09 July 2004

What goes up must come down

I am not surprised that John Kerry chose John Edwards as his running mate.  It makes the most sense: Edwards was the second most preferred of the democratic presidential nominees, he's from the South, and he is personable.

And I am also not surprised that Kerry chose Edwards despite making repeated comments during the primary campaign that Edwards wasn't qualified to be president.  I suppose you could look at that and determine that truly to be a "flip-flop".  It just further demonstrates that a politician will say anything he thinks he needs to get elected.  Now that Kerry is the nominee, he can say that Edwards is the second best qualified man to be President.  Doesn't do much for credibility, but there you go.

HUZZAH!  Did I finally just say something negative about a Democrat?  I think I did!  Judges?

The running mates will now become an interesting sidebar for the remainder of the campaign.  The first thing to realize and accept is that there is no way Bush will dump Cheney.  GW's daddy will spank him if he even thinks about it.  Remember, this president does not make mistakes, and dumping Cheney would be admitting to a mistake.  Besides, I seriously doubt John McCain wants anything to do with this administration.  McCain just wants to represent Arizona until he decides to retire, so that is why he gives an appearance of support to Bush.  That's a shame.  A guy like McCain needs to be in the White House.  I will never understand how the GOP voters of 2000 decided that Bush was a better choice than McCain.  It has to drive McCain nuts.

I've heard two themes repeated over and over by the Republicans since Kerry named Edwards: Cheney is presidential while Edwards is not qualified, and Edwards, as a lawyer, represents everything that is wrong with the legal system.  Regarding the latter statement, I would think that eventually the Bush team would not want to compare standards of ethics when it comes to running mates.  Admittedly, I do not have the sufficient knowledge (yet) of Edwards' legal career to comment on whether or not he is a shrike, but I would be stunned if his record has the "conflict of interest" stench that Cheney's does.  The fact that Cheney has refused to distance himself from Halliburton since he became vice-president, along with the enormous amount of business the company has received from the government since 2000, leaves me aching for the Edwards-Cheney debates.  I can only hope that the Kerry-Edwards campaign will make Halliburton an issue.

And of course, I am amused by the comments by the president that Cheney can be president while Edwards is not qualified.  I am assuming that GW is referring to the fact that Cheney has held many positions in Washington, while Edwards' political experience consists solely of one six-year term as Senator from North Carolina. 

It's not like we have ever seen a president elected on the basis of his experience in politics consisting of only one prior position, held for six years, like say, being governor of Texas, right?

(George W. Bush, governor of Texas 1994-2000, his only elected position.  YEEHAW!!!)

One assumes maybe that John Edwards' father did not spend any time in Washington.

Speaking of fathers and Washington, anyone remember the last time there was serious "he isn't qualified" rhetoric directed towards a running mate?  Dan Quayle (gone but not forgotten) in 1988, running mate of one George HW Bush.  One assumes that the yet-to-be enamored in politics George W. Bush felt his father's VP choice was more than qualified back then.  Can you imagine how Junior felt back then, seeing Dan Quayle a heartbeat from the presidency? 

This is indeed what I love most about politics, the fact that no matter how much spinning is done, eventually when you are able to get through all the muck, you find things that make fine people like GW look like fools.  I'm sure that they don't figure on this when speeches are written and appearances are planned.  No politician gives much of their electorate credit for intelligence or believes that they can put pieces together and determine that things don't quite fit.


1 comment:

donah42 said...

I'm living for the debates:)