Kerry’s surprise announcement that John Edwards would not only be his running mate, but also his new partner in a civil union was quite the shock…
Shot Of The Day
Published
Kerry’s surprise announcement that John Edwards would not only be his running mate, but also his new partner in a civil union was quite the shock…
What an awful picture. I saw it on Yahoo News already this morning. No doubt it will turn up in ads bashing the duo’s support for “civil unions.”
In choosing Edwards as his running mate, Kerry has failed his first test of showing presidential-quality leadership.
Kerry knows that Edwards is not experienced enough to be president, and when one chooses a running mate that has to be the main consideration: are they ready to become president should something happen?
There is no question that Edwards lacks the experience and gravitas, especially when it comes to foreign policy.
In opting for Edwards, Kerry did what he always does…making a decision based on political calculation and not the best interests of the country.
If Kerry had had the interests of the country at heart, he would have chosen someone with far more experience, like Gephardt.
BTW, why is it that one never hears from the Kerry Kamp any talk about what is good for the country when it comes to decision-making? Why are Kerry’s decisions always described as an exercise in political calculus?
Kerry is a very sick candidate indeed….
Another Thought, if Kerry had picked Gephardt or Graham, you would have declared them over-the-hill Washington insiders whose time has passed. Unless Kerry had picked Lieberman, you would have found some way to ridicule his choice.
Mark: You are correct in that I can certainly find fault with Gephardt and Graham.
However, at least I couldn’t fault either of those two candidates for a lack of experience in government or foreign policy.
You will note that in all of my criticisms of Kerry I have never faulted him in such a way.
The point is which flaw is the worse and what that indicates about the primary candidate, Kerry. Edwards is clearly not qualified to be president…Kerry has as much said so. Edwards is not a reassuring choice, and in fact only reinforces the image of Kerry being a politician first, and leader second.
Bottom line: Kerry made his decision based upon cold political calculation, and placed that above any real concern for the country.
Another Thought, a supporter of someone with as lackluster of political resume as Dubya would be wise to stay away from the “that other guy’s not qualified for the job” canard. Even if we are to surmise that Edwards’ six years in Washington is insufficient preparation for the Presidency, he can at the very least follow in the footsteps of George W. “the less time you’ve spent in Washington, the better President you’ll be” Bush and surround himself with veteran policy wonks who are effectively informed on how to work the system, er, do what’s best for America.
Here you Kerry-haters go again.
Is there no limit to your irrational hatred of the man? Disgusting.
Bottom line: Kerry made his decision based upon cold political calculation, and placed that above any real concern for the country.
This is just plain silly. If you can show me a situation where this was not the case in any recent political decision, by any political leader, I’ll eat my hat.
Hmm, let me rephrase that. Either a decision made for political gains only, or a decision made without any real thought to the consequences of the country or the ramifications in general.
Jay, your comments are indeed beneath you.
Hmm…this seems interesting…
Washington periodical The Hill digs deeper into the curiously uniform $2,000 contributions Sen. John Edwards’ presidential campaign got from so many receptionists, paralegals and other low-level staffers at plaintiff’s law firms. The $2,000 donors include many employees who had not given to candidates or even voted in the past, and others who are listed on the voting rolls as Republicans. Many spouses and relatives of the staffers likewise contributed the maximum. Some of the munificent staffers have recently gone through the kind of personal financial reverses — bankruptcy filings, for example — which would not seem to correlate in the natural order of things with having a large available checkbook for political donations. “In many instances, all the checks from a given firm arrived on the same day — from partners, attorneys, and other support staff.”
I write “Bottom line: Kerry made his decision based upon cold political calculation, and placed that above any real concern for the country.”
dbs writes :
“This is just plain silly. If you can show me a situation where this was not the case in any recent political decision, by any political leader, I’ll eat my hat.”
Response: dbs, prepare your hat, if you are honest…what about Bush picking Cheney in 2000…politically, it was a rather lackluster move…as Cheney joked, he could deliver the crucial state of Wyoming…however, Bush picked Cheney because he thought Cheney would be a valuable partner in governing…thus, Bush put the country above politics…
Mark: Edwards has less than 6 years experience in the Senate, and has spent the better part of the last 2 years mostly campaigning…also, Edwards has not proven he could even be reelected…
When Bush was elected President, he at least had been reelected by a landslide and had executive experience as a governor, which Edwards lacks…
Edwards is Senator Lightweight, attacked to Kerry, Sen Deadweight…
When Bush was elected President, he at least had been reelected by a landslide
Wait, what?
I remember the 2000 election fairly well, having voted in it and all, and there’s absolutely nothing about the winning candidate losing the popular vote that you could refer to as a “landslide.”
Do you even try to think, AT, before you post? It would help, I think. I’m sure if you try hard you can have at least one thought that Bush/Cheney didn’t supply for you.