Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Edwards for Obama
Marc Ambinder thinks he's uncovered the Mystery of Barack Obama's 6:30 p.m. "major endorsement." A top staffer is out of the office today. And...
What's Wendy Button, Edwards's longtime speechwriter, been doing lately? I hear she's been writing a secret speech... (Her facebook profile includes this entry for 3pm: "Wendy just finished writing the speech.")
How come Edwards's brain trust -- all of them -- are unreachable?
Who's on this flight?
That's some pretty good reporting. A little while after Ambinder posts a link to a lear jet flightpath from North Carolina to Michigan, the Associated Press reports that Edwards will endorse Obama.
reason's coverage of Edwards, never very positive, is collected here. The network chatter right now seems to focus on Edwards' appeal to white voters, and indeed, Clinton's recovery of late has come from downloading Edwards rhetoric and booting it up on her system. Something that really drives a stake into Hillary: Edwards has delegates. He has a mere 19 left over from the four primaries he participated in, but he has, at the lowest estimate, 13 delegates from currently-disqualified Florida. If Clinton succeeds in seating all of Florida's delegates as elected in the state's non-contested primary, she'll net only 28 delegates more than Obama and Edwards combined. Joe Trippi's fantasy about his ex-client as a kingmaker isn't that far-fetched.
|5.14.08 @ 5:21PM|#
John Edwards, Man of Jello. His endorsement is about as relevant and important as, well, John Edward's. Yes, I mean the psychic.
Neil|5.14.08 @ 5:25PM|#
Two empty liberal Democrat suits with paper-thin records. They truly deserve eachother.
|5.14.08 @ 5:31PM|#
No news here. Obama is obviously the nominee, and the democratic establishment is going to line up behind him.
Jim Gannon|5.14.08 @ 5:37PM|#
PL, the psychic is John Edward (no "s"). Though, I completely agree with your point.
|5.14.08 @ 5:40PM|#
Neil/thoreau,
I agree completely. The Democrats should be ashamed. At least
McCain has given us a record of reasons not to like him. These
mystery candidates should never, ever see the light of day. If
we've learned nothing else, we should at least have learned that
words are worse than useless in judging presidential (or any other
kind of) candidates.
Jim Gannon,
My apostrophes are stealthy, it's true.
Neil|5.14.08 @ 5:44PM|#
John McCain has a long and distinguished record of public
service and true achievement.
Obama OTOH is nothing without his prepared speeches.
|5.14.08 @ 5:48PM|#
Obama/Edwards 2008.
The deal is done. That is my prediction.
I'll crow if I'm right. I'll be an insufferable ass. I feel this
one.
|5.14.08 @ 5:54PM|#
To be sure, I don't think that everything McCain's ever done is
bad, and I even hold out a slight chance that he won't be abysmal
on domestic policy. However, he's played on the wrong side too many
times for me to trust him, and I think he jumps for the military
solution too quickly to be president.
J sub D,
I don't think so. Obama will need major bolstering--expect an
experienced VP. One who makes you wonder why the ticket isn't
inverted.
|5.14.08 @ 6:00PM|#
Obama/Edwards 2008.
Nah. Two senators with limited 'experience' isn't a good idea. Not
to mention Edwards is a proven loser. Maybe he'll get AG or
something, but Obama needs a governor, military guy or someone
other than a two-term senator.
|5.14.08 @ 6:05PM|#
Edwards really blew his timing on this one. About 10 days ago, right before the NC/Indiana primaries, it might have actually mattered if endorsed someone. Now that the Big O has it in the bag, its nothing.
|5.14.08 @ 6:07PM|#
Wow Senator Edwards, that's very courageous of you, now that the race is more or less over...
|5.14.08 @ 6:09PM|#
About a month ago, he said he wasn't gonna endorse cuz he wasn't
happy with either of their platforms.
I am guessing the endorsement is more of a nudge to Hillary to get
the fuck out of the way
|5.14.08 @ 6:09PM|#
I'm with RC; I don't know what he's thinking. I figured, once he
refused to endorse anyone in March or April, that he was going to
go to the convention with his delegates.
On the other hand, John Edwards and Barack Obama have actually run
elections, so it's within the realm of possibility that they know
about this than Mr. Dean and myself.
Dwayne Mayor|5.14.08 @ 6:23PM|#
"Obama will need major bolstering--expect an experienced VP. One
who makes you wonder why the ticket isn't inverted."
Not sure I agree with this. I much rather have the gentleman orator
in the front seat, as the representative head of the nation vs. an
uninspiring, "experienced" candidate who rightly, ought to be
relegated to the VP position. Besides, Obama has demonstrated the
character and intelligence necessary to choose very able advisers,
so the "experience" argument is a moot point. Pericles, the eminent
orator, didn't have much experience either and Athens passed
through its golden age under his wise rule.
Dwayne Mayor|5.14.08 @ 6:27PM|#
Ditto for Lincoln. There is a far stronger link between rhetorical ability and a successful presidency than number of years as political jobholder as testified by some 6,000 odd years of human civilization. The greatest leaders, the masters of men were almost invariably the greatest orators, not the most experienced.
|5.14.08 @ 6:37PM|#
I think Jack Cafferty just put his finger on it; this is about
trumping Hillary's press the day after West Virginia.
She went around taping interviews for tonight's nooz and chat
shows. And now this.
So, what do you lead with: the #3 candidate endorsing the guy with
a tight lead, or West Virginia?
|5.14.08 @ 6:38PM|#
Endorsement, yes. Veep candidate? I don't think so. Obama's
campaign will be all about change, new ideas, and reaching out to
everyone. I expect the veep candidate to reflect that.
Here's what I'm seeing in Obama's VP candidate:
- older white male
- anti-war, but not necessarily for immediate withdrawal
- someone with ideas, not a partisan hack
- consensus-builder with a track record of accomplishment
- not a longtime DC establishment politician
The ideal candidate would be a governor of perhaps ten years,
probably from someplace out west.
Hmm. Bill Richardson, anyone?
Tacos mmm...|5.14.08 @ 6:39PM|#
I don't think so. Obama will need major bolstering--expect an experienced VP. One who makes you wonder why the ticket isn't inverted.
Presidents are supposed to be figureheads. Or, at least they
were.
Neil|5.14.08 @ 6:47PM|#
Bill Richardson isn't white.
The smart choice would be my governor, Mike Easley.
|5.14.08 @ 6:50PM|#
I like a steady, even if unspectacular, hand on the tiller for
VP. In case of the president's death, resignation, or
incapacitation, there could very well be a huge national emergency
going on. There will certainly be a political crisis.
For this reason, I never liked the idea of a junior officeholder
being picked for VP. I think Edwards was a terrible choice for
Kerry, too cute by half. I want someone who can sit in the big boy
chair and be ready from Day 1 just in case. I weight this even more
heavily for VP than for president, who is going to take over in a
much smoother fashion, with a nice long lead-up. I put more weight
on ideology, policy, and vision in a presidential candidate, while
I'd be more willing to bend on those in a VP.
Someone like Richard Cohen or Ike Skelton would be better than
Obama/Edwards in my mind, even though I'm probably closer to
Edwards poitically, and recognize his immense political appeal.
|5.14.08 @ 6:54PM|#
Does he automatically get his delegates?
I don't know the Democrat rules.
First, the Edwards delegates come together and talk about their
feelings...
David Weigel|5.14.08 @ 7:01PM|#
If you combine Richardson and Obama, you get one white guy. (They both had white mothers.)
Elemenope|5.14.08 @ 7:04PM|#
Hmm. Bill Richardson, anyone?
Been saying that shit for goin' on a year now. He's *the perfect
choice*, IMO. Complements Obama very well, and is from a part of
the country that is really a toss-up come election time.
|5.14.08 @ 7:05PM|#
Edwrds as VP candidate? Nothing says working class white folks
like John Edwards....
"Don't leave, I'm on your side. Ya know I hate those
corporations....Careful son, don't muss my hair."
So to get this stupid war ended, looks like we're gonna have to put
up with the likes of these idiots. Too bad the Dems in congress
won't use their majorities to end the war by simply not voting to
fund it. Course then they couldn't use the war for their own
political purposes this election.
joe:
so it's within the realm of possibility that they know about
this than Mr. Dean and myself.
It's hard for me to imagine Obama and Edwards knowing more about
much of anything of interest than you two. That's cuz I've read
lots of what you guys have written and I've also watched Obama and
Edwards on TV some- well, as much as I could without getting into a
masochist trip.
|5.14.08 @ 7:11PM|#
Edwards always seemed kind of "slick and disingenuous" to me.
Even for a politician. That said, him endorsing Obama would be good
news from my perspective.
I would like Richardson as VP on Obama's ticket.
|5.14.08 @ 7:13PM|#
Webb would be another example of the type I'm talking about, and has a lot of other virtues as a running mate.
thoreau|5.14.08 @ 7:42PM|#
joe-
I can believe that the decision to endorse today instead of, say,
next week might be because of West Virginia. But the decision to
wait this long? I think he blew his timing. He could have endorsed
Obama a few weeks ago and maybe nudged a few votes in Indiana. I
don't know how much following Edwards has there, but with a 51-49
margin, it couldn't have hurt. Aside from the endorsement there
would have also been the momentum conferred by having a few extra
delegates and an endorsement that might move a few super-delegates
as well.
NP|5.14.08 @ 7:57PM|#
John Nichols actually caught Edwards' slip of the tongue a couple of days ago.
zoltan|5.14.08 @ 7:57PM|#
Dwayne Mayor: What about Reagan and FDR? They kinda demolish your argument.
SIV|5.14.08 @ 7:59PM|#
So to get this stupid war ended, looks like we're gonna have
to put up with the likes of these idiots.
Why do people think Obama is going to "end the war"?
|5.14.08 @ 8:06PM|#
What about Reagan and FDR?
I thought they were both fairly strong orators. Although I'm used to hearing mostly sound bites and I'm also used to listening to a president who sounds like he suffers from dyslexia or some speech pathology.
Neil|5.14.08 @ 8:10PM|#
Obama won't end the war. He can't, its impossible. Too many
consequences frm that.
Liberals will be whining about how he never accomplished that come
2012 in the unlikely event Hussein is elected.
Neil|5.14.08 @ 8:18PM|#
Bottom line:
The voters will remember what life was like under the last two
Democrat Presidents and vote accordingly.
Clinton: Embarassing scandals, a face of weakness to the foreign
wolrd, and refused to take Osama prisoner even when he was offered
him on a silver platter.
Carter: Gas lines, inflation, hostages, appeasement of terrorists,
unemployment, and a weakened America.
zoltan|5.14.08 @ 8:19PM|#
Art, I mean they were strong orators but that certainly didn't make them good or great presidents. Now that I think about it, though, Dwayne might be saying all great presidents/leaders would be good orators, but not all good orators are good leaders. Of course, along with his examples of Lincoln and Pericles, you could add Hitler. Not a great person, but a pretty efficient leader.
Neil|5.14.08 @ 8:21PM|#
Before the liberal Democrat hacks trot out the Clinton economic
myth:
1) The 90s weren't as good as the '80s
2) There was a severe economic downturn that began well before
Clinton left office that Bush, armed with tax cuts, reversed into
the Bush Boom
|5.14.08 @ 8:30PM|#
Bramblyspam:
anti-war, but not necessarily for immediate
withdrawal
Yeah cuz after only five years we wouldn't want to do anything
hasty.
older white male
What? So you're saying that a Lesbian Asian atheist doesn't
motivate the right demographic?
someone with ideas, not a partisan hack
And he should always remember to take his vitamins too.
Elemenope|5.14.08 @ 8:30PM|#
The voters will remember what life was like
under the last two Democrat Presidents and vote
accordingly.
Ha. Ha ha. Hah hah hahhhh! Hah, hah [choke] HAAAAAH [gurgle]
hahha...
He. He heee hah haaaah. [Gasp]
Hehe.
I'm sorry. WHAT DID YOU JUST SAY ABOUT THE MEMORIES OF VOTERS?
Please repeat it; my conscious mind was temporarily obliterated by
hysterical laughter.
|5.14.08 @ 8:35PM|#
It's Neil again. What do you expect?
Of course the voters will remember all the unspeakable horrors of
the Clinton and Carter presidencies, while conveniently forgetting
everything that has happened under Dubya.
Neil|5.14.08 @ 8:44PM|#
Reagan was the greatest thing to happen to this country in the
last 50 years, like it or not.
Carter was a weakling, and Clinton was too busy getting involved in
corrupt sex scandals to get bin Laden.
He WAS offered bin Laden by the Sudanese govt in 1997. Google
it.
Neil|5.14.08 @ 8:45PM|#
George W. Bush will be like Harry Truman.
Despised in his own time, but fondly remembered by history for his
hard but correct decisions and eloquent statements.
|5.14.08 @ 8:53PM|#
Neil,
We Republicans should hope that they remember Reagan and forget GW
Bush. The best vs one a the worst in modern times.
This year it's Bob Barr or some Libertarian nominee who'll get my
vote for Pres. They're lotsa true limited government Republicans to
work for for other offices-at least here in Colorado.
Elemenope|5.14.08 @ 8:56PM|#
Despised in his own time, but fondly remembered by history
for his hard but correct decisions and eloquent
statements.
I will remember George W. Bush fondly as the man who destroyed the
Republican party.
That will *certainly* go down in the history books. 1854-2008; not
a bad run. It took a man of such talents as Bush to end it.
In retrospect, seeing what he did to the Rangers should have been a
big clue.
|5.14.08 @ 9:01PM|#
Neil:
George W. Bush... fondly remembered by history for his hard but
correct decisions...
Get the f**k outa here. Umm LOL
...and eloquent statements.
That's gota be a joke, right? Neil??
Neil|5.14.08 @ 9:06PM|#
Its not a joke.
From the beginning George W. Bush was deadly serious.
And so am I.
Mark|5.14.08 @ 9:09PM|#
Neil, are you serious? He'll be remembered for his "eloquent statements"? What planet have you been living upon?
|5.14.08 @ 9:12PM|#
But eloquent?? Cmon, Neil. You might wanna establish some credibility some day or something.
Neil|5.14.08 @ 9:14PM|#
Rick, he made correct decisions.
He was the right man to be our Commander-in-Chief after the
Islamofascist confronted us.
Remember his speech before Congress after 9/11? That was for the
ages.
Neil|5.14.08 @ 9:15PM|#
Hes also kept us safe. Kept us safe for nearly 8 years.
No 9/11s since then.
Why do you think that is? I credit George W. Bush for keeping us
safe from Islamofascism.
|5.14.08 @ 9:17PM|#
Heh, Neil, you're reminding me of another Bush speech for the
ages.
Yeah, that one's a low blow, but funny all the same. :-)
Neil|5.14.08 @ 9:26PM|#
What DID you think of his great, Churchillian speech after 9/11
Bramblyspam?
I'll tell you what: a Democrat-controlled federal government = many
more 9/11s.
|5.14.08 @ 9:26PM|#
Bramblyspam at 9:09pm,
That's an interesting speculation in that vid.
BTW, I just happened upon this while I was checking that one
out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sm73wOuPL60&NR=1
What's up with that?
|5.14.08 @ 9:31PM|#
Neil:
Rick, he made correct decisions.
He was the right man to be our Commander-in-Chief after the
Islamofascist confronted us.
Like Hell! He let the neocons con him into attacking Iraq-A
wasteful tragedy.
|5.14.08 @ 9:34PM|#
Some people believe in the Easter Bunny.
Neil thinks he was a Reagan delegate at the 76 convention.
Neil|5.14.08 @ 9:38PM|#
I was born in '70, Joe, so that would be impossible.
But I remember Reagan fondly. Greatest President in my
lifetime.
Who do you think was the greatest President in yours Joe?
Neil|5.14.08 @ 9:40PM|#
Wrong link.
This was one
great speech Carter made. Possibly the only good speech he
made.
Kolohe|5.14.08 @ 9:43PM|#
From the beginning George W. Bush was deadly
serious.
Well he has been seriously deadly.
|5.14.08 @ 9:47PM|#
Greatest in my lifetime?
Geez, we've had a run of stinkers.
Clinton? Ford? Neither of them screwed anything up too badly.
|5.14.08 @ 9:48PM|#
The reason why the U.S. hasn't been targeted since 9/11 has
nothing to do with Bush. Al
Qaeda made a strategic decision to target our European allies
while leaving the U.S. alone.
There is good evidence that this shift in Al Qaeda's scheme was
the product of deliberate choice. In December 2003, the Norwegian
intelligence service found a lengthy Al Qaeda planning document on
a radical Islamic Web site that described a coherent strategy for
compelling the United States and its allies to leave Iraq.
It made clear that more spectacular attacks against the United
States like those of 9/11 would be insufficient, and that it would
be more effective to attack America's European allies, thus
coercing them to withdraw their forces from Iraq and Afghanistan
and increasing the economic and military burdens that the United
States would have to bear.
In particular, the document weighed the advantages of attacking
Britain, Poland and Spain, and concluded that Spain in particular,
because of the high level of domestic opposition to the Iraq war,
was the most vulnerable.
"It is necessary to make utmost use of the upcoming general
election in Spain in March next year," the document stated. "We
think that the Spanish government could not tolerate more than two,
maximum three, blows, after which it will have to withdraw as a
result of popular pressure. If its troops still remain in Iraq
after these blows, then the victory of the Socialist Party is
almost secured, and the withdrawal of the Spanish forces will be on
its electoral program."
We all know how that turned out. Bombing Madrid and London was no
problem at all. If you seriously think that it would be any harder
to bomb targets in the United States, you're dreaming.
Al Qaeda's strategy
isn't to blow up stuff in America, it is to bankrupt us by bleeding
us dry with massive war expenditures.
The October video, released just before the U.S. election,
offers a glimpse into the jihadist strategy. "We are continuing in
the same policy to make America bleed profusely to the point of
bankruptcy," said bin Laden. His logic is simple: To bring the U.S.
to suffer a fate similar to that of the Soviet Union, the
terrorists need to drain America's resources and bring it to the
point it can no longer afford to preserve its military and economic
dominance. As the U.S. loses standing in the Middle East, the
jihadists can gain ground and remove from power regimes they view
as corrupt and illegitimate while defeating other infidels who
inhabit the land of Islam.
Three methods comprise Al Qaeda's economic war against the U.S. The
first is the destruction of high-cost qualitative targets by
low-cost qualitative means. The 2001 attack on the World Trade
Center is a perfect example of how terrorists can get more bang for
their cheap buck. Bin Laden cited estimates that Al Qaeda spent
$500,000 to carry out the attacks of September 11, which caused
America to lose more than $500 billion. "Every dollar of Al Qaeda
defeated a million [U.S.] dollars," bin Laden concluded.
That strategy, needless to say, is working like a charm, thanks to
Bush.
Neil|5.14.08 @ 9:49PM|#
Joe, you really don't think Reagan was a great President?
Not even George H.W. Bush? Liberals seem to be warming up to his
legacy lately.
|5.14.08 @ 9:51PM|#
thoreau,
I think that Edwards, for his own reasons, didn't want to endorse
anybody until the race was over, and that after May 6, he agreed to
endorse Obama. At that point, the speech was planned for today, to
grab the media cycle.
I'm of the opinion that Obama's campaign has been carefully
managing the announcement of endorsements for maximum media effect
throughout this campaign. For example, John Kerry and Janet
Napolitano endorsing him on the same day - that turned what would
have been two local stories into a national story that lead the
news.
|5.14.08 @ 9:52PM|#
zoltan,
Bad example. The 1987 crash had about zero significant effect on
the economy. We recovered very quickly. It's still touted as the
classic "Main Street vs. Wall Street" moment.
80s vs. 90s. Well, I'm begin to believe that the recovery in the
80s--from the malaise of the 70s--was far more significant than the
bubble(s) of the 90s. And let me say right now that I don't think
presidents have jack to do with the economy, not in any major way,
anyhow.
Edward|5.14.08 @ 9:54PM|#
These stupid mainstream parties can't come up candidates that have the brains, charm, and penetrating isights of a Ron Paul or a Bob Barr. An African American who came from nowhere to graduate from Harvard law school and a successful, wealthy trial lawyer from humble origins. Geez! Ron Paul has delivered thousands of babies!
|5.14.08 @ 9:55PM|#
Neil, he was such a mixed bag.
Reykyavik, El Salvador. Taming inflation, exploding the national
debt.
He did more good than either Clinton or Ford, but he did a great
deal more bad, too.
He's certainly a "Great Man," if you buy into that theory of
history, but his flaws and errors are too large and glaring to make
a saint out of him.
I was thinking about George W. Bush. He's looking better in
hindsight, as Republicans go, but that's really just in comparison
to the Worst President in American History.
|5.14.08 @ 9:57PM|#
Hey, I really did meet Reagan in 76. Here's my recollection of
it. (Previously published in a Reason fundraising letter):
It was in 1976 when he was trying to wrest the GOP nomination
from Ford that Reagan came to Colorado to give a speech in Ft.
Collins. I drove up from Denver to hear him and after the speech,
when he and Nancy got to me in the receiving line they found a wide
eyed kid who was jazzed that he cited "The Road to Serfdom" by
Hayek in his talk. He told me he also really liked Hayek's "The
Constitution of Liberty"! This, of course, put me in orbit and I
then mentioned that I enjoyed the points he made in an interview
with Reason. (It was in that interview where he
made his "libertarianism is the kernel of conservatism" quote.) I
remember he then said, I swear, "Well" "I'll have to look at that
again". (Remember when the "well" was the stock in trade of any
Reagan impression?) As I shook their hands in an enthusiastic
farewell, Nancy assured me that "Ronnie loves that little
magazine".
|5.14.08 @ 9:58PM|#
The 90s boom lifted something like 10x as many people out of poverty as the 80s boom. There's a reason why our urban problems continued to get worse throughout the 80s, even during the economic good times, and turned around in the 90s.
|5.14.08 @ 10:09PM|#
Clinton? Ford? Neither of them screwed anything up too
badly.
Nahhh.... this one's too easy. :-)
|5.14.08 @ 10:13PM|#
In case it wasn't clear, Neil, I meant you believed in the
Easter Bunny, and thought he was a Reagan delegate in 76.
Tap tap tap. Is this thing on?
Neil|5.14.08 @ 10:21PM|#
Nancy Reagan was a great First Lady.
She combated the scourge of drugs in our cities.
Joe, Clinton couldn't keep the boom going because of his 1993 tax
hikes. Thats the real reason the economy came crashing down in
2001.
But George W. Bush, armed with tax cuts, turned things around for
the United States.
BTW, it was no small task that George H.W. Bush prefomred guiding
us through the end of the Cold War and the changing wolrd order of
1989-1991. If we had a lesser President, Ukraine and Kazakhstan
would be nuclear powers and Kuwait would be the 19th province of
Iraq.
|5.14.08 @ 10:57PM|#
Edward:
Rick Barton obviously had a schoolboy crush on
Reagan.
The notion of ideas mattering doesn't occur in Edward's brain.
Neil|5.14.08 @ 10:58PM|#
BTW Joe today you qute ABC and CBS polls.
The ABC poll included "adults". Not voters "adults".
CBS poll? LOL remember Rathergate?
Obamas "lead" is somewhere between +1 and +3.
Kolohe|5.14.08 @ 11:07PM|#
Nancy Reagan was a great First Lady.
She combated the scourge of drugs in our cities
She batted one for three (at best) at combating the scourge of
drugs on Different Strokes.
MSC|5.14.08 @ 11:27PM|#
Joining this thread a bit late, but here's another vote for Webb
as VP. He's served in a republican administration so he can tout
the fact that he reaches across party lines. He's also a
hick.
And for all of us that really believe in the 2nd amendment, Webb
regular goes shooting at the NRA range and has a CCW. He's one of
the guys who "clings to his guns."
|5.14.08 @ 11:36PM|#
Kolohe, I know what you're saying. I always thought people's family members and friends have more of a chance of keeping them from being drug addicts than the First Lady does.
|5.14.08 @ 11:49PM|#
I have to say, I'm impressed here with Marc Ambinder's reporting, particularly his use of Facebook and Flightaware to firm up his speculation.
|5.15.08 @ 12:49AM|#
Neil:
What DID you think of his great, Churchillian speech after 9/11
Bramblyspam?
I almost missed that question. I take it you were referring to
this,
yes?
IMHO, Bush's post-9/11 speech was neither great nor Churchillian.
It doesn't even remotely compare with Reagan's "tear down this
wall". Now THAT was a good speech.
Edward|5.15.08 @ 2:15AM|#
I know what "ideas" about Reagan were floating around in your head, Rick. Hey, this is the 21st century, man. No need to hide your feelings. Reagan was very attractive in a vapid sort of way.
|5.15.08 @ 4:41AM|#
John McCain has a long and distinguished record of public
service and true achievement.
Tell it to Ross Perot and the POW/MIA families.
-jcr
|5.15.08 @ 9:23AM|#
Weren't Clinton and Ford both basically neutralized by
opposition Congresses? Gridlock seems to give us better results
than single-party control, doesn't it?
I don't think the tax increases had much to do with 2001. First,
the bubble began to burst. Second, the cyclical recession was due.
Third, we got freaked out by some planes flying into things.
I think it's hard to not credit Reagan for doing some good things.
People forget how bad many things were in the 70s. Of course, part
of that was the zeitgeist--Carter was big into
deregulation, too, as odd as that sounds today.
joe|5.15.08 @ 10:08AM|#
At the time the dot com bubble burst, the economy was running so
strong that the Fed was raising interest rates to cool thing
off.
So much for the "1993 tax increases strangled the economy"
theory.
Bush's speech was only deemed "Churchillian" because the country
was so desperate for Churchill.
Watching that thing now, it's tough to relate to that reaction. He
just sounds like George Bush.
|5.15.08 @ 10:39AM|#
Rick Barton - no way, man! Edwards doesn't even really have a
demographic any more.
If Gov. Strickland hadn't explicitly said "NO" to both candidates,
I almost guarantee he'd be the VP choice.
LarryA|5.15.08 @ 10:41AM|#
I don't know the Democrat rules.
That's okay. Neither do the Democrats.
I like a steady, even if unspectacular, hand on the tiller for
VP. In case of the president's death, resignation, or
incapacitation, there could very well be a huge national emergency
going on. There will certainly be a political crisis.
I'd agree, except that the only relevant criteria actually used to
select VP candidates is "can they get votes."
Hmm. Bill Richardson, anyone?
Richardson would be an excellent pick for one huge reason. From his
Wikipedia: "In
2003, Richardson backed and signed legislation creating a permit
system for New Mexicans to carry concealed handguns. He applied for
and received a concealed weapons permit, though by his own
admission he seldom carries a gun."
I might even get behind him.
Webb would be another example of the type I'm talking about,
and has a lot of other virtues as a running mate.
Also NRA A+ with CHL.
80,000,000 gunowners would lock the election and send Republicans
to the showers. Unfortunately I think Chicago-bred Obama is
incapable of understanding this.
LarryA|5.15.08 @ 10:46AM|#
The more I think about it...
National Rifle Association endorses Democratic VP candidate
That would be a headline.
Edward|5.15.08 @ 10:54AM|#
I predict an Obama/Clinton ticket. It will cause many former subscribers to Ron Paul's newsletters to keel over from apoplexy, and that will be a good thing in itself.
Guy Montag|5.15.08 @ 11:20AM|#
Sen. Obama is doomed.
Early endorsement by Sen. Kerry, now this.
Perhaps he will announce Al Gore as his running mate before the
convention?
|5.15.08 @ 11:34AM|#
Ayn_Randian,
I'm thinking that Obama likes Edwards pitch to lower middle-income
voters (Even though it's nonsense). Also, Edwards would serve as a
foil against Huckabee's appeal to south and mid-south state voters
should McCain pick him. (If McCain does pick Nuckabee, it will be
an insult to small government types)
Yeah, that kind of help with Ohio would probably be irresistible
for Obama.
Edward|5.15.08 @ 12:03PM|#
What we want in a president:
Scientific literacy
"Approximately 80% of our air pollution stems from hydrocarbons
released by vegetation, so let's not go overboard in setting and
enforcing tough emission standards from man-made sources."
Ronald Reagan
Philosophical depth
"Facts are stubborn things."
Ronald Reagan
A clear understanding of the separation of church and state
"Freedom prospers when religion is vibrant and the rule of law
under God is acknowledged."
Ronald Reagan
A sound grasp of economics
"I am not worried about the deficit. It is big enough to take care
of itself. "
Ronald Reagan
A willingness to use the police
"I favor the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and it must be enforced at
gunpoint if necessary."
Ronald Reagan
A libertarian position of drugs
"Let us not forget who we are. Drug abuse is a repudiation of
everything America is."
Ronald Reagan
Compassion
Unemployment insurance is a pre-paid vacation for
freeloaders.
Ronald Reagan
|5.15.08 @ 12:59PM|#
Rick Barton,
Jim Webb can make that pitch to downscale voters just as credibly
as John Edwards, and his name conjures up "Marines" rather than
"haircut."
|5.15.08 @ 1:01PM|#
I don't know what to make of Obama's position on gun laws. He's
being cagey, but there's no way to know for sure what direction
that goes.
Although, when a Democrat is cagey about his position on guns
during the primary, that tends to suggest one direction over the
other.
|5.15.08 @ 1:52PM|#
joe,
Yeah, Webb does seem like he might be a stronger choice for
Obama.-Not as much name recognition as Edwards but also, perhaps,
not as much antipathy from Biz folks. Do you see any downside to
him?
I think I might be changing my prediction for Dem VP candidate from
Edwards to Webb. A few days ago it was Hillary.
|5.15.08 @ 2:30PM|#
Rick,
Do you see any downside to him?
There is a possibility - not a large one, but one that can't be
completely ignored - that Webb is, in fact, batshit insane. People
whose judgement of character I respect report getting weird vibes
from that dude.
Edward|5.15.08 @ 2:49PM|#
Speaking of batshit insane,
"Within the covers of the Bible are all the answers for all the
problems men face." --Ronald Reagan
Save money wasted on books!
|5.15.08 @ 3:01PM|#
joe,
Whoa! Yeah that could be a draw-back (remember the Eagleton
episode?) Like what kind of weird vibes?
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245