If all they have to defend their guy is a picture of them at a prayer breakfast, that’s pretty weak. I notice they aren’t contradicting his “Senator Gone” label. Or all the votes he missed in the Judiciary and Intelligence committees. Like his boss (Kerry), he hasn’t done one substantive thing as a senator yet. And Cheney at least said that he’s willing to stand by his congressional voting record. I didn’t hear the same thing from Edwards.
Like Bush, Kerry hasn’t gained the endorsement of his own hometown paper. The Lowell, Massachusetts, Sun has said that …“Kerry has all the attributes of water”. Likewise for Mr. Edwards.
When was the last time a senator was elected to the Presidency? Probably Kennedy back in '60. Most of the others all either served as a state executive (governor) or had significant experience in the government (U.S. representative/ambassador/head of CIA etc.). And no candidate who didn’t win at least one state in the South was successful in his bid. Right now, it doesn’t look like Edwards is going to deliver North Carolina, the state he represents, or South Carolina, where he was born.
Face it…Kerry’s got to win at least Florida or Ohio to have a chance in the electoral vote. And if Bush holds him off in one or both, and the popular vote is close enough in some of the other battleground states, Kerry won’t win either the popular or electoral contests.
As far as the qualifications of a one-term senator to be President…well, the senate likes to bill itself as the “world’s greatest deliberative body”. Seems to me, that it’s been the “world’s greatest obstructionist body” over the last 8 years or so. Hardly the breeding ground of people from both sides of the aisle that I’d like to see ascend to the Oval Office.
Edwards is “all hat and no cattle”. He got spanked by Darth Vader last night Cheney piled up big points in the first 8 rounds and coasted in the last 4 (hey…this is a boxing analogy
As far as the qualifications of a one-term senator to be President…well, the senate likes to bill itself as the “world’s greatest deliberative body”. Seems to me, that it’s been the “world’s greatest obstructionist body” over the last 8 years or so. Hardly the breeding ground of people from both sides of the aisle that I’d like to see ascend to the Oval Office.
Edwards is “all hat and no cattle”. He got spanked by Darth Vader last night Cheney piled up big points in the first 8 rounds and coasted in the last 4 (hey…this is a boxing analogy
C’mon…if Dan Quayle was qualified to be “a heartbeat away”, so is John Edwards. Quayle had slightly more experience (I believe he was in his 2nd term as a senator), but, uhhh “One word sums up probably the responsibility of any vice president, and that one word is `to be prepared’” (etc), well, you get the picture.
Roll over and play dead? Not when the Senate is 51-49. What party’s been doing all the filibustering over judicial appointments this session? But, look…Tom Daschle is now running around his home state putting up posters of him and Dubya in a big hug.
And now that Laurence Tribe’s been popped for plagarism, it seems as if the far left in the Democratic party won’t have anybody to write their next “how to stop a Supreme Court nominee from getting nominated” playbook al a Robert Bork. Hey, didn’t Tribe also make the case for Al Gore in front of the Supremes back in '02?
I think that for the last 4 years, obstructionism has been the key word in the Senate, much as it was during the last couple of years of the Clinton administration by the Republicans.
Like I said…give 'em all 8 to 12 years (two terms in the Senate and 4 to 6 terms in the House) and vote them out so a new bunch of crooks can have their own chance. :-))
speaking of not defending a point, where was the defense/contradiction of cheney’s record in which he was against many of the same defense/weapons systems that he criticized kerry for voting against?
How do you spend months criticizing Kerry and Edwards for having the most liberal Senate record, and then turn around and criticize them for not voting enough. Either they vote and vote liberal, or they aren’t involved enough, but the GOP should pick one argument or the other.
Cheney said during the debate that he was ready to stand on the merits of his voting record in Congress as a member of the House of Representatives. He also was Secretary of Defense and a previous Chief of Staff in the White House, plus, for good or bad, a CEO of a multinational corporation (Halliburton, which ALSO received no-bid contracts for work in Bosnia under the Clinton administration) all of which is easily verifiable if one cares to pull up his past. I think the breadth and depth of his experience outweighs either Kerry’s or Edwards’. Also, Dubya’s…but that’s for another discussion.
Also, one can go to Factcheck.org and see what kind of dissembling both Edwards and Cheney did last night. Given that, and everything that’s available on both, I’m taking Bush/Cheney right now.
“Like I said…give 'em all 8 to 12 years (two terms in the Senate and 4 to 6 terms in the House) and vote them out so a new bunch of crooks can have their own chance. :-))”
The big problem with term limits is that you create an entrenched beauracracy which ends up making all of the decisions because they are the only ones who know how to get anything done. (assuming that is not already the case.)
Another problem, as it is happening in CA, is that they all hop from one government tit to the next after they are termed out of one job. If you gave them a total of 24 years, they might just call it a career. Oh wait, then they jump over to lobbying and get their friends and relatives elected. Damn! We’re screwed. Where is Tibbs’ I hate all of 'em club?
"What if the incumbent is the second incarnation of Churchill, and his replacement on the ticket is Dan Quayle? "
Assuming you think churchill would be a good president and Quayle wouldn’t, it’s our job to find someone better to run against Quayle. Term limits prevent things like Jesse Helms.
My point is that sometimes the best candidate for the job is the one who already has the job.
Term limits prevent things like Jesse Helms. Assuming there’s some reason to “prevent” Jesse Helms, the voters already have the ability and responsibility to do so without term limits.
My point is that a democratic govt needs new viewpoints and new blood to survive. The longer someone stays in office, the harder it is to get them out, not because the voters like them best, but because they know them. Term limits force the voters to think about the issues and the people they want in charge, rather than letting things stay as they are out of complacency. Obviously there are positives and negatives to term limits.
democratic govt needs new viewpoints and new blood to survive. Why is that?
The longer someone stays in office, the harder it is to get them out, not because the voters like them best, but because they know them. So what? A known entity is preferable to an unknown one. And stability is a good thing.
**Term limits force the voters to think about the issues and the people they want in charge, rather than letting things stay as they are out of complacency. **LOL!
You bring up a good observation about entrenched bureaucracies. I think Weber spoke to them in his writings. I’m willing to risk it, however. I don’t think that it was thought that we’d see such a thing as a Jesse Helms or Robert Byrd or Ted Kennedy or Strom Thurman, spending forty or more years in office.
To me, that leads to a kind of institutional inertia by those holding office. I mean, look at the House in this election cycle. Republicans, following the lead of Democrats who gerrymandered districts after the '90 census through their respective state legislatures, have basically ensured that something like 95% of all House seats are now considered “safe” for the person holding office, and that those who are up for grabs are mainly seats in the other party’s side of the aisle.
Tom DeLay, through his manipulation of Texas’ Republican-controlled House, has ensured that the congressional delegation will be Republican-majority, which helps mightily in a Presidential election. This begs the point, which I’m willing to concede, of whether any amount of term limits would help in the years between national censuses. But I’m ever hopeful :-))
“democratic govt needs new viewpoints and new blood to survive. Why is that?”
Because when it doesn’t get that new blood, it turns into an oligarchy.
“A known entity is preferable to an unknown one. And stability is a good thing.”
You’re not supposed to pick your leaders because they are “known”, you’re supposed to pick them because they are the right guys for the job. You’re supposed to get to know as many candidates as possible, and get to know the issues, and get the person who best suits the job. If the guy you like is up against his limit, then see my point above, and find another way for your guy to serve.
Too bad. Incumbents do nothng but bribe there voters with pork and lie cheant and still to keep their seats. Let the candidate know ahead of time they have limited time to get things done and they will not get rich they might just get things done.
**You bring up a good observation about entrenched bureaucracies. **That was someone else, actually. A good point even if it wasn’t mine, though.
Your points about gerrymandering, etc are well-taken. I say the solution, though, isn’t to limit the voter’s right to choose their representative, but to prevent those abuses in the first place. Especially since, as you say, term limits do nothing to address most of the abuses anyway.
I accept that. Like everything else in life, there truly is no one, single elegant solution, is there? To paraphrase what someone once said: “Democracy is like making sausage”. Pretty brutal, and liable to get you sick if you stay too long and see how the stuff is REALLY made.
Cheney piled up big points in the first 8 rounds and coasted in the last 4 (hey…this is a boxing analogy 