Kerry Picks Edwards for VP

[shemp]

Kerry Picks Edwards for VP (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/07/01/politics/main626969.shtml)

(CBS/AP) Senator John Kerry was expected to name Sen. John Edwards as his running mate Tuesday, ending a search that began with about 25 candidates and a mandate to find a political soul mate who could "be ready at any moment" to assume the presidency.

Kerry plans to announce his choice on the Internet before a rally in Pittsburgh at 9 a.m.

The newly minted ticket will travel to battleground states this week, starting with Ohio and ending with the running mate's hometown, aides said. The pair will be formally nominated at the Democratic National Convention, which begins in Boston on July 26.

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

I am not familiar with all politicians in the US

this is not the John Edward is it of "Crossing Over"

I notice this fellow has an "s" in his name so likely not.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by shemp
Kerry Picks Edwards for VP (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/07/01/politics/main626969.shtml)



A prudent choice, though I was hoping for something more entertaining and unexpected for all the suspense he's been trying to generate. I still think Gephardt would be able to deliver more union members than Edwards could deliver southerners, but I guess time will tell.

I recall those two mixing it up pretty good in the primary debates... But then so did Reagan and Bush Sr. Should be a fun campaign!

[Tmy]

Funny. No matter how politically advanced we get most of politics still comes down to a candidates looks, race, gender, ethnicty, and neighborhood.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Tmy
Funny. No matter how politically advanced we get most of politics still comes down to a candidates looks, race, gender, ethnicty, and neighborhood.

That's not politics, Timmy, that's SOCIETY.

They do seem like a bit of an odd couple, though, just in presentation. Bush & Cheney are peas in a pod, but here you have a self-professed good ol' boy teaming up with an ivy leage child of privilege. But Edwards does offer the advantage of being the less Lurch-like part of the ticket.

[Tmy]

You miss there biggest advantage. Together they have SUPER-politican hair! A look at history shows that the better hair usually carries the election.

Clinton, Reagan, Carter,JFK won based on their hair alone. A balding GW and bald Cheney dont have a chance.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by Jocko


That's not politics, Timmy, that's SOCIETY.

They do seem like a bit of an odd couple, though, just in presentation. Bush & Cheney are peas in a pod, but here you have a self-professed good ol' boy teaming up with an ivy leage child of privilege. But Edwards does offer the advantage of being the less Lurch-like part of the ticket.

I agree it was a good choice for Kerry. I never believed the McCain rumors. The biggest problem I see is the debates. Kerry and Bush in a debate will be entertaining but Kerry is not an original thinker/debater and it will likely end up like the Bush/Gore debates. Edwards, on the other hand, could open a serious can of whupass on Bush in a debate, simple because he is so articulate and stays so firmly on point. But at best he will debate Cheney who can more easily fend off Edward's practiced, talented even, debating tactics.

I predict Bush/Cheney win with 20 electoral-votes to spare.

[Bikewer]

Just woke up to hear the NBC news commentator make the following statement.
"The Bush administration says that Kerry's choice of Edwards was for purely political reasons."


???????????????:D

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by Bikewer
Just woke up to hear the NBC news commentator make the following statement.
"The Bush administration says that Kerry's choice of Edwards was for purely political reasons."


???????????????:D

And I'll add my own ??? to that.

Of course, I'd like to know who it was in the Bush administration that said it. To phrase it the way you reported it, one would presume that it was the 'official' stance of the administration.

I suggest it that there is more to the context of that statement than meets the reader's/listener's eyes/ears. Either that or NBC just made it up.

[Brown]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
But at best he [Edwards] will debate Cheney who can more easily fend off Edward's practiced, talented even, debating tactics.A debate between Edwards and Bush would be boring. But a debate between Edwards and Cheney promises to be top-flight entertainment. I would not be surprised if Cheney tried to weasel out of such a debate, saying something like: "Nobody cares about the vice presidential debates."

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Brown
A debate between Edwards and Bush would be boring. But a debate between Edwards and Cheney promises to be top-flight entertainment. I would not be surprised if Cheney tried to weasel out of such a debate, saying something like: "Nobody cares about the vice presidential debates."

Well, a southerner-on-southerner debate is usually pretty dull until a certain minimum of beer has been consumed. But I think Cheney is an even match with Edwards - both are at ease in the pulpit of politics and well-spoken. I wouldn't take odds on picking that winner....

BTW, my call is Bush/Cheney by 13 electoral votes, with endless recounts in Michigan or Ohio.

[gnome]

1988 campaign posters:

BUSH - Quayle
vs.
Dukakis - Bentsen

2004?

Bush - Cheney
vs.
Kerry - Edwards

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by Brown
A debate between Edwards and Bush would be boring. But a debate between Edwards and Cheney promises to be top-flight entertainment. I would not be surprised if Cheney tried to weasel out of such a debate, saying something like: "Nobody cares about the vice presidential debates."

If I were Cheney, I try something like that. Edwards is a killer at debate. While the ability to debate is probably not a a good measure of future job performance, it does happen to be one of the primary measures in use. Perhaps that's why both parties, in their primaries, attempt to minimize the debate impact by allowing the inclusion of so many participants.

The only reason Edwards didn't win the nomination was because the debates had far too many players, many of which having no prospect. Had it been just Edwards and Kerry, Edwards would surely have been nominated. Well, that's my opinion anyway.

Maybe both parties would profit from some sort of debate run-offs. I don't know how such a thing might be set-up given the subjective nature of what constitutes a 'win', but I'd like to see someone try.

[shemp]

Originally posted by PygmyPlaidGiraffe
I am not familiar with all politicians in the US

this is not the John Edward is it of "Crossing Over"

I notice this fellow has an "s" in his name so likely not.

Um, no, but that certainly would have been an interesting choice. John Edward (no "s") might have helped pull in the Cook County vote. (This is another obscure U.S. political reference, feel free to request clarification if necessary.)

[shemp]

I heard some Bushite hack on the radio say something about the fact that John Edwards was a trial lawyer will make him unappealing to voters. Right, there aren't any lawyers in Washington, especially in Congress, and no lawyer has ever gone to the White House. Yeah, sure, ya betcha.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by gnome
1988 campaign posters:

BUSH - Quayle
vs.
Dukakis - Bentsen

2004?

Bush - Cheney
vs.
Kerry - Edwards

That is one of the most interesting, thought provoking, use of font size I've seen.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by shemp
I heard some Bus**te hack on the radio say something about the fact that John Edwards was a trial lawyer will make him unappealing to voters. Right, there aren't any lawyers in Washington, especially in Congress, and no lawyer has ever gone to the White House. Yeah, sure, ya betcha.

Yeah. I like how people smear him cause he "made his money as a trial attorney." Unlike most other politicans who earned there money the old fashion way. Thru old money blue blood former slave owning rum running familes .

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by shemp
I heard some Bus**te hack on the radio say something about the fact that John Edwards was a trial lawyer will make him unappealing to voters. Right, there aren't any lawyers in Washington, especially in Congress, and no lawyer has ever gone to the White House. Yeah, sure, ya betcha.

I agree with you in principal but politics has a way of bringing new and improved evils to the forefront. Currently, lawyers are a favorite for whipping (as well they should be!) so there is some hay to be made here. Perhaps not as much as the Repubs would like. It depends on the cases with which Edwards has involved himself. The 'good' ones don't really matter because its the questionable ones that will come into focus.

A single whiplash case could all but destroy him depending on the circumstances.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Rob Lister


I agree with you in principal but politics has a way of bringing new and improved evils to the forefront. Currently, lawyers are a favorite for whipping (as well they should be!) so there is some hay to be made here. Perhaps not as much as the Repubs would like. It depends on the cases with which Edwards has involved himself. The 'good' ones don't really matter because its the questionable ones that will come into focus.

A single whiplash case could all but destroy him depending on the circumstances.

True dat. No one ever made it big in politics because they'd been a trial lawyer. In spite of it, sure, but never because of it.

I think a bigger issue will be Edward's experience... a one-term senate seat isn't much of a resume these days.

[American]

I bet they'll marry each other! HA HA HA HA HA!! It's legal in massachusetts, and Kerrry is FROM massachusetts. Oh my god they're really going to do it I think!

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by Jocko


True dat. No one ever made it big in politics because they'd been a trial lawyer. In spite of it, sure, but never because of it.

I think a bigger issue will be Edward's experience... a one-term senate seat isn't much of a resume these days.

Just to quibble a bit (mostly because you quibbled with your 13 e-votes over my 20), but isn't experience also one of those 'in spite of' factors? Especially as it pertains to the Vice non-job?

[wjousts]

Expect to hear "I'm the son of a mill worker" a lot over the next 4 months from John "Son of a Mill Worker" Edwards.

[varwoche]

Originally posted by wjousts
Expect to hear "I'm the son of a mill worker" a lot over the next 4 months from John "Son of a Mill Worker" Edwards.
That and "two Americas" and "Halliburton".

[TillEulenspiegel]

I think by " a purely political decision" what was meant was a "topically political" choice, as in electability. The case as stated is that much of what passes for politics in America is a combination popularity/beauty contest. If the real position of the Veep is "one heartbeat" away from the presidency undoubtedly Gephardt has infinitely more gravitas the a 1 term senator.

SO the choice is a tip o' the hat to realpolitik. Chaney would make a better choice as the heartbeat position holder then Edwards if you enjoy Machiavelli, But this is not the first time reality has been sacrificed at the alter of political expediancy............Can you imagine Dan "potatoe head " Quayle as Pres? The man with the permanent 1000 yrd. stare < shudder>

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Rob Lister


Just to quibble a bit (mostly because you quibbled with your 13 e-votes over my 20), but isn't experience also one of those 'in spite of' factors? Especially as it pertains to the Vice non-job?

Depends on how hot the "outsider" label is in any given year. I don't see that it's a big deal in '04... look at Dean, the ultimate outsider, who was shot out of the saddle almost before it began.

It's really a combined threat, IMO, when you put short experience in with an unusually youthful appearance (Edward is known for both). Gephardt has been around forever and carries a lot of old-school clout. I don't see that from Edward's loose association with the south. He's not going to deliver either Carolina, so his influence will be diffused throughout the rest of the south.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel
[B]
SO the choice is a tip o' the hat to realpolitik. Chaney would make a better choice as the heartbeat position holder then Edwards [B]

At least Edwards heartbeat is reliable!:p


Since when is the most talented guy tapped to be prez. Bush was a state govenor. The candidates are picked on likeabilty not ability.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Tmy


At least Edwards heartbeat is reliable!:p


Since when is the most talented guy tapped to be prez. Bush was a state govenor. The candidates are picked on likeabilty not ability.

Spot on, Timmy. You almost never see Presidents who were governors. Er, except Carter, Reagan, Clinton, Bush Jr....

How many senators have won the oval office in living memory, Timmy? 15 total and you'll have to go back to Nixon to find one.

Governors are executives. Senators are legislators. Going simply on job description, governors are better suited to the role. Likability matters, of course, but when you're starting behind the pack as a senator it takes a whole lot of it.

[Tmy]

Senators dont usually get the nod because beinga Senator means you've already alientated 1/2 the country through partisian antics.

Govs are much better cause they havent had the chance to play Federal moneyball and vote on all kinds of bills that then come back to haunt you. (Look at what theyre doing wh Kerrys record.)

Govenors are poltical Ken Dolls. You can pose them and make them into whatever you want. (they also have no balls :p )

[Furious]

Edward's lack of experience is perfect to balance an attack on Kerry's long experience in Washington, much like Cheney's experience helped Bush's perceived outsiderness in Washington when Bush's political experience was only as a one and a half term Texas governor back in 2000.

Kerry has a long voting record that can be attacked, whereas Edward can give a much more clear message since he doesn't have much of a record to be attacked with. The differing personal histories and birthplaces will have a large impact as well.

I know we aren't voting for a Vice President, but how Cheney has participated in the Bush administration makes it abundantly clear they aren't as useless as a warm bucket of spit anymore either.

While Gephardt might bring more of a political machine, I think the Democrats are pretty solidly behind Kerry already anyway, so Edward adds a lot more balance to the ticket in terms of youth and charisma, and will bring in much more of the crucial swing vote.

I'm going to cautiously say that Edward on the ticket might be the difference this election.

[Nasarius]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
Of course, I'd like to know who it was in the Bush administration that said it. To phrase it the way you reported it, one would presume that it was the 'official' stance of the administration.

Haven't been able to find that, but I did find another piece of idiocy from the RNC:
John Kerry was against John Edwards before he was for him. But now he’s his running mate.
Who is John Edwards?
A disingenuous, unaccomplished liberal and friend to personal injury trial lawyers.
Go to www.kerrypicksedwards.com to find out more about John Edwards.
www.gop.com

They cite Kerry 'attacking' Edwards during the primaries...pssst, guys, that's how presidential primaries (for both parties!) work. You're vicious to each other until it's over, then you all get behind the candidate and sing his praises.
But hey, any shred of evidence that supports your strawman image: "A flip flopper who wants to raise taxes, is weak on national security, weak on intelligence and weak on homeland security."

[TillEulenspiegel]

Originally posted by Tmy


At least Edwards heartbeat is reliable!:p


Since when is the most talented guy tapped to be prez. Bush was a state govenor. The candidates are picked on likeabilty not ability.

That's pretty much what I said Tmy and besides Bush represented petrodollars not prudent political philosophy. G.W.Bush......Like a rock, only dumber.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel


That's pretty much what I said Tmy and besides Bush represented petrodollars not prudent political philosophy.

Wow, I had no idea that only petroluem industry emplyees had the vote these days. Funny, but I coulda sworn everyone had the chance to vote.

G.W.Bush......Like a rock, only dumber.

But look at what he ran against: Al Gore... like a rock, only duller.

[American]

THEY'RE HOLDING HANDS!!!!!!!!
http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/afp/20040706/capt.sge.kur38.060704115333.photo00.default-336x384.jpg

They look like they're gonna SMOOCH!!!!!!!!!

[Mel]

Originally posted by Jocko
[B]

Wow, I had no idea that only petroluem industry emplyees had the vote these days. Funny, but I coulda sworn everyone had the chance to vote.


That's what those 'felons' in Florida thought too.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Mel


That's what those 'felons' in Florida thought too.

And those oversea servicemen from Florida as well. My strawman outnumbers yours, so let's keep on topic, mmmkay?

[TillEulenspiegel]

Originally posted by Jocko


Wow, I had no idea that only petroleum industry employees had the vote these days. Funny, but I could sworn everyone had the chance to vote.

[B]

But look at what he ran against: Al Gore... like a rock, only duller.


Read the post again , Petrodollars has nothing to to with Tom Jode Jr. who drills in the sands of Texas for siht wages, , rather it represents big business.

You right there Gore is about as exciting as watching the grass grow. I would however rather have a competent no excitement kind of person in charge ( in business as well as office ) then a disingenuous liar who leads with his " faith" and follows through with the blood of the people he has sworn to protect and serve.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel



Read the post again , Petrodollars has nothing to to with Tom Jode Jr. who drills in the sands of Texas for siht wages, , rather it represents big business.

You right there Gore is about as exciting as watching the grass grow. I would however rather have a competent no excitement kind of person in charge ( in business as well as office ) then a disingenuous liar who leads with his " faith" and follows through with the blood of the people he has sworn to protect and serve.

Wait, which president are you talking about, because that describes majority at one time or another.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by PygmyPlaidGiraffe
I am not familiar with all politicians in the US

this is not the John Edward is it of "Crossing Over"

I notice this fellow has an "s" in his name so likely not.

Sorry to disappoint you, but yes, he is the same person. :(

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by American
I bet they'll marry each other! HA HA HA HA HA!! It's legal in massachusetts, and Kerrry is FROM massachusetts. Oh my god they're really going to do it I think!

Aw shucks. And after you had just moved to Massachusetts in order to propose to Kerry. Don't be too despondent, there are plenty of other men for you.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel



Read the post again , Petrodollars has nothing to to with Tom Jode Jr. who drills in the sands of Texas for siht wages, , rather it represents big business.

No sh*t, really? So I guess businesses vote. The point is still either naive, or so hopelessly misstated that I can't come to any other conclusion than you believe corporations - er, strike that, EVIL corporations - vote, and in greater numbers than the citizenry.

You right there Gore is about as exciting as watching the grass grow. I would however rather have a competent no excitement kind of person in charge ( in business as well as office ) then a disingenuous liar who leads with his " faith" and follows through with the blood of the people he has sworn to protect and serve.

You make a lot of assumptions about Gore's mad skillz. I've seen a fair amount to the contrary - so let me clarify that he's not my choice because not he's dull, simply that he doesn't reflect my priorities. That he's dull just makes it easier to make fun of him.

[American]

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer

Aw shucks. And after you had just moved to Massachusetts in order to propose to Kerry. Don't be too despondent, there are plenty of other men for you.


DON'T TALK TO ME!! You're the one who almost got me in trouble and now you're trying to get me angry so I'll blow a lid and get banned permanent.

So SHUT UP!!!!!!!!!

And get rid of that stupid swordfish. I HATE it.

[TillEulenspiegel]

Re Joko
Hmm my statment " Bush represents petrodollars"

Your weak rejoinder "Wow, I had no idea that only petroluem industry emplyees had the vote these days. Funny, but I coulda sworn everyone had the chance to vote."

My retort "Read the post again , Petrodollars has nothing to to with Tom Jode Jr. who drills in the sands of Texas for siht wages, rather it represents big business."

Your final world quaking foil "o sh*t, really? So I guess businesses vote. The point is still either naive, or so hopelessly misstated that I can't come to any other conclusion than you believe corporations - er, strike that, EVIL corporations - vote, and in greater numbers than the citizenry.

I personally vote for your misunderstanding plain english and ex-post facto justifaction for a sophmophoric outlook.

Money is power. Do you think that such a small thing like the American people or the prospect of fair and unbiased elections could ever stand in the way of billions of dollars? Tsk, tsk..Now, Who's being naive?



You make a lot of assumptions about Gore's mad skillz. I've seen a fair amount to the contrary - so let me clarify that he's not my choice because not he's dull, simply that he doesn't reflect my priorities. That he's dull just makes it easier to make fun of him. [/QUOTE]



I make no assumptions. I mearly contrast the known demonstrated public behavior of two different people. I assign no attributes other then those displayed aka " A man is defined ny his deeds".

[shuize]

My first thoughts about Edwards:

After Senator Kerry says that the most important issue facing the nation is foreign policy, he picks a running mate with zero experience in that area.

After making his millions suing medical insurance carriers, I will be interested to hear what Senator Edwards has to say about the rising costs of health coverage.

Despite his lack of experience and ambulance-chasing career, he still outshines Kerry.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel
Re Joko
Hmm my statment " Bush represents petrodollars"

Your weak rejoinder "Wow, I had no idea that only petroluem industry emplyees had the vote these days. Funny, but I coulda sworn everyone had the chance to vote."

OK, let's take this slow for the special kids.

Your statement, in full, was:

That's pretty much what I said Tmy and besides Bush represented petrodollars not prudent political philosophy.

Which means roughly 50% of American voters opted for this nebulous "pretrodollar agenda." That being obvious and errant nonsense, I thought about who WOULD vote in favor of a petrochemical platform. And like yourself, I could only arrive at one conclusion: the evil petrochemical companies. Care to explain how that's weak?

My retort "Read the post again , Petrodollars has nothing to to with Tom Jode Jr. who drills in the sands of Texas for siht wages, rather it represents big business."

Which contradicts your initial post and does nothing to clarify, except to expand the conspiracy beyond petrochemicals to include all big business, which we all know is inherently evil.

Yeah, a few re-readings sure would have made THAT clear.



Your final world quaking foil "o sh*t, really? So I guess businesses vote. The point is still either naive, or so hopelessly misstated that I can't come to any other conclusion than you believe corporations - er, strike that, EVIL corporations - vote, and in greater numbers than the citizenry.

I personally vote for your misunderstanding plain english and ex-post facto justifaction for a sophmophoric outlook.

And I give you full marks for your apparent immunity to sarcasm. That, and completely missing the friggin' point.

Money is power. Do you think that such a small thing like the American people or the prospect of fair and unbiased elections could ever stand in the way of billions of dollars? Tsk, tsk..Now, Who's being naive?."

Ah, NOW we get to the point you apparently were trying to make three exchanges ago. So money buys elections? Then tell me why we're not arguing about whether or not to put President Perot on the 10 dollar bill.

I think it's clear who's being naive here.


I make no assumptions. I mearly contrast the known demonstrated public behavior of two different people. I assign no attributes other then those displayed aka " A man is defined ny his deeds".

You make so many assumptions you can't even see them. While I certainly agree with the idea that a man is judged by his deeds, I think you're on a very thin branch playing your game of "judge a man based on conjecture of what his demonstrably flawed opponent might have done if he'd won the election, which he didn't."

If that's all you got, I'll just close the book on this one.

Gore good, Bush/business bad. Got it. For those of us who don't live in the world of might-have-been, however, it's not particularly satisfying.

[TillEulenspiegel]

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel
Re Joko
Hmm my statement " Bush represents petrodollars"

Your weak rejoinder "Wow, I had no idea that only petroleum industry employees had the vote these days. Funny, but I could sworn everyone had the chance to vote."


Jocko
"OK, let's take this slow for the special kids.

Your statement, in full, was:

quote:
Till :
That's pretty much what I said Tmy and besides Bush represented petrodollars not prudent political philosophy. "


Jocko:
"Which means roughly 50% of American voters opted for this nebulous "pretrodollar agenda." That being obvious and errant nonsense, I thought about who WOULD vote in favor of a petrochemical platform. And like yourself, I could only arrive at one conclusion: the evil petrochemical companies. Care to explain how that's weak?"

What "petrodollar agenda"? Who raised that? Me? ...No You have inferred something I never said nor did other posters. If I am mistaken please point out the relevant passages. I never raised the electorate You did. So your pace even though slow seems to have outrun your capacity to understand your own rhetoric.

Till quote:

My retort "Read the post again , Petrodollars has nothing to to with Tom Jode Jr. who drills in the sands of Texas for siht wages, rather it represents big business."


Jocko:
"Which contradicts your initial post and does nothing to clarify, except to expand the conspiracy beyond petrochemicals to include all big business, which we all know is inherently evil.

Yeah, a few re-readings sure would have made THAT clear."

You think business is evil? Really? Why? Explain please.
How does that contradict my original post ? What conspiracy ? Explain please.

My original post in toto :
I think by " a purely political decision" what was meant was a "topically political" choice, as in electability. The case as stated is that much of what passes for politics in America is a combination popularity/beauty contest. If the real position of the Veep is "one heartbeat" away from the presidency undoubtedly Gephardt has infinitely more gravitas the a 1 term senator.

SO the choice is a tip o' the hat to realpolitik. Chaney would make a better choice as the heartbeat position holder then Edwards if you enjoy Machiavelli, But this is not the first time reality has been sacrificed at the alter of political expediancy............Can you imagine Dan "potatoe head " Quayle as Pres? The man with the permanent 1000 yrd. stare < shudder>"

Your observation is a Non-Sequiter , I proposed no equivalency , again You did.The statement you make about "conspiracies" is also a fiction that I neither raised or argued.........You did. Show me the contradiction.

Till quote:

Your final world quaking foil "o sh*t, really? So I guess businesses vote. The point is still either naive, or so hopelessly misstated that I can't come to any other conclusion than you believe corporations - er, strike that, EVIL corporations - vote, and in greater numbers than the citizenry.

I personally vote for your misunderstanding plain English and ex-post facto justification for a sophomoric outlook.

Jocko "And I give you full marks for your apparent immunity to sarcasm. That, and completely missing the friggin' point."

Once again we see a self reinforcing faux reality as many delusional personalities are wont to conceive, not a good sign. . Also I believe You take your avatar waaaay too seriously. You have not the wit nor the biting sarcasm that made Mr. Clemons a world figure, tho you do indeed write fictions.

Till quote:

Money is power. Do you think that such a small thing like the American people or the prospect of fair and unbiased elections could ever stand in the way of billions of dollars? Tsk, tsk..Now, Who's being naive?."

Jocko: "Ah, NOW we get to the point you apparently were trying to make three exchanges ago. So money buys elections? Then tell me why we're not arguing about whether or not to put President Perot on the 10 dollar bill."

OK I give up ...why?

Jocko: "I think it's clear who's being naive here."

I agree that the Naive here is most demonstrably you.


Till quote:


I make no assumptions. I mearly contrast the known demonstrated public behavior of two different people. I assign no attributes other then those displayed aka " A man is defined by his deeds".



Jocko "You make so many assumptions you can't even see them. While I certainly agree with the idea that a man is judged by his deeds, I think you're on a very thin branch playing your game of "judge a man based on conjecture of what his demonstrably flawed opponent might have done if he'd won the election, which he didn't."

This comment makes no sense.Once again you demonstrate your propensity for manufacturing a viewpoint that was neither implied or stated. I make no conjectures about Gore's handling of the Afghanistan/Iraqi debacle ( I assume thats what you are addressing , but only god and you know to a surety) that we currently enjoy courtesy of the Bush administration. I state that the histories, the facts dear friend, of Bush's demonstrated behavior , including the personal conduct prior to "public service", conduct of 2 wars and the deceit that he and his administration perform day after day and his historical behavior as Gov of Texas VS Gore's public Factual record are indicative of the mettle of both men.

Jocko "If that's all you got, I'll just close the book on this one.

Gore good, Bush/business bad. Got it. For those of us who don't live in the world of might-have-been, however, it's not particularly satisfying. "

Remarkable intellect . You make fictitious arguments and knock them down all by yourself. As an aside I would use the term Str.. ma., but I loathe it as much as I loathe the term "empowerment".

Well that's OK though , You surely won't dominate by skewed rhetoric nor fanciful conjured scenarios.

[Meadmaker]

While many politicians are lawyers, very few are trial lawyers. i.e. they never actually argued cases in front of juries.

I thought that picking a millionaire trial lawyer would be bad news for the Dems, and it might end up being that way. I thought the GOP could label him an ambulance-chaser. But I looked up his record, and he was not the run of the mill trial lawyer. He was very selective in his cases, going for big bucks, but always in cases where he believed the science was on his side. He didn't specialize in slip and fall cases.


But of course, a Presidential campaign is a grueling experience. If any of his trials at all are seen to be ammunition for the other side, you can bet we'll hear about it.

[zakur]

Asked by a reporter how the 51-year-old senator would "stack up" against Vice President Dick Cheney, Bush replied: "Dick Cheney can be president. Next."

Kerry quipped back. "John Edwards has more experience than George Bush when he became president of the United States. But let me tell you what he was right about. Dick Cheney was ready to take over on Day One, and he did, and he has been ever since."

Source (http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040708-121756-9142r.htm)

[TillEulenspiegel]

For all of ill short (relatively ) term memory , remember in the Republican primaries and later inter party debates where Bush didn't know geography or the names of Allys and foes? Nuf' said.

I still maintain that between the two "heartbeat" place holders that Chaney has the greater understanding of international politic then Edwards, but I deem him a dangerous quantity and would rather see a veep doing OJT then a Dickens' villain have control of the strongest most vital country in the history of man.