Thoughts on John Edwards?

[Greg]

Anyone have any thoughts on Kerry's running mate? I think he's pretty far from a good choice. He has only 6 years of political experience as a North Carolina senator, but 21 years experience as a trial lawyer. Sure, he has charisma and a good "look", but he has no foreign policy experience. I think Cheney is going to annihilate him in the debates, especially on any foreign policy matters which I feel is the most important issue during this election. Thoughts?

 

[Stephen]

One word... gravitas. :lol:

 

[smitty77]

Anyone have any thoughts on Kerry's running mate?

I really thought the logical choice would be Gephardt. But that's Kerry. He doesn't make the right choices, just the popular ones. I can't see how Edwards is going to help him. He's better looking than Kerry, but that's about it. The media hinted at going for more southern voters, but Kerry kicked Edwards' arse down there during the primary. I think Kerry has all the southern votes he's going to get. If he wanted a young sparkplug for his campaign, he should have called Howard Dean. Yeeeeeeeaaaaaaahhhhhhh!!!!!!!

I can see the campaign slogans for the fall...
Kerry/Edwards: Everything you like, and nothing you don't.
Bush/Cheney: We toppled a brutal dictator. John Kerry doesn't stand a chance.

 

[Greg]

When a reporter noted that Edwards was being described as "charming, engaging, a nimble campaigner, a populist and even sexy" and then asked "How does he stack up against Dick Cheney?" the president immediately responded, "Dick Cheney can be president. Next?"

Source

:lol: Great response.

 

[Stephen]

Kerry?Edwards: The "Red-light" campaign:
"A couple of Johns looking to screw everyone..."

 

[riverc0il]

keep in mind, george w bush had the same amount of public office experience before he became the president, let alone the vp in edwards case. bush didn't really have any foreign policy experience when he started. bush's foreign policy experience comes from his staff whereas kerry has plenty of experience and can also pick a solid staff for F/P, so F/P for edwards is a non-issue. also, a lack of experience makes edwards NOT a washington insider which compliments kerry's long standing run as a senator. edwards pulls in a lot of people concerned with labour and makes a strong anti-big business addition to kerry's insider status who gives more lip service to unions than anything, imo (and cheers to that, unions have been disfunctional and useless for the real common low wage labourer for dozens of years). i really don't think one way or the other about edwards, he helps kerry by not hurting him which so many other people could have done.

Gephardt would have been an aweful choice, imo. i don't think there was any 'right' choice for kerry to make. dean would have been a worse choice (keeping in mind kerry needs swing voters, dean voters are already behind kerry 100%). i think the choice for VP came down to who would hurt kerry the least and had nothing to do with who could help in.

personally, i think WAY too much emphasis is put on the VP. people who are deciding between bush and kerry based on chenney and edwards really need to closer evaluate who and what and why there are voting for. though i think chenney does add more to the bush ticket than most VP's do because of his experience and how much he really does do behind the scenes. and as for:

"A couple of Johns looking to screw everyone..."

i much prefer the johns ticket to the bush/chenney ticket, but i can say that without slandering the bush ticket. no president or is ever looking to screw the american people, they just have different ideas on how to get things done. imo, comments like this just bring the level of discussion down.

 

[smitty77]

Greg,
I saw that quote from W on the evening news, and his answer was as quick and blunt in real-time as it reads in print. Classic.

 

[Stephen]

"A couple of Johns looking to screw everyone..."

i much prefer the johns ticket to the bush/chenney ticket, but i can say that without slandering the bush ticket. no president or is ever looking to screw the american people, they just have different ideas on how to get things done. imo, comments like this just bring the level of discussion down.

Yup, my bad. I was going for humor, not substance.

Bush said he would cut taxes, and he did.
Kerry's platform is that he WILL raise taxes*, so that seals it right there for me.

-Stephen

*-note: subject to change at any time

 

[Greg]

keep in mind, george w bush had the same amount of public office experience before he became the president, let alone the vp in edwards case. bush didn't really have any foreign policy experience when he started. bush's foreign policy experience comes from his staff whereas kerry has plenty of experience and can also pick a solid staff for F/P, so F/P for edwards is a non-issue.

I disagree it's a "non-issue". You are correct that Bush didn't have a lot of foreign policy experience, but in a post-9/11 world, it is more critical than ever.

personally, i think WAY too much emphasis is put on the VP.

:blink: Uhmm...it's only the second highest office. I think it is a very important consideration. You should be able to confidentally entrust that person to lead this country. I don't feel some hot shot trial lawyer can do that; not to mention the fact that he's almost as far left as Kerry.

 

[riverc0il]

i'm all for a tax hike. hey, i'm dirt poor as the next guy, but someone has gotta step up and start paying for education and social programs and the like. the problem in my mind isn't the taxes which are needed to operate a country, but where the tax money is going (i.e. corporate kickbacks, etc.) and where it's not coming from (overseas exporting of jobs and products, etc). my bad for not seeing the humor, politics can be a touchy subject and without a wink wink afterwards, well, what ever. i still didn't find it funny. *shrug*

while i don't think F/P is a non-issue in general, i really think the balance of a full cabinet can make up for short falls as no president, let alone VP, is ever going to have the perfect balance of everything.

i'd be more concerned about the VP's power as leader of the senate than anything else, that's there big power switch. although VP does need to be able to take over if the president can not longer perform duty or dies, i feel they have the benefit of learning the ropes of the presidency from behind the top dog (unless said president becomes unable to hold office immediately after being installed). regardless, if we want to compare potential effects of a VP stepping into office, i'd be more worried about chenney than edwards. i don't see anything about edwards the tells me this guy couldn't lead the country in time of emergency. he did pretty well in the democratic primary up until kerry ran away with it since his image become one of being so "electable."

don't get me wrong, i'm not saying that it's not an important office and that there shouldn't be emphasis placed on the candidate. there darn well should be emphasis and the candidate should be a solid addition to the presidential candidate. i just think a little too much analysis goes into it. like last time lieberman was suppose to be some big boast cause he was the first jewish VP candidate ever. and i was sitting there thinking "who the heck cares what his religion is?!" but profiling is intigrated into politics even though it doesn't play out on the overt level.

i think F/P is more important than ever not because of 9/11, but rather because we find ourselves the most hated nation in the face of the earth right now. law enforcement/covert ops/FBI/CIA experience would be much more helpful to a candidate than F/P experience in regards to elimination of terror. as we've seen, you can be real bad at foreign relations and still run a war against terror. policy and action completely different and our current foreign relations situation is not looking to good, imo. 9/11 didn't really change much of anything, it just changed people perceptions of what was actually happening around them. it shouldn't take an act of terror to make F/P a higher priorety.

 

[Greg]

Well, in any event the process should be interesting to watch unfold, and the results will be telling. You've got a very far left ticket and a relatively conservative one. I still think it's going to boil down to whether you support the war or not.

 

[mryan]

hey greg.

edwards has no foriegn policy experience? did bush have any when he was running for president? i'll save you the time and give you the answer: no. that said, your argument is null and void.

cheers.

 

[mryan]

that response by bush was quick, one of the only times he has been quick. most of the time, the man struggles with the basic tenets of the english language. that he is a poor communicator is an understatement. that he lacks substance is truth and that he will and should be voted out of office is....wellll...

 

[Greg]

edwards has no foriegn policy experience? did bush have any when he was running for president? i'll save you the time and give you the answer: no. that said, your argument is null and void.

We've already covered this. In my opinion, the most important issue now is national security and the War on Terror. With that said, replacing Bush/Cheney with a couple of spineless libs (one with no F/P experience) is, again IMHO, a bad idea.

 

[Jaytrek57]

Spineless??

From one who has been in the "sh&*", I admire J. Kerry for being there as well.

War on Terror? Doesn't have an end game/strategy my friend. So if this country is to vote, based solely on "THE WAR AGAINST TERORISM." I believe that is a mistake.

I am as conserative as they come. Consider Reagan one of the finest presidents this country has produced. Having said that, I am a coin flip come the elections.

It is interesting that we all have let others "label" us as REP/DEM/ Dreaded independant. I truly believe if the two canidates were to "flip/flop" parties you would see a reversal in opinions on their abilities to be president.

Just my two cents....

 

[riverc0il]

the dem ticket is not far left. dean was pretty far left and kusinch was really left, but even they aren't the extreme left by virtue that they are part of the democratic party. coming from a very "liberal" or "left" or "progressive" view point, i see kerry as moderate left at best.

mryan said the word wack! that's awesome! last year i began a campaign to "Bring Back The Wack!" cause no one says it any more. just wanted to diverge from seriousness a second and say you rule man!

i wouldn't call a decorated vietnam vet spineless. his flip/flopping is political in nature not based on not standing up for what he believes in. i'd MUCH rather have a president that can admit when he's wrong and change his mind and policies than one who commits to a plan regardless to new events that happen and refuses to change things halfway through based on what the current pulse or demands within america are.

 

[Greg]

My "spineless" comment refers to his policies, not his military service. Both my father (WWII) and father-in-law (Vietnan) are vets and I am grateful to them and all veterans, including Kerry.

Kerry has one of the most liberal voting records in the senate. Lieberman is an example of a moderate democrat, not Kerry.

 

[Charlie Schuessler]

My "spineless" comment refers to his policies, not his military service. Both my father (WWII) and father-in-law (Vietnan) are vets and I am grateful to them and all veterans, including Kerry.

Kerry has one of the most liberal voting records in the senate. Lieberman is an example of a moderate democrat, not Kerry.

So what's your point? :wink:

 

[mryan]

spineless. i like that. where was bush during 'nam? where was kerry during nam? right. case closed. also: get over your ideological blindness. perpetuting untruths like liberal=spineless is typical of conservatives: off base.

 

[Greg]

I guess I deserve this for starting a political thread, eh? :wink: