Meet your new VP...

[blackfox]

It's official:

Kerry Taps Edwards for Running Mate

By Dan Balz and Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, July 6, 2004; 8:28 AM

Sen. John F. Kerry has selected Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina as his vice presidential running mate, a Democratic source said early today.


Kerry informed Edwards of the decision in brief telephone call this morning and will make the public announcement at a rally in downtown Pittsburgh later this morning. The two will campaign together this week.

Kerry and Edwards will team up against President Bush and Vice President Cheney in an election that already is one of the most intensive and negative in recent memory. Polls show Kerry and Bush running roughly even at this stage.

I personally think it is a good choice...not my favorite, but better than Gephart. Sure to make for some interesting debates...talking of interesting debates, what say you?

[themadchemist]

score! that was whom I expected and whom I wanted...Maybe now North Carolina will swing. If it does, it will be an effective 28 electoral votes for Kerry--The 14 more he receives and the 14 less that Bush does from a state that most often goes Elephant in presidential elections.

[3rdpath]

yes...yes...yes

[Sayhey]

A much better choice than Gephardt! I like what he brings as a campaigner - he's a better stump speaker than Bill Clinton and that is saying something. If he tips North Carolina, something I'm not sure even he can do, that is the election. Bush doesn't win this election without North Carolina. It will be fun to watch this trial lawyer in the debates with Cheney! :D

[themadchemist]

the republicans are already trying to knock him as the following:
Washington Insider--Like Bush & Cheney aren't! Bush is THE Washington Insider. Cheney has served both as VP and as Defense Secretary.

Inexperienced--According to an analyst from the Hoover library, the level of experience of the VP has not correlated to his quality as a president if he rose to those ranks. Truman had limited experience in public office but is heralded as one of our strongest presidents after his rise from #2 to #1.

Trial Lawyer--And Cheney is big business. At least Edwards' clients were, as he puts it, "regular folk." Cheney made his money by facilitating the success of large corporations that thrive on the destruction of war and the Saudi fortune.

Edwards>Cheney when it comes to matters of ethics...Plain & simple.

[mactastic]

Better start prepping for the debate now Cheney... It's gonna be a rough one this time!

Good choice. One problem is potential for upstaging the actual candidate on the stump. If Edwards had had a few more weeks during the primary he might have actually beaten Kerry.

[IJ Reilly]

Ding-ding-ding! ... so what do I win?

They're going to have some trouble with the trial lawyer thing, but Edwards was probably the best political choice Kerry had available to him.

[themadchemist]

Ding-ding-ding! ... so what do I win?

They're going to have some trouble with the trial lawyer thing, but Edwards was probably the best political choice Kerry had available to him.

fortunately, he can play this "little guy" card regarding the folks he defended. I don't know how effective it will be, but it is a better spin than nothing.

[Don't panic]

Edwards for VP?
wow, that comes as a shocker.... :)

maybe he is a little inexperienced, but 8 ys as #2 should be an OK background for the next 8 as #1.

By 2020 we might have regained just enough economical strength and international respect to be able to weather another 4 ys with a republican at the helm squandering them.... ;)

[IJ Reilly]

fortunately, he can play this "little guy" card regarding the folks he defended. I don't know how effective it will be, but it is a better spin than nothing.

Yes, I think that will be the answer, but Republican just love to beat up on trial lawyers, so I'd expect a relentless attack on that front. I'm certain the talking points are being faxed and e-mailed even as we speak. I'm going to make a bold prediction and say that within 24 hours all of the right wing mouthpieces (Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, Coulter) will have used the words "John Edwards" and "trial lawyer" in the same sentence.

[Neserk]

I"m missing something. What is wrong with trial lawyers, exactly? I thought they were part of the justice system in AMerica and what made this country great?

[IJ Reilly]

I"m missing something. What is wrong with trial lawyers, exactly? I thought they were part of the justice system in AMerica and what made this country great?

Haven't you got the word? Trial lawyers are What's Wrong With America. Every problem can be fixed with tort reform.

[Thanatoast]

But what does this choice actually add to the ticket? How does it increase the chances of Bush getting booted in November? The chances of Edwards carrying NC are slim at best. I suppose he comes off as very personable, but is that enough? What would other choices have brought to the table? I just really don't want another four years of fear-mongering and war, is all. :( :o

[themadchemist]

Yes, I think that will be the answer, but Republican just love to beat up on trial lawyers, so I'd expect a relentless attack on that front. I'm certain the talking points are being faxed and e-mailed even as we speak. I'm going to make a bold prediction and say that within 24 hours all of the right wing mouthpieces (Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, Coulter) will have used the words "John Edwards" and "trial lawyer" in the same sentence.

You give them too little credit. Those folks started their rhetoric after 24 seconds, not 24 hours.


But what does this choice actually add to the ticket? How does it increase the chances of Bush getting booted in November? The chances of Edwards carrying NC are slim at best. I suppose he comes off as very personable, but is that enough? What would other choices have brought to the table? I just really don't want another four years of fear-mongering and war, is all.


I disagree. Edwards unseated an incumbent conservative in 1998. He faired better in Western counties than did Gore when Gore ran for President. If Edwards can pick up those same counties, then he could carry NC.

[jywv8]

But what does this choice actually add to the ticket? How does it increase the chances of Bush getting booted in November? The chances of Edwards carrying NC are slim at best. I suppose he comes off as very personable, but is that enough? What would other choices have brought to the table? I just really don't want another four years of fear-mongering and war, is all. :( :o

I agree. I like Edwards, but I don't think he will bring in N.C. My main beef with him is that I wanted someone with more experience, particularily in mlitary or foreign policy matters, like a Sam Nunn. I also don't like the "two senators" ticket. Not sure why, really. It just feels a bit narrow. Still, I think he might be able to do some real damage to Cheney in the debates. He may look like a choir boy, but this guy has some sharp teeth.

As far as the trial lawyer thing goes...I'm sure we will all hear the phrase "ambulance chaser" at least 20,000 times before the election.

Mainly, I am relieved that Kerry didn't choose Gephardt. All the Republican talking heads were going on and on about Gephardt, how great of a choice he would be. Egads - they wish.

[jywv8]

fortunately, he can play this "little guy" card regarding the folks he defended. I don't know how effective it will be, but it is a better spin than nothing.

But if I hear that "I'm the son of a mill worker" speech one more time...ah, but I know I will. It must work on some people.

[Neserk]

But what does this choice actually add to the ticket?


Quite a bit. It will shut the RNC up about Kerry being from a "liberal" Northern state because Edwards is a Dixiecrat!

[Neserk]

Haven't you got the word? Trial lawyers are What's Wrong With America. Every problem can be fixed with tort reform.

What kind of trial lawyer was he? I was thinking defense lawyer which in some narrow minds = soft on crime.

[question fear]

even if edwards doesnt carry nc, he'll carry in all the moderate middle class people...he'll be a nice contrst to kerry.

[Frohickey]

Haven't you got the word? Trial lawyers are What's Wrong With America. Every problem can be fixed with tort reform.

It would be nice if via Tort reform, we get loser pays all court and plaintiff/defense costs. That would cut down on frivolous lawsuits that end up with out-of-court settlements that tend to drive up various costs of doing business.

Imagine if suing Microsoft in its GUI infringement from Apple could be done where Microsoft would pay Apple if it loses the case. As it is, using lawyers and court motions as a delaying action hurts the small company who doesn't have as much legal resources and deep pockets as the larger company.

[IJ Reilly]

What kind of trial lawyer was he? I was thinking defense lawyer which in some narrow minds = soft on crime.

Personal injury and malpractice, I think. As somebody said above, "ambulance chasing."

[IJ Reilly]

Here are the official GOP talking points on Edwards:

WHO IS JOHN EDWARDS?

A Disingenuous, Unaccomplished Liberal And Friend To Personal Injury Trial Lawyers.

http://www.gop.com/RNCResearch/Read.aspx?id=4345

Drudge has already linked to them.

[Sayhey]

If Edwards wins North Carolina, as I said earlier, it is all over for Bush. However, that isn't the sum total of the importance of his inclusion on the ticket. If Edwards makes it close in North Carolina and forces Bush to spend resources there it is a major plus for the Kerry - Edwards team. If he has an impact on the race in South Carolina or Virginia, that is a huge plus as well. Most importantly, Edwards has shown he can draw votes of Democrats who have been dislocated by Bush's economy. The real battle for the Presidency is in states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin. Edwards helps Kerry in all those states. In short, Edwards contribution to the ticket is not just a regional one, but a middle class one as well. That is his greatest appeal - to what we used to call Reagan Democrats.

The GOP will spin the trial lawyer nonsense, but Edwards' career and history is one that is attractive to most voters. The real problem is his lack of foreign policy experience, but Kerry has plenty of that, and when compared to the mistakes of the Bush administration they both look very good.

[G4scott]

Edwards>Cheney when it comes to matters of ethics...Plain & simple.

I think "With biased, and limited comparison" would better suit Plain & Simple.

Anybody remember who said this: "I don't even know if John Edwards was out of diapers" ?

If you guessed John F Kerry, you are correct!

[IJ Reilly]

Ah, you're reading verbatim those GOP talking points already!

[blackfox]

I think "With biased, and limited comparison" would better suit Plain & Simple.

Anybody remember who said this: "I don't even know if John Edwards was out of diapers" ?

If you guessed John F Kerry, you are correct!
Primary trash-talk, I would say...Can't really take the high ground supporting the GOP in that regard can you?

Glad to see people had something to say...came up on my news-ticker when I got up this morning (@5:20...ugg) wasn't in much shape to comment...

Although my prediction was off, I believe Edwards was probably the best candidate out there, for the reasons Sayhey mentioned...I kinda liked Vilsack, and although he seemed ethically impeccable, not particularily well-known...Clark and Biden would have been decent choices too...

I am particularily savoring the debates between Edwards and Cheney...they are polar opposites...Cheney has the charisma of a wet paper bag, and the speaking skills of a 9th grader in the school auditorium...

[Sayhey]

OK, here is the latest Rasmussen Poll (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/North%20Carolina%20July%206.htm) on North Carolina. This shows, just before Kerry's announcement of Edwards, a Bush lead of 7%. Let's see how or if this moves in the next few days, shall we? I'd also look for any movement in Kerry's direction in the other battleground states.

North Carolina: Bush 49% Kerry 42%

Updates Sunday at 3:00PM Eastern

North Carolina 2004

Presidential Ballot

Bush
49%

Kerry
42%

Other
2%

Not Sure
6%

July 6, 2004--North Carolina is now home to the Democratic Vice Presidential nominee. However, John Edwards has a lot of work to do if he wants to deliver that state to his party in this year's Presidential election.

The latest Rasmussen Reports survey finds President George W. Bush with a seven point lead over Senator John F. Kerry,* 49% to 42%. The survey was completed in June, before Kerry named Edwards as his running mate.

Four years ago, Bush won North Carolina by a very comfortable 13-point margin, 56% to 43%. A month ago, Bush led Kerry by a mere four points. Our mid-month update, available to Premium Members, found Bush leading 49-43

[mactastic]

I wonder if Dick "Eff Yourself" Cheney is once again heading up the search for Bush's VP? I wonder if he'll pick himself again....

[IJ Reilly]

I wonder if Dick "Eff Yourself" Cheney is once again heading up the search for Bush's VP? I wonder if he'll pick himself again....

:) Why not? He's the most qualified person he knows.

[davecuse]

I think Edwards is a great choice, just judging from his character, he seems like a real stand up guy. I feel like this is a great duo, one who will definitely get my vote. I liked Edward for Pres, I love him for VP. Go Dems!

[themadchemist]

But if I hear that "I'm the son of a mill worker" speech one more time...ah, but I know I will. It must work on some people.

Better than Bush's early-90s claim that he can "talk to his dad whenever he wants" or Kerry's claim to being the son of a diplomat.

It's that rags-to-success story that Clinton had, too...It adds a lot of charm.

[themadchemist]

OK, here is the latest Rasmussen Poll (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/North%20Carolina%20July%206.htm) on North Carolina. This shows, just before Kerry's announcement of Edwards, a Bush lead of 7%. Let's see how or if this moves in the next few days, shall we? I'd also look for any movement in Kerry's direction in the other battleground states.

that's a much slimmer margin than gore saw...and that's without a southerner on the ticket...I was starting to lose confidence, but Edwards, even if he isn't as popular in NC these days, could really bump Kerry into the running in the state.

[jywv8]

Better than Bush's early-90s claim that he can "talk to his dad whenever he wants" or Kerry's claim to being the son of a diplomat.

It's that rags-to-success story that Clinton had, too...It adds a lot of charm.

I like an American success story as much as the next person (ok, maybe not as much), but...I don't know. I care as much about Edwards growing up poor as I do about Kerry growing up rich. But, I suppose it is charming. Definitely more charming than a faux cowboy schtick with a gloss of icky, faux populism.

[themadchemist]

I like an American success story as much as the next person (ok, maybe not as much), but...I don't know. I care as much about Edwards growing up poor as I do about Kerry growing up rich. But, I suppose it is charming. Definitely more charming than a faux cowboy schtick with a gloss of icky, faux populism.

haha, backhanded compliment, if that...Well, I think his populism is genuine enough. He has fought against the sort of big business that Bush & Cheney represent. Of course he took a big cut; he's not a philanthropist, but a lawyer. He did right by his clients, though, and his clients were middle class folks...We'll see how much others buy that.

And his cowboy schtick is pretty real. Let's face it, he's a hick, and that's part of the reason he got picked.

[Thomas Veil]

Gee, it'll be nice to have a Vice President that we actually get to see once in a while.

[jywv8]

Gee, it'll be nice to have a Vice President that we actually get to see once in a while.

Easier on the eyes, too.

[blackfox]

haha, backhanded compliment, if that...Well, I think his populism is genuine enough. He has fought against the sort of big business that Bush & Cheney represent. Of course he took a big cut; he's not a philanthropist, but a lawyer. He did right by his clients, though, and his clients were middle class folks...We'll see how much others buy that.

And his cowboy schtick is pretty real. Let's face it, he's a hick, and that's part of the reason he got picked.
Uh...perhaps I get an "F" in reading comprehension, but I believe the last line of j....8's post was referring to Bush, not Edwards...you were referring to Edwards all they way through right?

Geez, I posted to clarify, and now I'm more confused...

[zimv20]

Easier on the eyes, too.
in your estimation, how much of a factor was that in the choice?

[Neserk]

in your estimation, how much of a factor was that in the choice?


I thnk coming from the South is more of a factor than the fact that he isn't ugly.

[zimv20]

so what factors do we feel went into the decision? so far in this thread we've got:
- he's from the south
- he's attractive
- he's from a battleground state
- he's a good campaigner/stump speaker/debater
- he's got a good "story" (grew up poor)
- he appeals to the middle class

i'll add:
- he ran an upbeat primary campaign

any others?

[blackfox]

Zim although this overlaps some with what you've posted, I would add:

...Name recognition...resonance w/ the voters (from recent primaries)...
...broadening appeal to democratic and swing voters by the contrasts and complements between him and Kerry...
...best combination of possible pluses to the campaign vs weaknesses compared to other candidates

[Sayhey]

so what factors do we feel went into the decision? so far in this thread we've got:
- he's from the south
- he's attractive
- he's from a battleground state
- he's a good campaigner/stump speaker/debater
- he's got a good "story" (grew up poor)
- he appeals to the middle class

i'll add:
- he ran an upbeat primary campaign

any others?

All of those things. Some are trivial, but don't hurt (his looks.) Others are important (coming from the South and his effect on North Carolina), but other candidates could have been even more helpful. The most critical aspect is the ability of Edwards to connect with middle class/working class folks in a way that Kerry doesn't do, at least not as well. In the battleground states the independents and culturally conservative Democrats can be won to a Kerry/Edwards ticket because of his skills and history. Win the majority of those folks and you win the election.

[jywv8]

Uh...perhaps I get an "F" in reading comprehension, but I believe the last line of j....8's post was referring to Bush, not Edwards...you were referring to Edwards all they way through right?

Geez, I posted to clarify, and now I'm more confused...

Oh, I'm confused now, too.

When I said 'a faux cowboy schtick with a gloss of icky, faux populism', I was referring to Bush. In other words, John Edward's story is more charming than Bush's schtick.

[blackfox]

Oh, I'm confused now, too.

When I said 'a faux cowboy schtick with a gloss of icky, faux populism', I was referring to Bush. In other words, John Edward's story is more charming than Bush's schtick.
That is what I thought...me no write so good.

[Backtothemac]

It's official:



I personally think it is a good choice...not my favorite, but better than Gephart. Sure to make for some interesting debates...talking of interesting debates, what say you?

How exactly is he better than Gephart? He is more left than Gephart, has only served in the Senate for litterally 3 years because the last 2 have been on the road to the white house. He has never sponsored a single piece of legislation that has been turned into law.

HE is qualified to be commander in chief? He is the democrats Dan Quayle. No way around it.

[3rdpath]

How exactly is he better than Gephart? He is more left than Gephart, has only served in the Senate for litterally 3 years because the last 2 have been on the road to the white house. He has never sponsored a single piece of legislation that has been turned into law.

HE is qualified to be commander in chief? He is the democrats Dan Quayle. No way around it.

isn't it ironic that edwards has more political experience than bush did when he ran for office...

thats a pretty hypocritical viewpoint you have.

[zimv20]

He is more left than Gephart
how so?

[IJ Reilly]

He is the democrats Dan Quayle. No way around it.

This is such an obvious criticism of Edwards, it was only a matter of time before we heard it. The Democrats will need to address this in their own way, but at the moment the only points of comparison I can see between Quayle and Edwards is their relative lack of political experience, and, of course, their pretty-boy looks (which is such a superficial issue that we shouldn't have to mention it). Quayle was held to account for far more than his lack of political credentials, though, not the least of which was his shallowness. I also don't recall Quayle having much a personal story to tell of his life outside of politics. Edwards certainly does.

[Backtothemac]

isn't it ironic that edwards has more political experience than bush did when he ran for office...

thats a pretty hypocritical viewpoint you have.

Um, no. There is a HUGE friggin difference between being a two term governor of the second largest state in the Union, and a friggin Freshman senator from North Carolina.

Please will one liberal admit that he is no better than Quayle was? I thought Quayle was an idiotic choice by Bush I. I think Kerry made a big mistake.

[Backtothemac]

how so?

Look at his voting record. He and Kerry are actually futher left than Kennedy.

[Backtothemac]

This is such an obvious criticism of Edwards, it was only a matter of time before we heard it. The Democrats will need to address this in their own way, but at the moment the only points of comparison I can see between Quayle and Edwards is their relative lack of political experience, and, of course, their pretty-boy looks (which is such a superficial issue that we shouldn't have to mention it). Quayle was held to account for far more than his lack of political credentials, though, not the least of which was his shallowness. I also don't recall Quayle having much a personal story to tell of his life outside of politics. Edwards certainly does.

No, now I don't discredit him as a man, and I don't think that he is a shallow as Qualye, but from a political standpoint, he is Quayle.

As for his personal life, he is a hell of a man. I have a lot of respect for him. I just think he is 10 years early into the bid for the White House.

[zimv20]

Look at his voting record. He and Kerry are actually futher left than Kennedy.
i'm always really bad about quantifying such things as "further left." i have my own criteria but don't know what yours are. do you mind providing an illustrative example or two?

[Sayhey]

How exactly is he better than Gephart? He is more left than Gephart, has only served in the Senate for litterally 3 years because the last 2 have been on the road to the white house. He has never sponsored a single piece of legislation that has been turned into law.

HE is qualified to be commander in chief? He is the democrats Dan Quayle. No way around it.

Did Dan Quayle run for national office before he was named to the ticket? No. Edwards proved his value as a campaigner in the primary. As a politician he is as seasoned as most who have sought the office.

Edwards expertise in foreign affairs it limited to his import tenure on the Senate Intelligence Committee. While that would not measure up to either Kerry or Cheney's experience coming into office, it is far greater than Bush's level of knowledge in 2000. If I have to choose, just based on experience, between a Presidential candidate with vast amounts of knowledge and experience and Vice-Presidential candidate with limited foreign policy experience versus a neophyte President and an experienced old hand in the VP slot, guess which is my choice?

Of course this leaves out the most important question of all, how can we continue with an administration, regardless of the experience level of the VP or cabinet officials, which has given us the greatest foreign policy blunder in 100+ years?

[mactastic]

Haha! Wern't we all told by the right that experience didn't mean anything in the last election? 'He's an experienced businessman' we were told, it didn't matter that he hadn't spent much time in any elected office.

NOW it's a different story, and 'experience is the thing. You want a man with experience in that office, not some guy with only a couple years in elected office.'

My how times change. But at least the admission that Quale was a terrible choice for VP has been made. Only about 15 years late, but what the hey!

[Backtothemac]

Did Dan Quayle run for national office before he was named to the ticket? No. Edwards proved his value as a campaigner in the primary. As a politician he is as seasoned as most who have sought the office.

Edwards expertise in foreign affairs it limited to his import tenure on the Senate Intelligence Committee. While that would not measure up to either Kerry or Cheney's experience coming into office, it is far greater than Bush's level of knowledge in 2000. If I have to choose, just based on experience, between a Presidential candidate with vast amounts of knowledge and experience and Vice-Presidential candidate with limited foreign policy experience versus a neophyte President and an experienced old hand in the VP slot, guess which is my choice?

Of course this leaves out the most important question of all, how can we continue with an administration, regardless of the experience level of the VP or cabinet officials, which has given us the greatest foreign policy blunder in 100+ years?

What are you talking about? Qualye was a Senator for more than one term.

"In 1976, Mr. Quayle was elected to the U.S. Congress from Indiana's Fourth Congressional District, defeating an eight-term incumbent Democrat. He won reelection in 1978 by the greatest percentage margin ever achieved to that date in the northeast Indiana district. In 1980, at age 33, Mr. Quayle became the youngest person ever elected to the U.S. Senate from the State of Indiana, defeating three-term incumbent Democrat Birch Bayh. Making Indiana political history again, Mr. Quayle was reelected to the U.S. Senate in 1986 with the largest margin ever achieved to that date by a candidate in a statewide Indiana race.

During his tenure in the U.S. Senate, Mr. Quayle became widely known for his legislative work in the areas of defense, arms control, labor, and human resources. With his service on the Armed Services Committee, the Budget Committee, and the Labor and Human Resources Committee, he became an effective Senator, respected by colleagues on both sides of the aisle. In 1982, working with Senator Edward Kennedy, Mr. Quayle authored the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA)."

[Backtothemac]

Haha! Wern't we all told by the right that experience didn't mean anything in the last election? 'He's an experienced businessman' we were told, it didn't matter that he hadn't spent much time in any elected office.

NOW it's a different story, and 'experience is the thing. You want a man with experience in that office, not some guy with only a couple years in elected office.'

My how times change. But at least the admission that Quale was a terrible choice for VP has been made. Only about 15 years late, but what the hey!

No mactastic. First, I never supported Quayle as the VP choice. I thought that was stupid. I think too that Quayle is a good man, but not a great VP choice. Second, experience did matter, and Bush did have government experience and had done something that NO ONE had ever done in the history of Texas. He got elected to concurrent terms as Governor. Edwards is a freshman Senator that has never gotten on bill passed. Huge difference.

[Thanatoast]

Please will one liberal admit that he is no better than Quayle was? I thought Quayle was an idiotic choice by Bush I. I think Kerry made a big mistake.
I will admit that he's no better than Quayle (experience-wise). What's important is that he couldn't be any worse than Bush/Cheney.

[3rdpath]

Um, no. There is a HUGE friggin difference between being a two term governor of the second largest state in the Union, and a friggin Freshman senator from North Carolina.

Please will one liberal admit that he is no better than Quayle was? I thought Quayle was an idiotic choice by Bush I. I think Kerry made a big mistake.

i'd admit it if it were true. but it's not. bush was the TX governor but if you do your research you'll find that the governor position in texas is largely a figure-head office. the lt. gov. does the real work. it's well-documented by Texas Monthly magazine that Bush spent a large part of his terms napping and playing video games( oh, and mocking those on death row...).

and let's compare backgrounds shall we...bush was a silver spoon-fed baby who had a long list of failed business ventures. the only success he had was a politically arranged office with the Texas rangers baseball team. edwards came from nothing and made a very successful career for himself....which makes me think you'd support him since the "self-made" flag is one you wave here from time to time.

and comparing edwards to quayle is just laughable.

[IJ Reilly]

No, now I don't discredit him as a man, and I don't think that he is a shallow as Qualye, but from a political standpoint, he is Quayle.

As for his personal life, he is a hell of a man. I have a lot of respect for him. I just think he is 10 years early into the bid for the White House.

Possibly, but if we accept this argument I think we're designing an elegant trap for ourselves. We don't like Washington insiders, but we demand the kind of experience only a Washington insider is likely to have.

[Sayhey]

What are you talking about? Qualye was a Senator for more than one term.

"In 1976, Mr. Quayle was elected to the U.S. Congress from Indiana's Fourth Congressional District, defeating an eight-term incumbent Democrat. He won reelection in 1978 by the greatest percentage margin ever achieved to that date in the northeast Indiana district. In 1980, at age 33, Mr. Quayle became the youngest person ever elected to the U.S. Senate from the State of Indiana, defeating three-term incumbent Democrat Birch Bayh. Making Indiana political history again, Mr. Quayle was reelected to the U.S. Senate in 1986 with the largest margin ever achieved to that date by a candidate in a statewide Indiana race.

During his tenure in the U.S. Senate, Mr. Quayle became widely known for his legislative work in the areas of defense, arms control, labor, and human resources. With his service on the Armed Services Committee, the Budget Committee, and the Labor and Human Resources Committee, he became an effective Senator, respected by colleagues on both sides of the aisle. In 1982, working with Senator Edward Kennedy, Mr. Quayle authored the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA)."

You seemed to have missed my point. I was noting the fact that Quayle had not run for national office before his inclusion on the Bush ticket in 1988. Edwards ran for President this year and in the process proved his value as a campaigner and a vote-getter. That is an important part of how we test people's readiness to be President. If we are to look at Quayle's performance in 1988 then he was an abject failure. Bush won despite the abysmal performance by Quayle (most notabley in his debate against Bentsen.) Edwards has already shown his mettle in the political fray and passed with flying colors.

[Don't panic]

How exactly is he better than Gephart? He is more left than Gephart

right there ;)

of course this does not mean he is a liberal.

like the vast majority of the democratic party, he is a moderate conservative. The fact that we don't have a left in this country shouldn't automatically qualify all that are not in the extreme right as "lefties"

[jywv8]

Um, no. There is a HUGE friggin difference between being a two term governor of the second largest state in the Union, and a friggin Freshman senator from North Carolina.

Please will one liberal admit that he is no better than Quayle was? I thought Quayle was an idiotic choice by Bush I. I think Kerry made a big mistake.

Bush had six years as governor of Texas. Edwards has had about 5 and some odd months in the senate. In terms of time, that's not much a difference.

Also, as a previous poster mentioned, the office of governor is not as strong in Texas as in some other states. Legally, at least, the governor has little power over certain administrative functions and has no removal power over important elected officials.

[Backtothemac]

i'd admit it if it were true. but it's not. bush was the TX governor but if you do your research you'll find that the governor position in texas is largely a figure-head office. the lt. gov. does the real work. it's well-documented by Texas Monthly magazine that Bush spent a large part of his terms napping and playing video games( oh, and mocking those on death row...).

and let's compare backgrounds shall we...bush was a silver spoon-fed baby who had a long list of failed business ventures. the only success he had was a politically arranged office with the Texas rangers baseball team. edwards came from nothing and made a very successful career for himself....which makes me think you'd support him since the "self-made" flag is one you wave here from time to time.

and comparing edwards to quayle is just laughable.

That is funny. Bush is worth 15 million, and Kerry worth 70 million, and yet Bush is the one with a silver spoon. Where the Bush's always rich? No. Not when GW was young. The man knows work.

Don't turn the table off the subject of Edwards = Quayle.

[blackfox]

That is funny. Bush is worth 15 million, and Kerry worth 70 million, and yet Bush is the one with a silver spoon. Where the Bush's always rich? No. Not when GW was young. The man knows work.

Don't turn the table off the subject of Edwards = Quayle.
I have to take offense at "the man knows work" comment. GW has a long list of failed business ventures prior to entering politics. Did he work hard in these endeavors? Perhaps, which makes their failure all the more condemning doesn't it?
Regardless, Edwards and Kerry both "know work" also, as a quick look into their histories will reveal. So does Quale for that matter...the point is, that hardly is the yard-stick for measuring competence for National Office...every prominent politician has done their share of work to get to where they are...

[mactastic]

And when in life did Kerry become worth $70 million? At birth? Or perhaps much, much later?

[Neserk]

That is funny. Bush is worth 15 million, and Kerry worth 70 million, and yet Bush is the one with a silver spoon. .


Are you including the money that Kerry's wife has? Because anything she had prior to marriage doesn't belong to him. Only 1/2 of what she gains after the marriage is his...

[Backtothemac]

Are you including the money that Kerry's wife has? Because anything she had prior to marriage doesn't belong to him. Only 1/2 of what she gains after the marriage is his...

Actually I posted it wrong. it was on ABC last night I think, but it said that their net worths were as follows.

Kerry - 1 billion
Edwards - 70 million
Cheney - 50 million
Bush 15 million.


I just hate that we as simple men and women have to choose from the Rich, and the richer in the elections every year.

[zimv20]

I just hate that we as simple men and women have to choose from the Rich
why?

[Backtothemac]

why?
Because sadly in America we equate capability to do the job with success. We equate it with money, power, and history of actions. We don't base in on those who actually have the intelligence to do the job. And yes, I too am guilty of those judgements on the candidates. But where is the common man for us to vote for? He / She doesn't exist. Will never be elected, and will never have a chance to even run.

[jywv8]

Because sadly in America we equate capability to do the job with success. We equate it with money, power, and history of actions. We don't base in on those who actually have the intelligence to do the job. And yes, I too am guilty of those judgements on the candidates. But where is the common man for us to vote for? He / She doesn't exist. Will never be elected, and will never have a chance to even run.

I don't want a "common man" in the white house. I want someone exceptional. Is that person necessarily rich? No. But he could be. I surely wouldn't hold it against them, whether they earned all their money by digging ditches all day or were lucky enough to inherit it from their family.

I think a history of actions, how someone has lived their life, what they did with whatever time and money they had, is a good indicator of whether or not someone has the intelligence, leadership ability, and character to lead this country.

[zimv20]

Because sadly in America we equate capability to do the job with success. We equate it with money, power, and history of actions. We don't base in on those who actually have the intelligence to do the job. And yes, I too am guilty of those judgements on the candidates. But where is the common man for us to vote for? He / She doesn't exist. Will never be elected, and will never have a chance to even run.
because of a number of factors, including the necessity to run endless TV ads, it's becoming the case that only candidates w/ the money to spend can get elected (i believe this holds more true for local races, as presidential candidates get a lot of money to spend).

imo, this presents its own problems, including the elimination of qualified candidates.

however, i don't think the reverse is true. just because someone has money, it doesn't make them a bad candidate. what's important to me are their values and how they treat those not in the uppermost brackets, especially the middle class.

sure, kerry and edwards both have a lot of money. but how do their politics affect the middle class?

bush and cheney both have a lot of money. how have their policies affected the middle class?

who increased their wealth under clinton? who's increased it under bush? the answers may surprise you.

[Voltron]

right there ;)

of course this does not mean he is a liberal.

like the vast majority of the democratic party, he is a moderate conservative. The fact that we don't have a left in this country shouldn't automatically qualify all that are not in the extreme right as "lefties"
:confused: :eek: :confused:
I could go on for thousands of words on this but I won't. Democrats are moderate conservatives --- yeah right.http://sharevana.com/forums/images/generalsmileys/conf11.gif

[skunk]

:confused: :eek: :confused:
I could go on for thousands of words on this but I won't. Democrats are moderate conservatives --- yeah right.
Well, one side obviously shades into the other at some point in the spectrum, doesn't it? Otherwise you wouldn't have floating voters.

[mactastic]

Well, one side obviously shades into the other at some point in the spectrum, doesn't it? Otherwise you wouldn't have floating voters.

NO! Everything is BLACK AND WHITE, right or wrong. Haven't you gotten your GOP talking points lately? :p

[Don't panic]

:confused: :eek: :confused:
I could go on for thousands of words on this but I won't. Democrats are moderate conservatives --- yeah right.http://sharevana.com/forums/images/generalsmileys/conf11.gif

Whether you are willing to accept it or not, there is not but a handful of “lefties” in the Democratic party. And the differences between most democrats and most republicans (not the ultra-right neo-cons) are limited to the point of being non-existant to many observers. The political spectrum represented in the Parliament is very narrow and very crowded at the “center”. You can imagine it as a Gaussian distribution (a bell curve), where the peak is high and thin and the tails are very small. In the US, the “center” lies well into what is considered “conservative” space, so a great chunk of those to the “left” of this “center” (the democrats) are still in conservative space. If these very Representatives were to seat in a Parliament were a much broader political spectrum is represented (a low, fat curve), such as the European Parliament, and stick to their issues, the majority would seat in the banks of the “right” there.

[IJ Reilly]

Because sadly in America we equate capability to do the job with success. We equate it with money, power, and history of actions. We don't base in on those who actually have the intelligence to do the job. And yes, I too am guilty of those judgements on the candidates. But where is the common man for us to vote for? He / She doesn't exist. Will never be elected, and will never have a chance to even run.

If only so you know that I don't always disagree with you, I'm with you on this one. We're increasingly being ruled by a political aristocracy, primarily I think because of the money and connections that are now needed to run successfully for national office. Even the Congress, which was designed by the founders to be the "people's house," is dominated by the affluent and connected. It's a shame, and I don't see any end to it unless we can figure out how to lower the cost of running for office.

Incidentally, our last "common man" president was Bill Clinton. He grew up lower middle-class, didn't have much of a personal fortune when he was elected, and left office essentially broke. And what did he get for being such a common man? His opponents were happy to poke fun, calling him "Bubba," among other things. Turns out, some people prefer aristocrats to "common men."

[Frohickey]

If only so you know that I don't always disagree with you, I'm with you on this one. We're increasingly being ruled by a political aristocracy, primarily I think because of the money and connections that are now needed to run successfully for national office.
"

Um... I guess you don't know your history.

George Washington married rich and was the richest Virginian.
Thomas Jefferson had a sizeable estate when he was President.
John Hancock was a wealthy man as well.
Ben Franklin was a well-to-do storeowner.

About the only pauper of the bunch is Samuel Adams.

[IJ Reilly]

Please read what I actually post before responding.

Thank you.

[Neserk]

Actually I posted it wrong. it was on ABC last night I think, but it said that their net worths were as follows.

Kerry - 1 billion
Edwards - 70 million
Cheney - 50 million
Bush 15 million.


I just hate that we as simple men and women have to choose from the Rich, and the richer in the elections every year.


You didn't answer my question. Is Kerry's money his or his wife's/wife's family?

[Neserk]

We don't base in on those who actually have the intelligence to do the job. And yes, I too am guilty of those judgements on the candidates. But where is the common man for us to vote for? He / She doesn't exist. Will never be elected, and will never have a chance to even run.


I agree with you.

[Backtothemac]

I agree with you.

THUD.

Wife spashes water on my face.....

"What is wrong!"

"Me and Neserk agree on something..... :eek: :eek:

As for the money, the news report was saying that was his. She is worth a lot more than that.