October 06, 2004
Edwards Not Ready For Prime Time
After watching the Cheney - Edwards debate, I now understand why Edwards only won one primary battle. The Democratic primary voters rejected Edwards, time and time again, because Edwards is simply not yet ready to be president.
The contrast between Cheney and Edwards could not have been more dramatic. Cheney was calm cool and collected. Edwards on the other hand was nervous and hyper. He couldn't even explain why he was qualified to be Vice President. In a long winded and rambling response to this question:
Ten men and women have been nominees of their parties since 1976 to be Vice President. Out of those 10, you have the least governmental experience of any of them. What qualifies you to be a heartbeat away?
The only substantive thing Edwards said was:
During the time that I have served in the -- on the Intelligence Committee in the Senate, traveling to some of the places we've talked about tonight -- Afghanistan, Pakistan, the Middle East, Turkey, meeting with leaders of NATO -- I have a very clear idea of what has to be done to keep this country safe.
Last January, hours before the Iowa caucuses, Kerry attacked Edwards' lack of experience. This is how the New York Times reported it:
Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, after asserting that he had been ''very careful not to do too many comparisons against other candidates,'' proceeded to tell voters in Newton on Sunday evening that Mr. Edwards, the youthful one-term senator from North Carolina, could not survive a campaign based on national security issues this fall, should he win the nomination.
''In the Senate four years -- and that is the full extent of public life -- no international experience, no military experience, you can imagine what the advertising is going to be next year,'' Mr. Kerry said. With a grin, he added: ''When I came back from Vietnam in 1969 I don't know if John Edwards was out of diapers then. Well, I'm sure he was out of diapers.''
[Adam Nagourney and Jim Rutenberg, “With Hopes Up And Elbows Out, Democrats Give Iowa Their All,” The New York Times, 1/19/04. The article is available from the Times' archives for a fee.]
Kerry was correct in his assessment of Edwards' lack of qualifications to be president. This fact was made perfectly clear during last night's debate.
The qualifications of the person Kerry selected to be vice president is one issue on which Kerry should not have flipped flopped. That Kerry would select Edwards to be vice president after acknowledging Edwards' lack of qualifications says all we need to know about Kerry's lack of judgement.
Posted by Dan Spencer at October 6, 2004 01:09 PMGiven that the polls are pretty much dead even on their performances, and that Cheney flat out lied at least once, I’d say he did just fine.
Just because it wasn’t the utter rout that the first Presidential debate was doesn’t mean Edwards did a poor job, it just means he had a far more competent debater to contend with. Successful trial lawyer vs. successful CEO usually isn’t going to result in one person getting soundly beaten.
Posted by: ceejayoz at October 6, 2004 01:30 PMIf experience is the top reason for electing a candidate to any office than we all have lost the game. One should make their mind up based on which idiot if elected will do the least harm while promoting their agenda or used by special interests. Without a clear vision where Bush or Kerry wants to lead this country to both afford to lose the election.
Any monkey can be VP, the only time their opinion will ever matter is if the elected president is unable to do their job. Therefore, Edwards may not be ready for prime time, but the fact that he may have to actually take control of the office of president has not come into play for the last 35 years when Ford had to take over for Nixon.
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at October 6, 2004 01:48 PM> Cheney was calm cool and collected.
Are you crazy? He was visibly shaking! He twice was so freaked out he admitted to not knowing how to answer. He didn’t smile once, much less laugh as Edwards did. As the debate drew on, he hunched further and further over, blocking his own microphone. He even patronized and chided the moderator when he was 100% wrong to do so. And finally, when it ended, he took about ten seconds before he realized he was allowed to stand up - frankly, he looked like he was going to faint!
Cheney didn’t exactly have the kind of close-call near-nervous breakdown like the President did on national television last week - in fact, he was pretty much on orange alert the whole time, so manic that I think he kind of lost his place pretty frequently. He was clearly NOT having a good time. He seemed to resent being there in the first place, unlike Edwards who was quite obviously happy to be there.
The man was anything but “calm and collected”!
-Cf
Posted by: Christopher Fahey at October 6, 2004 02:20 PMHenry:
Don’t forget, the vice president also presides over the senate, though he has no vote except in the case of a tie. Given how evenly the country is split on some issues, this could conceivably make his office more important at this time.
Posted by: Jarin at October 6, 2004 03:27 PMJarin,
However, every issue now requires a “Super Majority Vote” which makes the VP vote invalid. Therefore, Cheney or Edwards can stay in their undisclosed location.
Who on earth wants a cross between Lisa Simpson and Zach Morris for Vice President. I know I dont. Keep hoping your internet polls(popular vote) and left wing news outlets are accurate in telling you that this is a close race. Look at the Electoral College and figure out that this election is over with. Landside Bush victory.
Difference is easy: Bush has faithful loyal party followers who have conviction and morals. Democrats have wavering, compromising, inconsistent liberals who prove there lack of intelligence by basing an entire campaign on Bush bashing.
“its not what your country can do for you, its that I am not Bush”
Posted by: Brashear at October 6, 2004 03:45 PMBrashear,
First most of the electoral polls were taken last month so they do not show any move directly from the debates nor the fact that Bush is clueless on what is going on in the world.
Second, yes Bush does have faithful followers; however, thinking Homer is the most intellegent person in charge of nukes scares me.
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at October 6, 2004 03:55 PMBrashear, I was almost baited, but naaahh, too easy.
Dan,
Yes, Edwards did come across as a young, whippersnapper of sorts last night; however, I don’t think that makes him ineligible for the office of Vice President. I know this is a low blow, but need I mention Quayle?
CER
Posted by: CER at October 6, 2004 03:56 PMLast night Cheney was the stern old man, and Edwards was the smart young boy, maybe naive but young. But let’s not forget the old man developed many instances of amnesia over a period of one hour forty minutes
Posted by: Rovin at October 6, 2004 03:58 PMCER and Greg,
The trouble with the Quale analogy is that President George Herbert Walker Bush was not on record explaining why Quale wasn’t qualified to be president.
Posted by: Dan at October 6, 2004 05:19 PMDan said: “Cheney was calm cool and collected. Edwards on the other hand was nervous and hyper.”
Ever heard of a Rohrschach image? I think you are reading into Edwards what you hoped to find. I ain’t for Edwards or Cheney, and I didn’t see nervous. Hyper is more accurate, though I would have described his behavior as energetic compared to Cheney. That’s not to imply Cheney was doing Limbaugh pill before the debates, Cheney has a definite level of intensity when he speaks, but, it is at a noticeably lower energy level.
Posted by: David R. Remer at October 6, 2004 05:56 PMBrashear,
“Democrats have wavering, compromising, inconsistent liberals who prove there lack of intelligence…”
You mispelled ‘their.’
Who on earth wants a cross between Lisa Simpson and Zach Morris for Vice President
hmm…let’s see….lisa simpson is extremely smart, and zach morris is a charismatic leader who can reach across the aisle to unite the geeks and the jocks for regular summits at “the max.” what’s so wrong with that? that seems pretty desirable to me, actually, especially when the alternative is a cross between darth vadar and a giant lying machine….
but in all seriousness, i think that john edwards performed extremely well last night. he was not perfect, but when compared to cheney, edwards was a shining star.
cheney seemed to have a greater command of the issues, especially the foreign policy issues, right? that’s a comment i’ve seen many times. well, cheney certainly does have years of experience to suggest that he is very well-informed on the issues, but experience does not equal credibility. it’s easy to seem very well-informed about something if you’re just making it up as you go along. how can we be expected to trust someone who has blatantly and unapologetically lied to us numerous times? there’s a difference between political spin and the “fuzzy math” type of stuff that all politicians do and what this administration (especially the vice president) has done.
john edwards may lack political experience, but he clearly believes in honesty, accountability, and the importance of respect. This administration does not respect the american people nor do they respect the importance of our place in the world community. whatever experience edwards may lack, he makes up for it by having the sense and the strength of character to stand up for the issues that really matter.
cheney said that the president can trust him because he clearly has no higher political apsirations. but when you’re at the top of your game, where else can you go. dick cheney would never win a national presidential election, and he knows it. this is the highest office he could aspire to. and if he’s a lame-duck vice president with no future political plans, how is he possibly more accountable to the voters than a man like edwards who is relatively early in his career and stands to face many future political races? I see the argument that edwards is less likely to take a hard line, because he will have to worry about future political ramifications…this is always the case with a politician. so really, cheney could make poor choices, because he doesn’t have to be concerned with the voters, and edwards could make poor choices because he does. so it really comes down to which one of them i trust. and as i’ve said, dick cheney makes that choice abundantly clear.
Posted by: Kathryn Knowlson at October 6, 2004 07:39 PMLeave it to a woman to say that!
Thank you!
Posted by: Kathryn Knowlson at October 6, 2004 08:12 PMEven if the story from last night’s VP debate was that John Edwards held his own against Cheney, BC04 could have at least claimed to have stopped the bleeding.
However, today’s news cycle has been dominated mostly by Cheney debunking, succeeding in drowning out Bush’s ‘Mulligan Speech’!!
Today’s news cycle is being dominated by the headlines on a far left website like americanprogressaction.org? Now THAT is news to me.
I know there has been discussion about whether Cheney ever met Edwards before the debate, but even that has played out very well for Cheney.
The media decides to play gotcha, thinking they’re doing Edwards a favor, and they end up basically proving that the President of the Senate (Cheney) has never actually encountered at the Senate someone who is supposed to be a Senator! All they can come up with is that the two men happened to attend the same social events on a couple of occasions—hence CHENEY LIED!!!! One of their favorite lines.
But it’s essentially conceded that Edwards never shows up for work, Cheney’s initial point, and that if you ever cross paths with him in Washington it will sure not be at his job but at a social event!
And of course, everybody should remember everyone they’ve ever crossed paths with at a party—failure to do so means you’re a LIAR!! A FILTHY REPUBLICAN LIAR!!!
John Edwards is the son of a Mill Worker who grew up to be a millionaire. Compare that to 99% of Politicians with Silver Spoons in their mouths. I find it amazing that Republicans would belittle someone who has done what every American has dreamed of. It is a measure of your character that you would do this.
Aldous.
Posted by: Aldous at October 7, 2004 08:27 AMI find it amazing that Republicans would belittle someone who has done what every American has dreamed of.
I’m not surprised one bit. The Republican party, despite its recent populist rhetoric, has traditionally been dedicated to making the rich richer and the poor poorer.
It used to be common knowledge that Democrats represent the working man and Republicans represent big business. Over the last 20 years, they’ve successfully created the perception that the opposite is true.
Many Americans now believe that hardworking men who earned (or married-up for) every dollar they have are somehow “elite”, and millionaires who inherited every dime they have are “common folk”. It’s wacky.
What I find ironic about the debate was the liberal media skiped reporting on how Edwards “worked the system” to avoid paying $600,000 into medicare(legal but shifty).
Set up a corp., with yourself as the only stockholder, pay yourself all the money in dividends, excape paying medicare taxes on it.
Edward’s “two Americas”..one for him, and one for the “lesser mortals” that have to pay their taxes.
How about his bullcrap lie about….There is no need for the marriage amendment…”no state has to honor a marriage from another state”
As an attorney HE KNOWS full well that if you get married in Ohio and move to Michigan, Michigan can’t say..”you aint married in this state”.
Marriage laws were written long before anyone thought a liberal judge would rule that “you can marry anyone, or anything, or mulitpals thereof.”
States can set rules for marriage, but once legally married in any state, it becomes federal!
This is a “slipperly slope” issue that anyone but the simple minded can see through.
Beagle,
Is your comment about Edwards suppose to impress the average citizen who was shown back in the 80’s that Bush41 made oner a million dollars in one year and paid NO TAXES. Gee, the fact that most rich people have tax loopholes we can drive a truck through is headline news. Is that why Bush43 refused to take back the top 2% of income earners to pay for the 87 million, but supported a bill that made it so the minimum wage earner now has to pay for a part of it.
Henry my friend,
The “average citizen” doesn’t have the means to bilk the medicare system out of $ 600,000.
And your point was ?
Posted by: Beagle at October 7, 2004 05:19 PM> As an attorney HE KNOWS full well that if
> you get married in Ohio and move to Michigan,
> Michigan can’t say..”you aint married in
> this state”.
You are 100% wrong. Southern states didn’t recongnize interracial couples married in northern states well into the late 1960’s, and the Supreme Court upheld their right to do so. The Supreme Court overturned laws against interracial marriage, but the right of one state to choose whether or not to recognize marriages from another state still holds firm.
Even today, many states will not recognize child marriages which are legal in other states but not legal in their own state.
-Cf
Posted by: Christopher Fahey at October 7, 2004 07:34 PMBeagle,
The fact that a citizen uses every legal means to aviod paying more taxes is a right wing argument of Bush and Cheney; therefore, how is Cheney can be for tax cuts, but against tax laws that cut taxes. Isn’t that a flip flop?
The “average citizen” doesn’t have the means to bilk the medicare system out of $ 600,000.
Beagle, the average citizen doesn’t have $600,000.
That’s what this is all about. Republican legislators favor creating tax loopholes like the one’s Cheney and Edwards used. I don’t blame anyone for using a loophole they qualify for, I have a problem with the fact those loopholes were created in the first place.
I have no problem paying taxes. I just don’t like the fact that Republican legislators set it up so only the rich have a way out of it.
Today marks another low for the inexperienced John Edwards.
Posted by: JohnSwords.com at October 12, 2004 10:35 PM
