I sure hope not. I think I can live with either Clinton or Obama as the nominee (depending on who the latter picks as his running mate… hint: Biden!), but I don’t think I can live with Edwards, who has morphed from an optimistic, inspirational everyman* in 2004 (sort of a white Obama) into an angry populist anti-business crusader. If Edwards wins the nomination, it’s quite likely I’ll wind up voting Republican… unless, of course, his opponent is Huckabee. What a nightmare of populist demagoguery that race would be. And it doesn’t get any better when you consider the possible third- and fourth-party candidates, Nanny Bloomberg and Nativist/Protectionist Dobbs. Good lord, that’s gotta be the worst four-way presidential race imaginable. Who the hell would I vote for? Those Libertarians would start to look better and better…
*Yes, I realize a multi-million dollar trial lawyer is not actually an “everyman.” But that’s the image he projected, and he did it well.
UPDATE: Welcome, InstaPundit readers! Glenn says: “[H]onestly, I think I’d vote for Edwards over Huckabee, though I’d feel dirty the next morning. And I’d be even more likely to vote for Hillary or Obama [over Huck].”
If the major candidates were Edwards, Huckabee, Bloomberg and Dobbs (or any 2 or 3 of the above), and Paul was running on the Libertarian line, I would seriously consider casting a protest vote for him.
Assuming, of course, that none of the Big Four can manage to convince me that I’m being too harsh in my present assessments of them. My mind is always open to change on these things. (I’m a flip-flopper!) But I’m not optimistic that any of those four could earn my vote.
The Ron Paul camp is having a fundraising day today, mostly on the internet. It’s noon, and they’ve already raised 2.5 million. That puts him at about 14 million for the fourth quarter. You can see an updated graph here:
Edwards’ rhetoric has been more populist; there’s no denying that. But unless I’ve missed something, nothing about his policy proposals has been dramatically different from Obama or Clinton. Also keep in mind that the nominees of both parties will inevitably move toward the center during the general election. And there’s more room to move to the center than there has been in a long time (more than in 2004… much more than in 2000.)
When I think of a Hucksterbee, Ambulance Chaser, Blowhardnannyberg and Loopylulu final four, I am comforted by the following remark attributed to Otto von Bismarck: “God has a special providence for fools, drunks, and the United States of America.” I don’t know if OVB really said this, but it is spot on. We survived Jimmy Carter at a time of increasing Soviet assertiveness. We will survive this.
I don’t know whether Bismarck said that, but I do know that Will Riker once said, “Fate. It protects fools, little children, and ships named Enterprise.”
Okay, not really relevant, but it’s what came to mind.
Admittedly, Aaron, I haven’t been paying a lot of attention to the policy proposals — or, frankly, to the race generally, at least not nearly as much as I usually would — as I’ve got a lot of other stuff going on in my life right now. :)
But… putting to one side my initial thought that “rhetoric matters, too”… what triggered this post was an article about Obama and Edwards trading barbs over health care, with Obama saying that the drug companies obviously need to be involved, with a seat at the table, in crafting any workable health-care reform (not so we can capitulate to them, but so we can negotiate with them, get their input, etc.), while Edwards is basically saying he intends to declare war on the drug companies and not include them at all in any sort of negotiations or discussions… which sounds nice in theory to those of us who are pissed off about the current health-care system, but is, it seems to me, a rather terrible idea in practice. Though maybe I’m wrong; if so, convince me. :) But anyway, perhaps that straddles the line between “rhetoric” and “policy proposal,” but it’s cause for concern, IMHO.
But like I said in my first comment, I’m certainly not rejecting any of the potential candidates out-of-hand (well… maybe Huckabee). I’ll keep my mind open, and they’ve got a chance to convince me. I’m just not optimistic.
Well it would certainly make me look long and hard for the better qualities of Huckabee!! And that’s because I’m not a complainer or whiner, but I am someone who can’t find ANYTHING good about Hillary/Obama/Edwards, with respect to the two most important purposes of the federal gov’t: let capitalism thrive (tax rates can’t be too high and they’re on the edge now), and protect the country from the Jihadist threat!
Pace Aaron, it’s not where candidates move in the election that matters, it’s where they go after they move into the White House. Barring a series of extremely unlikely events, the next president will be dealing with the Harry and Nancy show, which leaves plenty of room for government to the left of Clinton (Bill).
Doubly so given that none of the congressional GOPers have demonstrated Gingrich-like skills for rallying a serious opposition. The current stalemate rests almost solely on the shoulders of Bush’s veto authority. In this vein, I think both Clinton and Obama have a lot more reason to govern from the center than Edwards, since they will cast a long shadow solely by virtue of being the first _____ president in history.
Likewise, even though I’d much prefer Fred, Mitt, Rudy, or McCain, if we are going to get stuck with a donkey in the White House, I’d prefer it to be a black or female one so that we can chase that bat out of the belfry. If Hilary is elected I want her to travel to Saudi Arabia and tell the Secret Service “I’ll drive” after she lands, and if it’s Obama, I want to see him on the floor of the UN calling out Mugabe and the other sub-Saharan despots for the sons of @#$%*!! they are. It’s possible, even likely, that both would break my heart, and I’d still vote for any Republican over any of them (see congress, above), but with Edwards I don’t see _any_ upside.
We better all take this prediction that Edwards will win pretty seriously. I mean, Fox News has an impeccable record when it comes to political predictions.
William F. Buckley had a good column yesterday on Edwards’ populism, noting that it’s nothing new:
[T]here has usually been a presidential candidate out there who took the populist line, endeavoring to distinguish himself from the establishment, and inviting followers to join him in heterodoxy. He draws attention to the special fragrance that rises from the fetid pools of power — big business, big unions. However, his remedies usually rely on another of those pools: big government.
So this time it is John Edwards. It is perfectly fair to probe the populist’s background in judging his standing to speak. John Edwards devotes much time to his familiarity with the life of the American working man, though not quite as convincingly as, say, Henry Fonda in The Grapes of Wrath. And whatever historians end up classifying the young Edwards as having been, they will come upon hard facts that fix him financially at this historical point. This populist candidate lives in a 28,000-square-foot house, and he has paid $400 for a haircut. Before he entered politics, he was a trial lawyer — an extremely successful trial lawyer, in the practice of which profession he taught himself those endearing skills which he now employs in seeking the whole nation as his client.
Consider health care, with which Mr. Edwards is so clearly identified. He deplores the fact that so many lower-income citizens are not insured. But he has a simple remedy: decree universal health insurance. But who will pay for universal health insurance? Well…the big insurance companies can bear some of the burden. And for the rest? Why, let the government pay for it!
Lower-income citizens are victimized by predatory lenders. So, cap interest rates on credit cards and unsecured loans. Prohibit abuses in the mortgage market, including prepayment penalties, mandatory arbitration, balloon mortgages, and excessive fees. Encourage states to make low- or no-interest emergency loans to low-income families. Well, why not?
Energy and the environment? No liquid-coal experiments. Require oil companies to install biofuel pumps at 25-percent of their gas stations. Cap utilities’ profits on sales of electricity.
And so it goes, the whole latticework of a free economy brought under the control of the federal government.
Mr. Edwards is already declining in the polls. That is one up for the sophistication of the American voter.
don’t think I can live with Edwards, who has morphed from an optimistic, inspirational everyman* in 2004 (sort of a white Obama) into an angry populist anti-business crusader.
He was a little bit of a “populist anti-business crusader” in 2004, too, but added a lot of the angry this time around. It seems every other statement is about the eeeeeeevil corporations.
A Huckabee/Obama race would likely result in the media attempting to re-fight the Civil War. Couple that with next year being the 40th anniversary of the most important year in Baby Boomer history, 1968, and it gets really ugly. (Although really, the latter will apply no matter who is the nominee for either party.)
Wow, JD, to think that someone else might have gotten credit for that unforgettable comment–glad you straightened that out, the historians will sleep peacefully tonight ;-)
Huckabee’s theology isn’t even consistent and he’s a freaken’ preacher. On the one hand he said in one of the debates that the Bible shouldn’t be taken literally, yet in another debate he said that he doesn’t believe in evolution. What, pray tell, is holding up his argument against evolution if not Biblical literalism? Science? Based on his theology policy, I can only imagine how consistent his foreign policy will be.
You have to look at a candidate’s understanding of the situation the world has concerning global warming. We don’t have simply an election of a president, we have an election about the survival of all species on this planet.
“Nadine, you can’t possibly hope to be taken seriously when you link to a guy who makes silly comments like that.”
Yeah, Nadine. Don’t you know that the most important problem our civilization has ever faced is a guy on a kidney machine hiding in a cave? We’ll cancel the U.S. Constitution and mortgage our future to China and Saudi Arabia for that.
But the prospect of the entire human race being instinct in the not too distant future if we don’t act now? Why worry about that.
“But the prospect of the entire human race being instinct in the not too distant future if we don’t act now?”
Why is it that our intellectual betters praying at the temple of global warming (the latest in a long line of looming apocalyptic environmental catastrophes) seem to employ poor grammar, incorrect word usage, and generally obfuscatory syntax? It’s extinct, not instinct. One would think such failings should have been corrected at their elite private high schools, or at least during Freshman year at Princeton?
I’ll confess, I don’t know as much about the various proposed health care policies as I ought to. It’s not that I dislike wonky policy arguments in general; quite the opposite. It’s just that reading about health care policy is so incredibly boring. ;)
December 16th, 2007 at 11:48:49 am
… one nation under God, with liberty and justice: Ron Paul.
December 16th, 2007 at 11:53:31 am
If the major candidates were Edwards, Huckabee, Bloomberg and Dobbs (or any 2 or 3 of the above), and Paul was running on the Libertarian line, I would seriously consider casting a protest vote for him.
Assuming, of course, that none of the Big Four can manage to convince me that I’m being too harsh in my present assessments of them. My mind is always open to change on these things. (I’m a flip-flopper!) But I’m not optimistic that any of those four could earn my vote.
December 16th, 2007 at 11:54:29 am
Ron Paul has a bunch of avid supporters round these parts. I see his campaign signs whenever I go out.
December 16th, 2007 at 12:12:22 pm
The Ron Paul camp is having a fundraising day today, mostly on the internet. It’s noon, and they’ve already raised 2.5 million. That puts him at about 14 million for the fourth quarter. You can see an updated graph here:
http://www.ronpaulgraphs.com/dec_16_extended_total.html
Also, there’s a donation meter on his website:
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/
December 16th, 2007 at 12:37:02 pm
Edwards’ rhetoric has been more populist; there’s no denying that. But unless I’ve missed something, nothing about his policy proposals has been dramatically different from Obama or Clinton. Also keep in mind that the nominees of both parties will inevitably move toward the center during the general election. And there’s more room to move to the center than there has been in a long time (more than in 2004… much more than in 2000.)
December 16th, 2007 at 12:54:12 pm
When I think of a Hucksterbee, Ambulance Chaser, Blowhardnannyberg and Loopylulu final four, I am comforted by the following remark attributed to Otto von Bismarck: “God has a special providence for fools, drunks, and the United States of America.” I don’t know if OVB really said this, but it is spot on. We survived Jimmy Carter at a time of increasing Soviet assertiveness. We will survive this.
December 16th, 2007 at 12:58:04 pm
I don’t know whether Bismarck said that, but I do know that Will Riker once said, “Fate. It protects fools, little children, and ships named Enterprise.”
Okay, not really relevant, but it’s what came to mind.
December 16th, 2007 at 1:05:20 pm
Admittedly, Aaron, I haven’t been paying a lot of attention to the policy proposals — or, frankly, to the race generally, at least not nearly as much as I usually would — as I’ve got a lot of other stuff going on in my life right now. :)
But… putting to one side my initial thought that “rhetoric matters, too”… what triggered this post was an article about Obama and Edwards trading barbs over health care, with Obama saying that the drug companies obviously need to be involved, with a seat at the table, in crafting any workable health-care reform (not so we can capitulate to them, but so we can negotiate with them, get their input, etc.), while Edwards is basically saying he intends to declare war on the drug companies and not include them at all in any sort of negotiations or discussions… which sounds nice in theory to those of us who are pissed off about the current health-care system, but is, it seems to me, a rather terrible idea in practice. Though maybe I’m wrong; if so, convince me. :) But anyway, perhaps that straddles the line between “rhetoric” and “policy proposal,” but it’s cause for concern, IMHO.
But like I said in my first comment, I’m certainly not rejecting any of the potential candidates out-of-hand (well… maybe Huckabee). I’ll keep my mind open, and they’ve got a chance to convince me. I’m just not optimistic.
December 16th, 2007 at 1:08:34 pm
Well it would certainly make me look long and hard for the better qualities of Huckabee!! And that’s because I’m not a complainer or whiner, but I am someone who can’t find ANYTHING good about Hillary/Obama/Edwards, with respect to the two most important purposes of the federal gov’t: let capitalism thrive (tax rates can’t be too high and they’re on the edge now), and protect the country from the Jihadist threat!
December 16th, 2007 at 1:19:29 pm
Pace Aaron, it’s not where candidates move in the election that matters, it’s where they go after they move into the White House. Barring a series of extremely unlikely events, the next president will be dealing with the Harry and Nancy show, which leaves plenty of room for government to the left of Clinton (Bill).
Doubly so given that none of the congressional GOPers have demonstrated Gingrich-like skills for rallying a serious opposition. The current stalemate rests almost solely on the shoulders of Bush’s veto authority. In this vein, I think both Clinton and Obama have a lot more reason to govern from the center than Edwards, since they will cast a long shadow solely by virtue of being the first _____ president in history.
Likewise, even though I’d much prefer Fred, Mitt, Rudy, or McCain, if we are going to get stuck with a donkey in the White House, I’d prefer it to be a black or female one so that we can chase that bat out of the belfry. If Hilary is elected I want her to travel to Saudi Arabia and tell the Secret Service “I’ll drive” after she lands, and if it’s Obama, I want to see him on the floor of the UN calling out Mugabe and the other sub-Saharan despots for the sons of @#$%*!! they are. It’s possible, even likely, that both would break my heart, and I’d still vote for any Republican over any of them (see congress, above), but with Edwards I don’t see _any_ upside.
December 16th, 2007 at 2:56:36 pm
We better all take this prediction that Edwards will win pretty seriously. I mean, Fox News has an impeccable record when it comes to political predictions.
December 16th, 2007 at 2:57:46 pm
William F. Buckley had a good column yesterday on Edwards’ populism, noting that it’s nothing new:
Heh.
December 16th, 2007 at 3:19:22 pm
Huckabee is the Harriet Miers of the presidential candidates. Two words: under… qualified.
December 16th, 2007 at 3:50:04 pm
don’t think I can live with Edwards, who has morphed from an optimistic, inspirational everyman* in 2004 (sort of a white Obama) into an angry populist anti-business crusader.
He was a little bit of a “populist anti-business crusader” in 2004, too, but added a lot of the angry this time around. It seems every other statement is about the eeeeeeevil corporations.
A Huckabee/Obama race would likely result in the media attempting to re-fight the Civil War. Couple that with next year being the 40th anniversary of the most important year in Baby Boomer history, 1968, and it gets really ugly. (Although really, the latter will apply no matter who is the nominee for either party.)
December 16th, 2007 at 3:51:11 pm
That was me in the above comment. Safari 3 seems to have forgotten my name.
December 16th, 2007 at 5:00:48 pm
Wow, JD, to think that someone else might have gotten credit for that unforgettable comment–glad you straightened that out, the historians will sleep peacefully tonight ;-)
December 16th, 2007 at 5:09:52 pm
Apparently Mitt Romney does care about black people…
http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=14824
December 16th, 2007 at 5:22:29 pm
“Huckabee is the Harriet Miers of the presidential candidates. Two words: under… qualified.”
Herb, imagine how formidable he would be if he had the immense executive experience of Hillary, Obama, or Edwards.
Oh, yeah…
December 16th, 2007 at 5:30:15 pm
Mockmook,
Huckabee’s theology isn’t even consistent and he’s a freaken’ preacher. On the one hand he said in one of the debates that the Bible shouldn’t be taken literally, yet in another debate he said that he doesn’t believe in evolution. What, pray tell, is holding up his argument against evolution if not Biblical literalism? Science? Based on his theology policy, I can only imagine how consistent his foreign policy will be.
December 16th, 2007 at 7:43:31 pm
You have to look at a candidate’s understanding of the situation the world has concerning global warming. We don’t have simply an election of a president, we have an election about the survival of all species on this planet.
I would recommend reading this analysis:
http://www.skirsch.com/politics/president/comparison.htm
December 16th, 2007 at 8:09:01 pm
Global warming is the most important problem our civilization has ever faced.
Nadine, you can’t possibly hope to be taken seriously when you link to a guy who makes silly comments like that.
December 16th, 2007 at 9:13:15 pm
Nadine reminds me: there could be a fifth bad choice (or a 6th depending on how you count Ron Paul) — Nader. Perot could win yet.
December 16th, 2007 at 9:43:54 pm
“Nadine, you can’t possibly hope to be taken seriously when you link to a guy who makes silly comments like that.”
Yeah, Nadine. Don’t you know that the most important problem our civilization has ever faced is a guy on a kidney machine hiding in a cave? We’ll cancel the U.S. Constitution and mortgage our future to China and Saudi Arabia for that.
But the prospect of the entire human race being instinct in the not too distant future if we don’t act now? Why worry about that.
December 17th, 2007 at 11:05:07 am
“But the prospect of the entire human race being instinct in the not too distant future if we don’t act now?”
Why is it that our intellectual betters praying at the temple of global warming (the latest in a long line of looming apocalyptic environmental catastrophes) seem to employ poor grammar, incorrect word usage, and generally obfuscatory syntax? It’s extinct, not instinct. One would think such failings should have been corrected at their elite private high schools, or at least during Freshman year at Princeton?
December 17th, 2007 at 12:22:44 pm
Brendan,
I’ll confess, I don’t know as much about the various proposed health care policies as I ought to. It’s not that I dislike wonky policy arguments in general; quite the opposite. It’s just that reading about health care policy is so incredibly boring. ;)
December 17th, 2007 at 12:23:55 pm
Ummm… don’t know why I did that… That was me, obviously.