be said for knowing your way around Washington, and it doesn't always mean you're forced to make moral concessions or do everything for a certain lobby or an extra cent. Bush, ironically, does Washington better than almost anyone else, and manages to somehow maintain his 'outside the Beltway' facade. I think it must be his accent.
I guess maybe people associate knowing Washington with being elitist, but I don't think it's always that way. It's akin to living in a small rural town and knowing who to talk to or where to go if you need a hand up with some particular problem. Just on a grander scale, I guess. Sure, there're fancy functions and dinners and this and that, but there's an equivalent in almost any town or city, really.
In a way, it's funny. I can't say I'm not biased simply because now that I live in Washington I've fallen completely in love with the city, and living abroad has made me love it even more. We have something really exceptional in our democracy. Washington is, all at once, the symbol and the physical manifestation of that democracy, and I don't think it's something that should be scorned. I'm not a politician and I don't see Washington as strictly the city of politicans -- it's a vibrant, moving city full of people from all walks of life (this, of course, can be sad -- only a few blocks behind the Capitol is one of the worst crack-cocaine blocks in the country). Washington shouldn't been seen as a city that belongs to the politicians -- it should be seen as a place that belongs to the *people*.
[ July 06, 2004, 09:48 AM: Message edited by: Kasie H ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I agree with you, Kasie. Although it may sound like it, because I don't usually say much about long-term federal politicians than "I don't trust `em", I don't think they're all bad, or even mostly bad. I don't even think that about the extremes on both sides of the aisle.
I don't trust them not because I think they're bad, but because I think they learn certain things and do those things in order to continue being re-elected. I don't like or trust them because I don't like or trust what it takes to get a majority of people to vote for you (which is, basically, appealing to party lines). Therefore, I don't trust hardly anyone who gets re-elected many times, because it's almost inevitable that they signed on to go with those sorts of practices.
I mistrust most politicians (especially 'career' politicians) not because I think they're bad in and of themselves, but because in order to be a 'career' politician (such as John Kerry, Dick Cheney), you have to do and say things in a certain way to get re-elected. And I don't like that way.
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
That makes sense. Is it possible, though, that continual reelection means that a politician is admirably serving the consituency he was elected to represent? Or not?
What would you rather politicans do to get reelected? Or do you believe there should be term limits, or some such?
I'm seriously curious, this is a tough problem.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Heh, the typical answer to that question, I don't know. I'm very wishy-washy about that question. At least you're asking, though; I've mostly given up.
On the one hand, I favor term limits because I look at career politicians and like very few of them, and dislike many of them. On the other hand, I have an almost fanatical respect for the will of the voters (even though I recognize that about 2/3 of them vote straight party lines). So I dislike things like term limits and mandatory sentencing because they imply that voters and judges are too stupid to make good decisions.
Which, to my mind, they (both) often ARE-even though I at the same time have great respect for both.
I think that when a career politician is re-elected, yes, he or she is serving their constituency. But they're ALSO serving themselves, since along with that service comes a great deal of cash, power, prestige, and a bunch of people telling you how great you are almost all the time.
If there were some way to get rid of that and still be legal, and have access to politics available to everyone, I'd be for it. But I don't think there is, really, short of some despotic laws. I will say one thing, though: I wish we'd listened to George Washington about political parties.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
I wanted to share this, but didn't think it was worth a separate thread. Readers of the New York Post spent a few hours today believing Kerry picked someone else for his running mate:
quote: NEW YORK - Dewey defeats ... Gephardt? The New York Post, in a front-page gaffe reminiscent of the 1948 headline wrongly announcing President Truman's defeat, proclaimed Tuesday that Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry (news - web sites) would select Rep. Dick Gephardt (news - web sites) as his running mate.
"KERRY'S CHOICE," read the headline over the Page One "exclusive" story. "Dem picks Gephardt as VP candidate." The story, which ran without a byline, was accompanied by a file photo of the Missouri congressman and the Massachusetts senator.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Wish I'd picked up a Times today - that'd be worth keeping...
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Underqualified? He has about as much political experience as Bush had (heck, first term Senator is a more powerful and responsible position than Governor of Texas).
Also, I like to think that a couple decades of being a practicing lawyer helped develop his thinking skills a fair amount.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
I have to admit, some small petty part of me is whining about Richardson not being picked. For completely racist reasons, of course, but that could've been a big help in picking up the Southwest.
That said, Edwards was a close second for the position. I'm glad he's on board, though I have to wonder at the timing -- why now? Why not in early August?
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
I think it was a good idea, while he might not have the experience of Kerry, he can balance out some of the negative feelings people have about Kerry...of course I'd not vote for Kerry no matter who he put as his running mate, but Edwards might help Kerry win over some people that are borderline.
Posted by Jalapenoman (Member # 6575) on :
I currently live in New Mexico, but spent my first 30+ years in Texas. Being mayor of Bugsquat Junction, Arkansas gives you more political experience than being the governor of Texas. The position for many years has just been a figurehead office.
The true power in the state of Texas resides with two men: the lieutenant governor (who controls the legislature and the budget) and the railroad commissioner (who controls all transportation and shipping and the oil and oil revenues). Nobody minded voting for Bush for governor because he couldn't screw anything up!
Most governors in Texas use the office as a springboard for national offices or the senate. Many times, the state has had a republican as governor and a democrat as lieutenant governor (or vice versa). The two most powerful men in the "subservient" position in the last 50 years were Bill Hobby (L.G. for about 20 years and never ran for governor) and Bob Bullock (retired about the time of the Bush election as governor).
As far as Edwards is concerned, I was supporting him over Kerry as the party nominee. I think, however, that he will probably sell out his principles in the position/campaign as do most VP's (think of Leiberman and Bush senior as the best examples).
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I don't think it's something that should be scorned."
I agree. I think it should be nuked from orbit until there's no point in scorn anymore. Washington the city is absolutely darling; Washington the machine is the gummy bear in the wheels of human dignity.
[ July 06, 2004, 07:37 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Lime (Member # 1707) on :
Best. Metaphor. Ever.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I always did like Edwards. I guess we will now see whether Cheney really is in charge of the Bush administration as so many claim. He had already cost them my vote.
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
Lalo,
Just out of curiosity, is Richardson really liked out there? It's funny, because I have a relative who worked directly for him when he was the Secretary of the Department of Energy during Clinton's Administration...and apparently he's an unbelievably incompetent lout who has nothing going for him except raw political ambition.
Granted, you don't know my relative, and I don't know how much you trust me, but I'd vouch for my relative any day of the week.
Sometimes it's interesting to have a personal angle on politicians...
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
Tom, I disagree.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
Fighting the fight from the inside, Kasie?
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
Pretty much. Lack of energy, I guess. Plus I laid some stuff out before.
I don't know, I'd just like to see Tom lay out a practical strategy of reform or offer something better.
Like Churchill said, democracy is a terrible political system -- but it's the best one we've found yet.
[ July 07, 2004, 06:40 AM: Message edited by: Kasie H ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Overwhelmingly, the responses that I've heard from the Pro-Kerry/Edwards camp is that Edwards is . . .
Handsome.
That's been the point that everyone has brought up. The consistent critique of Edwards is that he will bring good PR to the table.
Not brains.
Not experience.
Not political clout.
Eye candy.
:sigh:
Initially, I liked Edwards. BUT-- as soon as his presidential campaign died, reports are that he began campaigning for the vice-presidency. And he had barely dusted his shoes on Congress' floor before running for the democratic nomination for president.
That said, Edwards appears to be energetic and sincere. Two qualities his running partner lacks, IMO. I could like him, IF he retains his optimism and shows himself to be intelligent.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Well, the selection of Edwards has brought at least one swing voter to the Democratic ticket in November.... me.
I just wish he was the presidential candidate and Kerry was the veep-select.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Why would Edwards as VP cause you to switch votes?
What does the VP even do, policy wise?
Posted by Jalapenoman (Member # 6575) on :
Regarding the posting on Richardson, you can have him. Unfortunately, I voted for the man to be my governor, and he is incompetent. In less than one year, he spent the entrire state surplus. We also used to have a balanced budget. I would have been glad to let Kerry have him and get a new governor in New Mexico, but that was not to be.
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
Well I don't think Cheney's just been resting on his laurels, Scott.
[ July 07, 2004, 09:25 AM: Message edited by: Kasie H ]
Posted by msquared (Member # 4484) on :
fugu
You said:
quote: Underqualified? He has about as much political experience as Bush had (heck, first term Senator is a more powerful and responsible position than Governor of Texas).
Where do you get the idea that a first term Senator is more powerful than the Gov. of Texas. First he is one of 100 members, where Bush is the only Gov. of Texas. Second, Senators can are only skilled in making law, not being an executive. Look at the last 25-30 years and see how many Governors became President. Bush II, Clinton, Reagan, Carter. Many people feel that legislators do not have the leadership abilities needed to run the country.
msquared
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Between two presidential candidates that have far from inspired me, the addition of Edwards to the Democratic ticket swayed me to favor that party greatly.
As I've said before, I supported Edwards whole-heartedly in his run for the nomination due to his integrity and willingness to not just point out our country's problems but to say what we needed to do.
He's refreshing, untainted, energetic and has more in common with the man on the street than anyone either party has put forth in 20 years or more.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Where do you get the idea that a first term Senator is more powerful than the Gov. of Texas."
Well, leaving aside the very valid point that executive experience is wildly different from legislative experience, and the president presumably benefits from more of the former, it's worth noting that the Governor of Texas is, by that state's constitution, one of the weakest executives in the country.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Well I don't think Cheney's just been resting on his laurels, Scott.
Really? What has he done publicly for public policy?
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Just out of curiosity, is Richardson really liked out there? It's funny, because I have a relative who worked directly for him when he was the Secretary of the Department of Energy during Clinton's Administration...and apparently he's an unbelievably incompetent lout who has nothing going for him except raw political ambition.
Granted, you don't know my relative, and I don't know how much you trust me, but I'd vouch for my relative any day of the week.
Sometimes it's interesting to have a personal angle on politicians...
To be honest, I haven't bothered getting into a good political argument for a good year or so, now. I doubt many of my friends know who Richardson is.
The only reason why I had a vague affection for him is because I'm terribly racist. I know nothing of his policies and even less of his character -- I got too tired, too quickly, before the guy's name was circulated so I could and would research it.
And I trust you implicitly, dude. I'd follow you anywhere. In fact, I'd insist you lead the way.
Aw yeah.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I don't know if this old saw is getting rusty yet, but:
quote:Look at the last 25-30 years and see how many Governors became President. Bush II, Clinton, Reagan, Carter. Many people feel that legislators do not have the leadership abilities needed to run the country.
Actually, when is the last time a senator has beaten a governor for the presidency? You have to go back to the pre TV era. That is why I haven't held up much hope for Kerry from the start. But Edwards "may" turn that around. Edwards has temperment, or mojo as I called it in a thread last year.
Folks diss Edwards for being eye candy, but what do you think got Clinton 8 years? His stance on Healthcare reform? His commitment to gays in the military? He makes the ladies swoon and that is all he had going for him.
[ July 07, 2004, 10:35 AM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:Like Churchill said, democracy is a terrible political system -- but it's the best one we've found yet.
Actually, he said: "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried."
He also said: "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
Yeah, there's a reason it wasn't in quotes, I'm a lazy @ss.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Pooka, one might think the success of the economy under his economic policies despite the predictions of doom and gloom by the republicans, being a brilliant public speaker, and being able to get a lot of things done despite being hounded by a witchhunt, by working with the very people hounding him with a witchhunt, might count in his favor.
msquared: governor of texas holds very little executive power compared to nearly every other governorship in the nation. If there are at least two other people (and there are) in the state with more executive power, you can bet that pretty much any Senator is going to be far more powerful, particularly as precocious a Senator as Edwards. He's already a fairly influential member of the Intelligence committee!
Also, your method of looking at it is odd. Bush was one of 50 governors in the US, probably one of the two or three weakest. Edwards is one of 100 Senators, and sits at least around the middle of the pack as far as influence, particularly after his presidential campaign that gave him a major voice in party policy.
Does he have more executive experience? Probably not, but then again, lots of people have more executive experience then Bush, but none of them got elected. Not to mention that Bush was runnign for President, whereas Edwards is running for Veep, an office with a more legislative and consensus building bent.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
There have been three complaints leveled against Edwards by the Republican Party.
1) That he has no experience. We should never have as president, or someone who might become president, someone with only 6 years in political office. Ooops, President Bush has only 6 years as govenor of Texas as his previous experience.
Now we argue, is the Governership of Texas the same quality of experience as Senator in the US Congress?
2) He was a trial lawyer before becoming a senator, so obviously he will be a puppet of trial lawyers. Of course, our current VP was CEO of Haliburton, a company that has since been caught embezzleing (oops, overcharging) MIllions of dollars of Tax Payer money, but despite its winning of a bid no one else was allowed to compete with, Haliburton has no connection with our current VP.
Apparently, once a Trial Lawyer, always a trial lawyer, but once the CEO of a corrupt multi-national corporation is good enough for the job.
3)He's not John McCain. This means two things.
A) A Republican would make a better Democrat than a Democrat.
Actually, it means that even amongs Republicans, there is such a dislike of President Bush's uncontrolled spending, and the bitter attacks the administration has sent against the rebel McCain that it appeared the Democrats might have been able to break the party in two. Instead, Senator McCain held to his word and remained true to his party.
B) Edwards is the second choice. Which goes to prove that when the facts change, Kerry can change his decision to face those fact, as compared to Presiden Bush who refuses to change any decision no matter how much the facts change. Stubborness and blindness are very similar.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Where's Tresopax? I know Xaposert got to 999 posts and apparently stopped. Which of the newbies is Tresopax?
P.S. I remember with fondness Ross Perot's assessment of Clinton's qualifications... "The chickens will be clucking all over this country."
P.P.S. Was McCain really ever a consideration? I know he talked about it once. But I never heard of anything from Kerry's end. Forgive me, I'm really not trying to hard to keep informed.
[ July 07, 2004, 12:02 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Edwards brings another feature that really makes the Bush administration nervous. A number of commentators have talked about it, so this is not some special insight on my part.
It's this - usually, when Democrats or lefties talk about the disparities between the struggling working class and the wealthy, they come off as either angry or cynical - or both. Michael Moore is a good example of this. The Republicans have become pretty effective in attacking "class" issues in campaigning as anger or negativity.
When Edwards talks about the "two Americas" he does something no other politician I know pulls off. He addresses the growing chasm between the wealthy and the working poor and STILL comes across as positive and optimistic. He has potential to really energize the traditional Democratic base to come out and turn out for the vote. Whether that potential will be realized or not is another matter.
As for the trial lawyer matter, I wonder if trying to focus on Edwards' cases in detail could backfire on the anti-lawsuit drive. He's welcomed talking about the cases in detail any time, anywhere. Some things could come out like the refusal of settlement offers by corporations who have been clearly in the wrong, preferring a strategy of making the legal process as lengthy and costly as possible (don't hear much in discussions of tort reform).
Expect to see more of this, too. Edwards wrote a book about some of his cases. Here's a quote from a CNN article on how McCain is being used by both parties:
quote:McCain has been complimentary of Edwards in the past. On the back cover of the North Carolinian's 2003 book, "Four Trials," McCain commented that Edwards writes "movingly of people who were terribly wronged, and whom he helped seek some measure of justice with great skill, determination, and genuine compassion."
"He shows a perceptive appreciation in these accounts for the strengths of his clients' character," McCain wrote.
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
quote:P.S. I remember with fondness Ross Perot's assessment of Clinton's qualifications... "The chickens will be clucking all over this country."
Let's all remember with fondness Ross Perot...
I'm having some trouble recalling exactly what he looks like, now that I think about it....has anyone heard him mentioned recently? At all?
Hmm, yeah...me neither.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Unfortunately, while I like generally what I hear about Edwards, I just don't see what good he can do in the office of VP.
Plus, there's the very real spectre of high political ambition-- why did he sign on for the race for the democratic nomination so early after becoming a senator?
Anyhow-- someone convince me. I'm a conservative, looking for an opportunity to find faith in the Dems.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I understand why optimism is often perceived as brainlessness. After all, pessimists are more often right than optimists. It is why folks get away with calling W "dumb". He's optimistic and he has a funny accent. I really think a W/Edwards race would have been interesting.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
To be honest, Scott, I don't think you are. I think you'll profess wanting to "find faith" in the Democratic party to the end, but at crunch time, I can't help but imagine you'll find something to deter you from voting for Kerry. Be it disliking Kerry's charisma or believing Edwards is too pretty.
At least, that's the impression I've been getting whenever you talk about the Democrats. The only time I've been convinced of your sincerity is when you mentioned you've never seen any political candidate hammered by the media with as much prejudice as Dean received -- and even then, that was after his political death. You may not vote for Bush come November, but I find it hard to believe you'll let yourself do any real consideration of the Democratic ticket.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I don't think W's dumb, I think he's ignorant. And I think every question he's ever had to answer himself in public demonstrates it.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I mean, this is the Leader of the Free World who doesn't "do nuance"!!
[ July 07, 2004, 12:46 PM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
quote:Plus, there's the very real spectre of high political ambition-- why did he sign on for the race for the democratic nomination so early after becoming a senator?
You ask too much of presidential candidates when you object to their 'high political ambition'. That is the kind of tenor that is required to be annointed as the most powerful person on Earth.
Which is not even to mention your other presidential choice (provided you live in a swing state and even HAVE a real choice), a ticket whose VERY REAL spectre of 'high political ambition' begins with the laziest record of public service, follows up with a short time as the executive of Texas--and I'm not sure he accomplished anything there beyond his own reelection--and caps off with what was arguably the most poisonous primary battle in GOP history.
Where 'high political ambition' is concerned I think you'd have to favor the Dem ticket, since Edwards at least is running for Vice President.
Additionally, many of us saw his primary run as a VP bid all along ANYWAY, since he lacked the experience and the DNC stacked the books against any real competition for the nomination.
Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
And I'll throw down with Eddie, here.
First of all: welcome to America, it matters how you look.
The reasons you've given in this thread for not letting the Edwards VP pick sway you toward the Dem ticket are petty. You basically complain that this was--egads--a political decision, from Kerry's selection of Edwards to Edwards' initial decision to run.
Under such scrutiny no one could earn your "faith"--I'd be ashamed of any Hatracker who professes FAITH in an American political party figurehead--unless of course they were a republican. Why else do you think they even contemplated a McCain VP?? At least the Dems WANT to meet you halfway. It was McCain who decided not to rock the boat.
[ July 07, 2004, 01:23 PM: Message edited by: JohnKeats ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
JK-- some of Edwards' constituents complain that he has done practically nothing for them because of his ambitions for the presidency.
How do you answer their complaints?
Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
The politically expedient answer would be: 'the things that need to be changed right now are at the top'; or some, nicer, Edwardsized version of the same.
But seriously.
We love to talk about how "anybody in America can be the President". Yet Kerry can't be President because he's spent his whole life in preperation for a Presidential bid (damned career politicians!) while Edwards simply hasn't done enough preparation to run for anything higher than Senator.
Do you consider yourself easy to please, Scott? Or does the very real spectre of character judgement accidentally fall more often along party lines in your world? Or maybe just in this thread.
I won't argue for a second that Edwards and Kerry are great and humble people. But are they qualified? Do they have credentials? Of course they do.
You're just kidding yourself if you think this Game of Thrones can be played without the stabemintheback ambition that WeThePeople require from our keep-it-simple-stupid two-party good vs. evil 49% system.
[ July 07, 2004, 01:37 PM: Message edited by: JohnKeats ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
There are always people who complain. I looked around Edwards' site for a while and perused his voting record, he seems to be about par for the course as far as protecting his particular state constituency, and if you include the general poor and lower class has been doing (regardless of whether you think its warranted or whether his methods are effective) has been working quite hard on it. Why listen to the complaints of random people from his state without trying to research the situation? (though I suppose posting here on hatrack could be termed research of a sort)
edit to add: and of course he's got fewer accomplishments for his state on his record. He's a first term Senator, and his first two years were largely concerned with getting settled and defending Clinton (he was one of three appointed to do so in the Senate). But his accomplishments are also pretty high for a first term Senator, in particular his committee memberships (much of what a Senator does for his cause isn't in the bills he gets passed, but in how he influences bills in committees).
[ July 07, 2004, 01:38 PM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Thanks, fugu! I appreciate your square, honest answer, and your linkage.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
No problem, Scott. Sorry for the perhaps overblunt nature of some of it, but I'm just very used to the political scene, where for any Senator (heck, for any state representative) one can find thousands of people who say that person is doing nothing whatsoever for his or her constituency. That these people exist means nothing, all that matters is a person't record in politics.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
More linkage on summarized information on Edwards:
Yep, he has voted differently in the past year. He's voted on fewer issues, and has abstained from voting with the president more often (though hasn't voted against him to a much higher degree either).
A few things to note, though: his party support remains relatively steady, voting participation always goes down in hotly contested elections, be they Senatorial or Presidential, and he's been pretty good about voting on the votes that "matter" -- most votes are relatively consensus based, and a lack of voting on them means just about nothing. In fact, that he's had such a good voting record before suggests he pays a good deal more attention than many Senators. For instance, the good Mr. Hatch never quite manages to make it to everything: http://www.vote-smart.org/bio.php?can_id=S0880103 (its not that his voting record is bad, its just that he didn't think it worth the effort to attend as many votes as Edwards did during past years.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
As I was going through the votes that Edwards had cast/not cast, I definitely see a trend-- he votes, from what I can see, on agricultural issues and on economic issues that affect the country. (No votes at all on abortion issues, though he maintains he's pro-choice).
What good will he do the swing voters-- other than get Kerry into office? Mind, the swing voters DON'T particularly want Kerry in office-- that's why Kerry needs Edwards, so that he CAN get there.
What does US VP do, day to day?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
The Vice President's role is largely undefined, or self defined, depending on your perspective.
Cheney has mostly used his post to oversee defense and foreign policy, whereas I think Edwards would be a much more domestic Vice President. For instance, he's intent on reforming without completely removing the ideas of the NCLB act, unlike a certain President who insists it isn't broken whatsoever.
A typical way the VP is used is to spearhead individual policy initiatives. Cheney has been unusual in not being used so much this way, at least in public. Behind the scenes I predict Cheney's role has been similar, though likely more than a bit self determined -- Bush doesn't have the foreign policy experience to determine where Cheney should go, and Cheney is the closest one to Bush's ear.
Cheney's influence has clearly been large on how to deal with the post-invasion situations in Iraq and Afghanistan, for instance. See the recent memo that mentions his office helping Halliburtion prepare a proposal for the President's office.
And I rather think that the swing voters prefer Kerry to Bush right now, at least that's what they're telling the people wandering around with the surveys.
He's good for the swing voters because he'll be a strong proponent of a domestic policy other than "enact bills which won't take effect until I'm out of office, or can be rammed through with little debate" as the current administration pretty much operates on.
[ July 07, 2004, 03:07 PM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Dubya an optimist, pooka? He spent the entire 2000ElectionCampaign calling for a recession. And got one as campaign help from his donors for the quarter he was elected.
Oil prices figuring ~30% of US production costs, first thing he did as President was tick off the Muslim countries -- including the most influential OPEC voting block -- by moving away from the US's traditional 'fair broker' status in the MiddleEast. Bumping up world crude oil prices, guaranteeing greater profits for buddies in the oil industry.
Then he launched an economic war against the US's third/fourth largest external oil supplier as well as backed a coup against the elected Venezuelan government -- apparently wasn't satisfied with his Gang of Five coup against the US election process -- and encouraged yet another when that failed. In the process, slowing its oil exports to a trickle, jacking up world oil prices and oil industry profits even further.
Tried to start a trade war with the US's second/third largest oil supplier Canada, which -- considering that Canada also tranships OPEC oil to the MiddleWestern and Western states -- would have really fouled up the US economy had Canada risen to his baiting.
Halted work and reversed course on his agreement-in-principle with Mexico -- the US's largest external oil provider -- except on the matter of allowing Mexican trucking into the US without having to comply with US safety or environmental regulations. The SupremeCourt's Gang of Five has just approved his actions to set aside US laws under "presidential perogative to conduct foreign policy".
His FederalEnergyRegulatoryCommission ignored their duty to halt the illegal business tactics used in the faked"EnergyCrisis" attack against the California economy by Dubya's buddies at Enron/FirstEnergy/etc.
Not satisfied, Dubya tried to turn a minor airplane accident into a MajorIncident with China, a major trading partner. His belligerance causing business nervousness which increased world crude oil prices.
Using that faked "China is our enemy" excuse, he abrogated the ABMTreaty with Russia -- to relaunch the "StarWars" program cancelled by his father GeorgeBush as a waste of USresources -- in hopes of ticking off the world's largest oil exporter Russia into decreasing exports as economic pressure to maintain the treaty. Being a chess player, Putin didn't fall for Dubya' obvious feint to further increase oil prices while simultaneously decreasing Russia's oil revenues. And Russia continued to pump out oil for US (but not Dubya's) allies in the EuropeanUnion and Japan.
All to provide himself with "RECESSION! RECESSION! RECESSION!" ammo against Senators and Representatives who might oppose his unwise taxcuts for the wealthiest half of 1% by throwing the country into MASSIVE debt. As well as jacking up profits for his oil company buddies. And giving excuse to increase environmental degradation.
Woulda stayed in a recession 'ceptin' his buddy Osama used a bunch of Saudis on 9/11. And SaudiArabia -- to keep the heat off for having provided the funding for terrorist recruitment centers, the Wa'habist madrases/schools, as well as a major portion of funding direct and indirect to AlQaeda -- decreased oil prices to the lowest inflation-adjusted prices ever. Between lowered US production costs due to the decrease in oil prices and a deliberate decision by American consumers to spend to minimize the impact of terrorism on the economy, the recession was over by 2001's fourth quarter immediately following 9/11.
Due to lag time in the government's economic reporting, Dubya used fear of recession to push through his tax cut for the wealthiest of the wealthy, as well as a total rebate of Reagan'sAlternativeMinimumTax -- passed to prevent the misuse of tax loopholes by the wealthy to get out of paying taxes entirely in exchange for a massive tax increase upon the American worker -- collected in previous years.
And because of further "miscalculations" provided by the WhiteHouse which indicated a continuing recession, citizens remained disinformed about the true state of the US economy until even more taxcuts for the wealthy were passed. Which was easy to do since business was using the excuse of that false "recession" to layoff/"retire"/fire a LARGE number of workers. And using the fear of continued layoffs to force the remaining non-hourly employees to work more hours for the same compensation. As well as forcing hourly workers to work more for essentially the same compensation: via eg breaking the supermarket clerks' strike to maintain the same benefits and same pay scale.
Now that it is election year, Dubya's buddies are paying back the Republicans for giving them such a HUGE taxbreak by hiring. But even here, the jobs figures are extremely misleading. To start with, the "new hires" figures aren't sufficient to cover the growth in the numbers of potential American-citizen workers due to teenagers aging into the workforce; let alone rehire the millions who were layed off, "retired", or fired during the Dubya economy. And ~30% of those jobs are going to immigrants, both legal and "illegal". With their average compensation lower than that for American citizens. eg Because of immigrant work rules passed for the benefit of employers, the average legal immigrant computer programmer receives ~60% of the wages of a UScitizen doing the same job. Overall, ~4/5ths of the "new"employment is for less than the US average compensation. In other words, the "new"jobs (excluding the sky-rocketing top-executive compensation packages) are dragging the average down. Which is quite remarkable, probably unprecedented, in a US growth-economy.
Good job, Dubya. Well, at least for the parasitic portion of the "haves and have-mores" like yourself and Cheney.
Next: Guess which 0.5% ain't gonna be paying off Dubya'sDebt if Republicans are successful in the 2004Election, and which 99.5% are gonna be bled through the nose? (Hint: Due to that ReaganTaxExchange and the ReaganDebt as well as ever-increasing tax loopholes from effective Republican control of Congress, the wealthiest Americans have increased their share of the nation's wealth from ~25% at beginning of the ReaganEra to ~50% by the end of 2004.) Or Why the Democrats are making sacrificial goats of themselves in trying to win the 2004Election.
[ July 07, 2004, 06:47 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Who would've though a man named after a letter would get so many buddies?
Hobbes Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
aspectre, there are several high-quality medications for paranoid delusional disorders. You might want to try one of them.
Dagonee
[ July 07, 2004, 06:04 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Erik Slaine (Member # 5583) on :
You don't understand. They are out to get me....
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Yes, we are. But we crossed aspectre off our list years ago.
Dagonee
Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
Regarding Bill Richardson:
quote: apparently he's an unbelievably incompetent lout who has nothing going for him except raw political ambition.
I had this opinion of him as well when I lived in his congressional district in the late '80's. He had CYA down pat, but not much else...
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
Heh heh. You may not be surprised to learn that our host is unimpressed by John Edwards. Check out the next political column
He does make one good point that's worth repeating — a trial lawyer makes a living by being charismatic, persuasive, and sincere-sounding. Those are great qualifications for winning a campaign, but they don't really translate directly into smart leadership. I mean, I've worked with charismatic, persuasive people who nevertheless make terrible decisions and don't understand their job well enough to get anything done. (Some could probably say similar things about ME )
Being an effective president is a freaking HARD job. I mean, if you want to, you can delegate a lot, and let a lot slide, and things will still happen. The country won't grind to a halt. But I'm really looking for a president that has the wisdom and tenacity to actually inspire and lead our government in a way that I doubt any of the current candidates can. I'm frustrated that our country's election system seems to be about parties finding an inoffensive or attractive person to stick on the posters so they can win the election, and isn't actually about finding the best leaders. I mean, why else in the world did the Republicans pick Bush four years ago? There were more qualified candidates out there. They picked him because of what he meant as a poster boy for the party, not what he would do as an administrator.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Well, Dagonee, I'd take your undoubtedly expert medical advice -- obviously, a future prosecutor would never break the law by practicing medicine without a license -- 'ceptin' Ah cain't figger out what Ah should be fearful of. It ain't as if what Dubya and his Congress could do will ever hurt me directly.
My interest is more aesthetic: eg don't like watchin' innocents like yourself led to the slaughter.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yes, being President is a hard job. Kerry's definitely a hard worker, one can't really fault him on that count.
Bush, up until 9/11, was insisting the Presidency was a Nine to Five job, and one that included a lot of vacation time (yes, he worked on vacation as well, but he was decidedly on vacation, and there are abundant photo ops demonstrating it).
Edwards is certainly a hard worker as well, one does not get to be an extremely successful trial lawyer taking on major medical practices without hard work, as well as charm. If that's all OSC's got on him, it sounds like a ringing endorsement compared to the usual vitriol.
Plus, he's "only" running for Veep. A large part of the Veep's job is running interference for the President, being a sort of domestic and international ombudsman. And charm definitely helps in the role.
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
Aspectre, you're not by any chance my old friend Terry Cope, are you?
Terry had this wacko theory about JFK being killed by the Evil Republican Conspiracy. I dunno if he ever finished his book or not.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:He does make one good point that's worth repeating — a trial lawyer makes a living by being charismatic, persuasive, and sincere-sounding. Those are great qualifications for winning a campaign, but they don't really translate directly into smart leadership.
I don't know if you can underestimate the role of charisma in effective leadership. I'm one of those people who believe that Kennedy's greatest legacy is his daring the American people to be better Americans. At the rostrum, the President is a symbol of moral leadership, and the highest public educator in chief. People make similar claims about Reagan. I imagine your father, as a writer, wouldn't underestimate the worth of compelling communication. Now if you don't agree about what Edward's is selling, that's one matter, if you underestimate the importance of him selling it, that's quite another.
"Finally, whether you are citizens of America or citizens of the world, ask of us here the same high standards of strength and sacrifice which we ask of you. With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God's work must truly be our own."
Ted Sorenson deserves a medal for that speech.
[ July 07, 2004, 09:50 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Well, aspectre, since none of those medicines are available except with a physician's prescription, I'm pretty well isolated from the charge, as the necessity of intervening expert advice would lead a reasonable person to conclude that I wasn't offering a medical opinion.
As long as your posts from Hatrack aren't admissible in that trial, I think the reasonable listener defense would work...
Dagonee
[ July 07, 2004, 10:17 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
Some food for thought: a letter to the editor published in today's Washington Post.
quote: On both its editorial and news pages July 7, The Post declares Sen. John Edwards vulnerable on the basis of his inexperience in foreign affairs and government generally. Missing from The Post’s analysis is any reference to the simple reality that if we hired presidents and vice presidents on the basis of their professional credentials, America’s political history would look remarkably different. If the voters allowed for that kind of weight, an experienced, savvy Richard Nixon would have beaten the callow John F. Kennedy; Lloyd Bentsen’s impressive policy expertise would have sent voters running from Dan Quayle; and, of course, the seasoned veteran Al Gore would have won by even more than his margin of half a million votes over the appallingly unprepared George W. Bush. Conversely, if governmental experience was the only reliable indicator of success, then George H.W. Bush would already have gone down in history as one of our very greatest presidents, Lyndon B. Johnson would have been canonized, etc. Underqualified lightweights such as Abraham Lincoln (trial lawyer, state legislator, one-term congressman) and Harry S. Truman (failed businessman, county judge, two-term, low-profile U.S. senator) would have faded into well-deserved obscurity. In the campaign to come, listen to what Mr. Edwards says. See whether he is more honest, more thoughtful or clearer-headed than his rivals. See if he can handle himself under pressure. Politically speaking, this Edwards-is-inexperienced line is a lot of GOP hooey, and The Post should know better than to give it play. THOMAS P . CHAMPION Somerville , Mass .
Posted by Rohan (Member # 5141) on :
Just real quick, for whoever said that many times, the state has had a republican as governor and a democrat as lieutenant governor (or vice versa). Actually , W. was just the second Repub governor of Texas since Reconstruction. FWIW
Posted by ManlyMan (Member # 2167) on :
quote: __________________________________________ Pooka, one might think the success of the economy under his economic policies despite the predictions of doom and gloom by the republicans, being a brilliant public speaker, and being able to get a lot of things done despite being hounded by a witchhunt, by working with the very people hounding him with a witchhunt, might count in his favor. ______________________________________________
Change "republicans" to "democrats" and I just might think that you are talking about Bush...
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Even if one adulates Bush, I fail to see how he could ever be considered a brilliant public speaker. Second, most the democrats in congress haven't been particularly witchhunt-ish, more like disturbingly docile. Not to mention that even when they do put up a fight bush has gotten stuff done in spite of them not by working with them (see: republican majority in congress).
![[Party]](graemlins/party.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
@ Eddie.![[Smile]](smile.gif)