Kerry picked Edwards as his running mate. Quite* smart, I think. Being a bit pressed for time, though, I’ll leave it at that.
von
*In the U.S. sense, not the U.K. sense.
43 thoughts on “Get Smart.”
Comments are closed.
"This was the voice of moderation until 13 Sept, 2025"
Good. Realistically, I think he’s the best VPOTUS we could have hoped for, and should be a good candidate for POTUS in 2012.
2008. 🙂
Moe
The official announcement’s scheduled for 9 AM, according to CNN.
2008?
What, you’re not pulling for Cheney to run in 2008, Moe?
Or, by 2008, will 8 years of a Cheney presidency have already been enough?
;P
Having voted for Edwards in the primary, this choice sits well with me.
Clark evidently wasn’t in the cards, and hell, nobody was gonna put Dean up there, so I’ll gladly take Edwards for veep, especially considering who else was on that list.
Here’s the thing about Edwards: everyone I know, including me, seemed to like him better at the end of the primaries than at the beginning. I can’t say the same of any other of this year’s Democratic candidate.
It’s the obvious choice, but I am actively excited, in a way I haven’t been for weeks. Maybe months.
“What, you’re not pulling for Cheney to run in 2008, Moe?”
Too old, too many heart attacks, the GOP won’t win in ’08 anyway, we’re going to have our internal shakedown before then, the Democrats will be really seven feet tall and farting fire for that election: take your pick. ’08 is for a symbolic candidate and game smiles as that woman* becomes President – and probably ends up being the hawkiest hawk of them all.
Moe
*I personally don’t like her, but I respect the skills.
Moe – 2008? You think Kerry’ll quit after just one term? [insert winky face here]
I would love an Edwards/Kerry ticket even more but I won’t quibble here. My only comment this morning was Yeeeeaaarrrggggghhhhhhhh!
’08 is for a symbolic candidate and game smiles as that woman* becomes President – and probably ends up being the hawkiest hawk of them all.
That hadn’t occurred to me till just now, Moe: that with Kerry good for a 2-term Presidency*, then Edwards a shoo-in as Democrat nominee in 2012, H. Clinton won’t have a chance at the Presidency now till at least 2016 – and that’s presuming the Republican Party has had their reform/recovery and is fit to put up a winning candidate in 2012.
*All credit to the VRWC, but if they couldn’t get Clinton out in 1996, I doubt they’ll manage to get Kerry out in 2008, whatever your hopes.
Trying to close an unclosed italic.
Removing italics?
Already done, I see. Nevermind… 🙂
Moe
PS: I guess that we’ll just have to see in November who has to plan for ’08, and in what ways.
Hooray. I’m thrilled that while the Democrats may be wading slightly above their heads, they haven’t decided to go completely into the deep end with lead weights.
I guess that we’ll just have to see in November who has to plan for ’08, and in what ways.
Of course. 😉 But given that the Republican nominees already lost the 2000 election, and have spent 4 years plunging from one disaster to the next, I’m finding it a little difficult, all joking apart, to see how anyone realistically expects Bush/Cheney to manage a win in 2004. Of course, you may feel that with Diebold in on the Republican side, who needs voters when you can reprogram the voting machines?
I’m finding it a little difficult, all joking apart, to see how anyone realistically expects Bush/Cheney to manage a win in 2004.
TOUCH WOOD! NOWWWW!!!!
Don’t curse it Jes!
Edward: I laugh at such superstitions. *grin* No, really, Edward, while of course I wouldn’t risk the wrath of the whatever from high atop the thing by suggestng that Kerry’s speechwriter only do a victory speech, my public* confidence that Kerry/Edwards are going to win in November is based on two factors.
1. It cheers me up to have something good to look forward to in the midst of all disaster.
2. It freaks out the overly-confident Bush-worshippers**.
Of course, if Diebold have their way or if Bush manages to get himself appointed President again, I’m going to be very, very depressed. But I’m going to be very, very depressed anyway if that happens***, and the fact that a lot of Republican bloggers get to point fingers and laugh is going to be the least of it.
*My private confidence is exactly as expressed here: Bush/Cheney couldn’t win last time when no one knew how incompetent they were. This time around, everyone knows.
**Especially the ones who still assert Bush got elected in 2000.
***Because if that happens, we’re really in for it.
If you watch that ad running on CNN, though, Jes, it looks very much like we might just see a Bush/McCain ticket…what would that do to W’s chances?
I’m squarely in the “fight every inch of the way as if you were 30 points behind in the polls” camp. Take nothing for granted.
Edward, it won’t be a Bush/McCain ticket, it will be a Bush/Giuliani ticket which would be even worse for Dems. But hopefully Bush/Cheney may still end up on the Neocon ticket masquerading as Republicans.
Sebastian, it makes me smile to see someone who [warning: mind-reading penalty zone] will vote for Bush in November [/MRP Zone] be concerned about how the Democrats “may be wading slightly above their heads.”
“Of course, you may feel that with Diebold in on the Republican side, who needs voters when you can reprogram the voting machines?”
OOC, was there any actual reason for this sneer being directed at me? Aside from my apparently inexplicable insistence in continuing to choose Bush over Kerry, of course.
Yes, yes, you think I’m being hypocritical for that. We’re about due for another round of that from you.
Moe
PS: Yes, I’m pissed. Cavalier suggestions that I don’t respect the rule of law do that to me.
You know, in light of the on civility discussion, I probably should not posted that, or else found a way to make my point without the need even for a “mind reading penalty zone.”
It’s a fine line between snark and incivility.
Anyway, what I wouldn’t give for a post editor. 🙂
From here:
*Cough*.
And as likely as a Gephardt pick was. I can’t see a man with Bush’s personality picking a man with Giuliani’s personality.
I just, of course, explained that I had thought Kerry wouldn’t let personality differences get in the way of picking Edwards. But I think John Kerry and George Bush are different men in different situations.
Bush wouldn’t tolerate someone who would be as large a rival for publicity and showing him up as Guiliani is, and he wouldn’t and won’t feel he needs to, in my opinion. Moreover, he wouldn’t trust Guiliani to stay on his reservation, and possibly with some justice (although Guiliani was a loyal and comparatively quiet Assistant Attorney General in the Reagan Administration, as many forget).
Let’s look at these choices shall we:
Guiliani: A leftish, pro-choice, pro-gay ex-mayor from New York. I’m sure the southern conservative fundamentalist solons of the GOP would jump all over themselves to support him.
McCain: A man who lets his mouth run and makes his opinions known (and God bless him for it) no matter what the official party line is. I’m sure GWB would love to have this man as his number two for four years.
IF they dump Cheney for some bogus (or not so bogus) health problems, I’m sure the man they pick will be someone the GOP would want as president in ’08, which leaves out McCain, Guiliani and a whole host of “interesting” choices. I expect if Cheney goes, Bush’s Veep will be Bill Frist.
Just for the record, although this is a fair description of Guiliani from today’s Republican Party, the party of DeLay and Lott, Guiliani is otherwise as much a Republican as Dwight Eisenhower and Nelson Rockefeller were; it’s the party that has moved rightward, not that old-style Republicans have moved into the “left.”
Also, Guiliani can’t reasonably be called “pro-gay.” I’m not aware of him advocating that heterosexuals should consider giving being gay a spin, or that being gay is something to be promoted, or that gayness is better than being heterosexual in any way.
And that’s what “pro-gay” advocacy would be.
What Guiliani is is anti-discrimination, and he hasn’t displayed any anti-gay bias.
If that’s “pro-gay,” than being for the Civil Rights Act of 1965 made one “pro-black” in a Black Panthers sort of way. It seems to obscure a useful distinction for the sake of making propaganda/advocacy points. (Just as using “pro-abortion” instead of “pro-choice” does.)
Gary, first of all I’m of the belief that Bush does what he’s told to do, or at the very least what they indicate to him he should think, bright bulb that he is. Secondly, I am also of the belief that the Neocons will do anything to stay in power and if Guiliani is what keeps their paws on the controls, that is indeed just what they will do. Frist doesn’t add anything to the ticket except to the Neocons and they wouldn’t dump Cheney unless they wanted to fake a move toward the middle to dupe the party into letting them keep the real control for 4 more years.
“Gary, first of all I’m of the belief….”
I’m of the belief that it’s not useful to cite “beliefs,” since they are interior to the mind, and cannot be used to convince anyone of anything, as opposed to, say, citations of fact or expert opinion, which are concretely falsifiable.
I’m of this belief because reincarnated aliens from a future alternative dimension made sure I knew it was true, I checked with God about it, verified it with my tea leaves, and it was finally confirmed in one of my visions.
But never mind.
“I am also of the belief that the Neocons will do anything to stay in power and if Guiliani is what keeps their paws on the controls, that is indeed just what they will do.”
Accepting this arguendo, what makes you “of the belief” that Guiliani is of sufficiently passive, quiescent, docile, nature, as to be willing to take these orders of The Powers That Be?
“Frist doesn’t add anything to the ticket except to the Neocons…”
Yes, that would make him entirely unlike Cheney, wouldn’t it? Cheney brings so many more voters in than Frist would. Frist’s negatives are so much higher than Cheney’s. That makes sense.
(Note: I don’t believe that either Cheney will be dumped, or that Frist would be tapped to leave his post, at this time; I touched on the subject here, though only implicitly.)
“… and they wouldn’t dump Cheney unless they wanted to fake a move toward the middle to dupe the party into letting them keep the real control for 4 more years.”
And Frist isn’t more to the middle than Cheney? (Mind, I don’t have a dog in this fight; I’m just bemused.)
Moe asked: OOC, was there any actual reason for this sneer being directed at me?
None at all, Moe, and I apologize for the unintended) implication that it was.
Sure, you’ve given only a hypocritical reason for supporting Bush, which colors my opinion of you somewhat, but no, I don’t believe you would ever descend to the dishonesty of a Jeb Bush or a Katherine Harris or, indeed, the supporters of the who-needs-a-recount Diebold machines.
Glad to bemuse you. No, don’t see Frist as any more moderate than Cheney and neither upon inspection would most voters.
“None at all, Moe, and I apologize for the unintended) implication that it was. ”
Thank you for the apology; for my part, please excuse my shouting.
I’d stand up and applaud the choice of Giuliani for VP, personally. Although I might have to trade in my VRWC Deathbeast bulletproof underwear for doing so.
Of course, you may feel that with Diebold in on the Republican side
Where did this notion that Republicans wanted these machines in the first place come from? Just curious; I’ve seen this meme floating around a bit but never seen it substantiated.
Gary Farber: Mind, I don’t have a dog in this fight; I’m just bemused.
It isn’t the dogs we need to be concerned about. If Arnold got a black eye for trying to cut the waiting period for euthanizing shelter animals, is there any possible way Frist could survive a presidential campaign, given his admitted history of fraudulently adopting cats from shelters then vivisecting them? MoveOn.org would have an absolute field day, and I’d be first in line to work on that campaign ad.
Moe said: Thank you for the apology; for my part, please excuse my shouting.
Had I intended the implication, you would have been fully justified: as it was, it was sufficiently unclear that I am glad you asked so that I could correct what I meant and apologize.
Slarti asked: Where did this notion that Republicans wanted these machines in the first place come from? Just curious; I’ve seen this meme floating around a bit but never seen it substantiated.
Diebold machines are sufficiently badly designed that it would be, it appears, extraordinarily easy for someone to fix the votes and not get caught – since apparently they do not offer a paper record of the voting to allow for an accurate recount, should one be required. (As we can be fairly sure it will be, for one side or another.) We can agree that unscrupulous Republicans and Democrats have fixed elections in the past, and therefore any new voting machines ought to be set up so that any challenge can be met with an accurate hand-recount.
The meme that the Diebold machines will be skewed to favor Republicans partly comes from the fact that the last Presidential election was awarded to George W. Bush thanks to some particularly scummy vote-fixing in Florida by his brother, but also by a fund-raising letter written by Walden O’Dell, Diebold Inc.’s Chairman and Chief Executive in August 2003, wherein he declared that he was “committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes for the president”.
When the CEO of a company that makes vote machines says he’s committed to delivering electoral votes to the President, and when the last Presidential election was rigged to benefit the Republican candidate, the meme is probably irresistible.
The Diebold machines are a disaster for anyone, from any party or none, who is committed to open, fair elections, simply because they do not offer the needed requirement of a secure paper ballot for a valid recount.
“Diebold machines are sufficiently badly designed that it would be, it appears, extraordinarily easy for someone to fix the votes and not get caught – since apparently they do not offer a paper record of the voting to allow for an accurate recount, should one be required.”
Passing aside the subject of the 2000 election for the moment, am I incorrect in remembering that apparently these things use Microsoft Outlook? – which, it must be said, is freaking terrifying, if true; but a Google search was inconclusive.
Hmmm…Diebold’s (possibly poorly phrased) desire to get business translates somehow to Republicans cheering for voting fraud? Color me unconvinced.
Slarti, stuff such as this, this, this, and this, for example.
It’s pretty easy to get answers in under a minute to questions such as that with Google, you know.
Still unconvincing. Diebold supporting the Republican party doesn’t equal Republicans clamoring for Diebold. No matter how much it might be nice to attempt to make it look that way.
As for the hacker issue…is the point that hackers are a group of young…Republicans?
Gromit, thanks for the note on Frist, but the cats thing was not exactly obscure around the time of his Ascension, and I actually do think he could survive a Presidential election despite it (and, honestly, I hardly feel it’s one of the more important reasons to oppose him, myself).
I’m not precisely unaware of First; see here, for example.
Yes, it is old news, Gary, and I would never presume that I’m telling you anything about Frist (nor indeed any aspect of national politics) that you don’t already know. But from a tactical standpoint — short of, say, cannibalism — I can’t imagine a better way to define one’s opponent than as a kitten-killer.
How about puppy-blender?
True, it does make nice short-hand.
Now, if instead of using the cats for medical education purposes, he’d been eating them….
I’m still entertained, however, by the Jack and Jeri Ryan “sex scandal.” (In which he did himself in by lying to the Republican leadership, and the press, by claiming there was nothing untoward in the divorce record; I certainly don’t think anyone should have to drop out of a political race because of the details of their married sex (or non-sex) life, particularly when it’s he-said, she-said during a divorce).