stuckincincy Posted September 2, 2004 Posted September 2, 2004 The VP candidate has been less than prominent. I am wondering if the strategy is (and it's a good one), that he will get a lot of face time in October to induce females to vote for "cute". A page from the Clinton campaigns, so to speak... Thoughts?
BRH Posted September 2, 2004 Posted September 2, 2004 Usually the VP candidate is less than prominent. It's not like Kerry is some frat boy doofus who needs a father figure to lend perceived gravitas and intelligence to the ticket.
swede316 Posted September 2, 2004 Posted September 2, 2004 They may be worried about Edward's experience. He was only elected to the Senate in 1998. 6 years experience is awefully short.
BRH Posted September 2, 2004 Posted September 2, 2004 They may be worried about Edward's experience. He was only elected to the Senate in 1998. 6 years experience is awefully short. 16303[/snapback] And yet in 2000 they picked someone for the TOP spot who had six years of experience in elective politics (not to mention 14 years of experience as a sober adult).
Alaska Darin Posted September 2, 2004 Posted September 2, 2004 Usually the VP candidate is less than prominent. It's not like Kerry is some frat boy doofus who needs a father figure to lend perceived gravitas and intelligence to the ticket. 16296[/snapback] Nah, he's a "skull & bones" member in his own right who has to run like hell from his leftislative record and hire someone with a little panache to cover his "Gore-like" personality. What a winner the country is with these 2 clowns as our choices.
Alaska Darin Posted September 2, 2004 Posted September 2, 2004 And yet in 2000 they picked someone for the TOP spot who had six years of experience in elective politics (not to mention 14 years of experience as a sober adult). 16312[/snapback] That's a nice post from a member of the "party that cares." Shouldn't you be pandering for a program to help substance-abusive adults who wish to become successful politicians instead of throwing barbs at those who have?
stuckincincy Posted September 2, 2004 Author Posted September 2, 2004 And yet in 2000 they picked someone for the TOP spot who had six years of experience in elective politics (not to mention 14 years of experience as a sober adult). 16312[/snapback] But back to the topic, BRH...Edward's chops ARE a selling point. Do you think the Kerry bunch will utilize that? I understand that his short time in the Senate, and his big bux made in litigation are a problem, but cuteness does sell...
BRH Posted September 2, 2004 Posted September 2, 2004 That's a nice post from a member of the "party that cares." Shouldn't you be pandering for a program to help substance-abusive adults who wish to become successful politicians instead of throwing barbs at those who have? 16316[/snapback] Bush already had a program. It was called "Daddy's Name and Money."
Alaska Darin Posted September 2, 2004 Posted September 2, 2004 Bush already had a program. It was called "Daddy's Name and Money." 16321[/snapback] I'm sure the libs will continue to work feverishly to legislate that away. Yeah liberty! Let's conveniently ignore John Kerry's "Silver Spoon" upbringing because he spent 4 months in Vietnam.
BRH Posted September 2, 2004 Posted September 2, 2004 But back to the topic, BRH...Edward's chops ARE a selling point. Do you think the Kerry bunch will utilize that? I understand that his short time in the Senate, and his big bux made in litigation are a problem, but cuteness does sell... 16318[/snapback] His litigation experience isn't the problem the GOP tries to paint it as, because people hate the huge insurance companies Edwards sued more than they hate trial lawyers. The GOP knows this and that's why they only got off one half-hearted shot at Edwards in three days (a short line from Cheney outlining their entire domestic policy proposal for a second term). I think you'll see more of Edwards in the next two months, yes, especially when the debate moves off of Vietnam and onto more substantive matters of domestic and foreign policy.
swede316 Posted September 2, 2004 Posted September 2, 2004 And yet in 2000 they picked someone for the TOP spot who had six years of experience in elective politics (not to mention 14 years of experience as a sober adult). As Governor of the 2nd? largest state. A job closer to President than the senate.
stuckincincy Posted September 2, 2004 Author Posted September 2, 2004 His litigation experience isn't the problem the GOP tries to paint it as, because people hate the huge insurance companies Edwards sued more than they hate trial lawyers. The GOP knows this and that's why they only got off one half-hearted shot at Edwards in three days (a short line from Cheney outlining their entire domestic policy proposal for a second term). I think you'll see more of Edwards in the next two months, yes, especially when the debate moves off of Vietnam and onto more substantive matters of domestic and foreign policy. 16326[/snapback] HAMMER HAMMER HAMMER ON HEAD HEAD HEAD ! Is this a good campaign strategy or not? Selling CUTE. He can talk about oat bran for all it would matter...
billfan63 Posted September 2, 2004 Posted September 2, 2004 As Governor of the 2nd? largest state. A job closer to President than the senate. 16388[/snapback] Do you know anything about the job of Texas governor? It's one of the weakest of all 50 states. I don't know if its any closer to the President's job than that of a U.S. senator.
RuntheDamnBall Posted September 2, 2004 Posted September 2, 2004 Do you know anything about the job of Texas governor?It's one of the weakest of all 50 states. I don't know if its any closer to the President's job than that of a U.S. senator. 16409[/snapback] It's closer to the job of an executive producer in music or television. Signs a few things, gets updates every few months, and gets a lot of credit for not much at all. And sometimes they take credit for successes that they fought against the whole way.
swede316 Posted September 2, 2004 Posted September 2, 2004 All's I know is Texas is larger than alot of countries. As governor he would have had to deal with budgets, laws, etc as the head of the state's executive branch. Not a bad primer for the presidency.
swede316 Posted September 2, 2004 Posted September 2, 2004 HAMMER HAMMER HAMMER ON HEAD HEAD HEAD ! Is this a good campaign strategy or not? Selling CUTE. He can talk about oat bran for all it would matter... Now back to the subject...In this election...I don't think cute works. I think the voters are too polarized to actual issues.
billfan63 Posted September 2, 2004 Posted September 2, 2004 All's I know is Texas is larger than alot of countries. As governor he would have had to deal with budgets, laws, etc as the head of the state's executive branch. Not a bad primer for the presidency. 16464[/snapback] The governor of Texas is really the figurehead of the executive branch, There is a dispersal of executive power in a series of elected offices. The legislature takes the lead in the budget process, the governor can speak his mind on how the budget should be set but has little influence on the formal budget process. Since judges at all levels of the Texas judiciary are elected, the governor exercise very little power of the justice system.
swede316 Posted September 2, 2004 Posted September 2, 2004 The governor of Texas is really the figurehead of the executive branch, There is adispersal of executive power in a series of elected offices. The legislature takes the lead in the budget process, the governor can speak his mind on how the budget should be set but has little influence on the formal budget process. Since judges at all levels of the Texas judiciary are elected, the governor exercise very little power of the justice system. Nice try...Nice surmation of the following website...but it goes a little deeper than figure head. http://texaspolitics.laits.utexas.edu/html/exec/0300.html
Alaska Darin Posted September 2, 2004 Posted September 2, 2004 The governor of Texas is really the figurehead of the executive branch, There is a dispersal of executive power in a series of elected offices. The legislature takes the lead in the budget process, the governor can speak his mind on how the budget should be set but has little influence on the formal budget process. Since judges at all levels of the Texas judiciary are elected, the governor exercise very little power of the justice system. 16490[/snapback] Gee, I guess that means blzrul is wrong when she says Mr. Bush screwed up Texas.
Recommended Posts