posted
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.
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).
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
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...
Posts: 2069 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
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."
posted
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...
posted
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
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
Posts: 196 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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...
Posts: 30 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
