posted
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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...
Posts: 3060 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
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 ]
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1901 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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).
Posts: 279 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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.
posted
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.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
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...
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 279 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
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."
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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
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.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 4350 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[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.
