As radio talk-show host Michael Graham recently pointed out in National Review Online, several months ago, Presidential hopeful John Kerry handed five very clear criteria to his search committee when charging its members with building a list of potential running mates. Kerry wanted "someone with a distinguished record of leadership, someone committed to Kerry's core agenda, someone with the ability to campaign in all parts of the country, someone compatible with Kerry 'on every level' and someone immediately ready to assume the presidency at any moment."
While Kerry’s announcement this week that he’s chosen less-than-one-term Senator John Edwards from North Carolina as his running mate was hardly a surprise, a simple comparison of Kerry’s criteria with the record of the very-rich-trial-lawyer-recently-turned-politician causes one to pause when considering John Edwards’ qualifications to be first in the line of presidential succession.
First, does John Edwards have a "distinguished record of leadership" and is he ready to "assume the presidency at any moment?"
Prior to being elected to the United States Senate in 1998, John Edwards never served in public office. In fact, he wasn’t even active in politics, never having worked on a political campaign or run for any elective office. Between 1991 and 1998, Edwards failed consistently to even exercise his most fundamental civic duty — he voted in merely half of the elections in which he could have during that seven-year period. His justification? According to The New York Times, "[Edwards] says, he was too busy with his legal work."
As a Senator, Edwards has no legislative accomplishments to speak of — NONE. During his short tenure in the world’s most deliberative body, Edwards has been the lead sponsor on 74 pieces of legislation, none of which has emerged from a relevant Committee and been voted on by the full Senate. In fact, in March of 2001, one of Edwards’ home-state newspapers, the Wilmington Morning Star, editorialized, "Our junior Senator is smart, charming, a smooth talker, nice looking, and a progressive Southern Democrat. … He’s built a solid record on TV talk shows, but not a solid record of legislative accomplishment…"
On national security issues, one need only look at what John Kerry himself had to say earlier this year regarding Edwards’ inexperience. In February, Kerry said of Edwards in the Los Angeles Times, "I think the American people want an experienced hand at the helm of state. This is not the time for on-the-job training in the White House on national security issues." Just one month earlier, Kerry was quoted in The New York Times as saying, "When I came back from Vietnam in 1969, I don’t know if John Edwards was out of diapers then."
Having no legislative accomplishments, no military experience and no service in any public office prior to joining the Senate less than one term ago, Edwards hardly possesses a "distinguished record" and the qualifications necessary to "assume the presidency at any moment." Even the most ardent supporters of the Kerry-Edwards ticket can recognize that.
At least John Edwards does fulfill two of John Kerry’s criteria. No one can argue with the fact that Edwards is fully "committed to Kerry's core agenda," and he’s certainly "compatible with Kerry ‘on every level.’"
According to annual ratings produced by the non-partisan National Journal, Kerry, the most liberal member of the United States Senate, chose the second most liberal Senator to be his Vice Presidential running mate, making the Kerry-Edwards ticket the most liberal in modern political history — even more so than the Mondale-Ferraro ticket in 1984. Actually, while it may be hard to fathom, using the National Journal ratings, a ticket consisting of Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton would be more conservative (well, less liberal — let’s not get too carried away) than the Kerry-Edwards offering.
Both Kerry and Edwards voted against all of President Bush’s tax cuts, which have been widely credited for helping to jumpstart the nation’s economy post 9-11. Both Senators have supported massive new federal spending. According to an analysis done by the National Taxpayers’ Union, in the first session of the 108th Congress, "Edwards supported legislation which, if enacted in its entirety, would increase federal spending by $92.1 billion per year." According to the same analysis, John Kerry’s legislative agenda would have increased federal spending by more than $180 billion per year.
Both Kerry and Edwards voted to give the President authority to go to war in Iraq — before voting against the $87 billion needed to adequately equip our troops for the war effort. Yes, that’s right, both voted for it before they voted against it.
Both Senators claim to connect with average Americans and preach a rural populist message. But both Kerry and Edwards are multi-millionaires. Edwards, whose net worth is estimated to be at least $38 million, made his money as a high-profile personal injury lawyer. In campaign commercials during his 1998 Senate race, Edwards claimed to have worked his way through college loading UPS trucks. But according to company records, as revealed by The News & Observer [Raleigh, NC], Edwards only worked for UPS for six months during his junior year at North Carolina State University.
Kerry is living off the Heinz fortune.
Last year, when Edwards was asked by a reporter in New Hampshire what the make and model of his family’s vehicles were, the Senator responded, "A truck, probably a Ford or a Chevrolet. It’s white and it is sitting in front of my house." And, we all know about the SUVs sitting in John Kerry’s driveway — that aren’t his.
Finally, does John Edwards have the ability to "campaign in all parts of the country?"
Edwards brings charisma to the ticket, a strong knack for campaigning, photogenic charm and a hell of an ability to raise money — so say "the experts." Yet despite those traits, it is widely acknowledged that Edwards stood to lose his Senate seat. In addition to his lack of legislative accomplishments, Edwards missed more votes during his term in the Senate than many of his colleagues combined. He missed so many votes that his hometown newspaper nicknamed him "Senator Gone." Recognizing his constituents’ frustration, Edwards announced last year that he would not seek re-election.
If it is true that Edwards would have trouble garnering support for re-election to the Senate from the very people who know him best, it is hard to imagine that he will be any more successful in a national campaign.
Is John Edwards qualified to be the Vice President of the United States? That is a question for voters to decide in November. But based on John Kerry’s own criteria, the definitive answer may in fact be "NO."
Of course thats just my opinion....I could be wrong. (Dennis Miller)
"You might be the toughest little whacker. . .but in my world, you're about as worrisome as a cloudy day." (Dutch Dooley)
I'd rather have "Senator Gone" every day of the year over "Vice-President Wrong."
Congressmen are notorious for not voting at all if they are opposed to bills they already know will pass. In addition, it is well known that congressmen frequently agree with opposing congressmen to refrain from voting and canceling one another's votes, when they have other official duties to take care of. I learned this in college many years ago and it still applies today.
Edwards said it all when he said that it's not the length of service that's important, but the quality of the judgments.
Cheney is party to lying about (A) why we went to war, (B) the status of the war, (C) Halliburton, (D) many other things.
It's even obvious by just the way he (physically) talks out of the side of his mouth!
I can tell you I don't want a VP that voted against Nelson Mandela. One who voted against the Equal Rights Amendment, one who voted against Head Start, and other various social and civil rights programs.
I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody.
- Bill Cosby
The guy who takes a chance, who walks the line between the known and unknown, who is unafraid of failure, will succeed.
- Gordon Parks
You want a potential VP to go over issues that he cant even show up to vote on?
Hmm..interesting perspective.
In this particular case, you betcha, Mystic.
That's life in D.C. It happens all the time. When votes are really needed, they tend to be there. Many times those congressmen are back in their home states when the votes are taken and they don'y run to D.C. to vote for something that's already a foregone conclusion. Then there are also the "vote canceling" agreements.
It's not like playing hooky from school. It's D.C. politics in action. It's only made an issue at times like these, when the politicos think they have an opportunity to make someone look bad. The only ones who look bad right now are Bush & Cheney.
I think if you look at the attendance of all politicians you'll see that Kerry and Edwards attendance in the Senate do not deviate from the norm, I can't believe people want to make this an issue.
I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody.
- Bill Cosby
The guy who takes a chance, who walks the line between the known and unknown, who is unafraid of failure, will succeed.
- Gordon Parks
Sorry...but he shouldnt be getting mad over something that was passed when he didnt even show up for the vote...
How ridiculous is that?
Ya know...its bad when he was dubbed that nickname from his own state! That alone speaks volumes!
I could see what you said if there was some merit to it...but Joe Lockhart stated tonight that Edwards was there all the time, and he doesnt know why Cheney would say anything different!!
Oh..Joe..you fool...his voting record proves he wasnt there!
Whereever did they get this dufus from?
Of course thats just my opinion....I could be wrong. (Dennis Miller)
"You might be the toughest little whacker. . .but in my world, you're about as worrisome as a cloudy day." (Dutch Dooley)
Inner City Blue said this in post #7 : I think if you look at the attendance of all politicians you'll see that Kerry and Edwards attendance in the Senate do not deviate from the norm, I can't believe people want to make this an issue.
his own state made it an issue..maybe they see it as a flaw!
I see it as a flaw when my senator doesnt show up...I vote for my senators to vote my way on the issues that I want them too...if they dont show up, that cant do that now can they??
Of course thats just my opinion....I could be wrong. (Dennis Miller)
"You might be the toughest little whacker. . .but in my world, you're about as worrisome as a cloudy day." (Dutch Dooley)
his own state made it an issue..maybe they see it as a flaw!
I see it as a flaw when my senator doesnt show up...I vote for my senators to vote my way on the issues that I want them too...if they dont show up, that cant do that now can they??
Right...trying to make an issue out of nothing.
I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody.
- Bill Cosby
The guy who takes a chance, who walks the line between the known and unknown, who is unafraid of failure, will succeed.
- Gordon Parks
mystic said this in post #11 :
An issue out of nothing?
What do we have senators for if they dont show up to the meetings to vote.
Why waste my time voting for them or even having them at all?
We vote for them to do a job...if they dont show up..they arent doing their job..are they?
Yes, making an issue out of nothing.
North Carolina
John Edwards (NC)
Roll Call Vote Analysis
Year Voting Participation
2003 61%
2002 100%
2001 99%
2000 100%
1999 99%
Perhaps there was something going on in 2003 that would cause a decrease in voter participation? Perhaps a run for the presidency? Again, issues out of nothing.
I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody.
- Bill Cosby
The guy who takes a chance, who walks the line between the known and unknown, who is unafraid of failure, will succeed.
- Gordon Parks
Inner City Blue said this in post #12 :
Yes, making an issue out of nothing.
North Carolina
John Edwards (NC)
Roll Call Vote Analysis
Year Voting Participation
2003 61%
2002 100%
2001 99%
2000 100%
1999 99%
Perhaps there was something going on in 2003 that would cause a decrease in voter participation? Perhaps a run for the presidency? Again, issues out of nothing.
Sorry..not an issue out of nothing! You can say that till your blue in the face...but thats not flying with me!
If he cant show up because he is busy with his political aspirations then he should have stepped down....
Again, I dont vote for my senator so that he can run for VP and forget to show up come voting time.
Wave it off as nothing..thats your choice...but if he is gonna go complaining about something when he wasnt even there to vote...then thats his problem..no one elses..except for those that voted him in a senator, and those who expected more from him!!
Of course thats just my opinion....I could be wrong. (Dennis Miller)
"You might be the toughest little whacker. . .but in my world, you're about as worrisome as a cloudy day." (Dutch Dooley)
10-06-2004 02:55 AM
