The direct answer to the question in the headling is Yes.

The market research on the matter has been done for about six weeks.

Posted by: Don at July 21, 2004 12:14 PM

Edwards says: “I’ve grown up in the bright light of America.”

That bright light is brought to you by capitalism.

Edwards says: “That’s the truth,”

So, will you say, “That’s a lie I just told” when you’re lying??

***says the self-described son of a textile mill worker.***

Always some hard luck story to try to bring ligitimacy to a wealthy liberal fruitcake.

Edwards says: “And I want to make sure others get that same chance.”

Then why do you seek a liberal socialist society for them? What we need is more trial lawyers.

zzzzzzzzzz

Posted by: No Party at July 21, 2004 12:29 PM

Quite the puff piece.

Makes me wonder if the girls at AFP were sitting around playing ‘truth or dare” at a sleepover as they discussed how cute he is.

Posted by: DWC at July 21, 2004 01:16 PM

The issue is KERRY, Not ” Fly weight John”

The Accomplishments of John Kerry

He voted to kill the Bradley Fighting Vehicle.

He voted to kill the M-1 Abrams Tank.

He voted to kill every Aircraft carrier laid down from 1988.

He voted to kill the Aegis anti aircraft system.

He voted to Kill the F-15 strike eagle.

He voted to Kill the Block 60 F-16.

He voted to Kill the P-3 Orion upgrade.

He voted to Kill the B-1.

He voted to Kill the B-2.

He voted to Kill the Patriot anti Missile system.

He voted to Kill the FA-18.

He voted to Kill the B-2.

He voted to Kill the F 117.

In short, he has voted to kill every military appropriation for the development and deployment of every weapons systems since 1988 to include the battle armor for our troops.

With Kerry as president our Army will be made up of naked men running around with sticks and clubs.

He also voted to kill all anti terrorism activities of every agency of the U.S. Government and to cut the funding of the FBI by 60%, to cut the funding for the CIA by 80%, and cut the funding for the NSA by 80%.

But then he voted to increase OUR funding for UN operations by 800%!!!

Is THIS a President YOU want?

John Kerry actually did each of these things.
His voting record on these issues can be easily verified by checking the congressional voting record which list all votes on all issues brought forth.

No one can deny his or her voting record as it is a matter of public record. I am horrified that this person believes that he should be allowed to be President of this Nation.

Posted by: leaddog2 at July 21, 2004 02:44 PM

Yes, LD2 — Kerry is not going to get Your vote? Nor is he going to get votes from any of those who have so vehemently railed against him hereon.

The question was, would Edwards bring the D’s votes? And the answer is a decided Yes — he will.

The market research has been finalized long since. It has been sorted to region and demographic characteristics. Doubtless your demographic cohort is not included on the positive side.

If it had not been positive, he wouldn’t have been picked as the VP candidate.

Now — to whom are you preaching here?

Posted by: Don at July 21, 2004 03:39 PM

Don’s comment illustrates the critical difference between the types of candidates he seems to support and the people currently getting the job done.

Bush picked Cheney because he was the best man for the job. Kerry picked Edwards, according to Don, because the Market research indicated that this would be a good choice.

never mind such mundane concepts as ethics, views, abilities or experience, if a guy does well in the market research that’s all that matters to Don et al.

And the people that would vote for Kerry solely because he picked Edwards as VP need a serious dose of Don’s patented REALITY, but I doubt they’ll get it.

So there you have it. Edwards is the man, not because he’d be capable of the presidency, not because he brings specific abilities or experience to the ticket, but because market research said that the democrats would somehow gain votes simply by chosing him as VP candidate.

Yup Don, there’s a flag to rally ‘round.

Posted by: skip at July 21, 2004 04:03 PM

Ah Skip — how soon you forget!

• Cheney was picked because he would add some Gravitas to the ticket, and lend Dubya some credibility. The market research was done on him as well — he nailed down votes with the GOP base. Still does — which is given as the main reason why he isn’t invited to develop a Health Problem and “voluntarily” take himself off the ticket. Both parties do Precisely the same thing in this respect.

• Historically, any VP potential that does Not Get Votes is Not Picked. Hence the fate of Gephardt, for example — a supposed “pick” that the folks hereon were salivating over, right up until it didn’t actually happen. Had y’all been aware of the market research, youd’ve known why he wouldn’t be picked.

• People vote for all sorts of different reasons. There is a tendency, for example, for the tallest candidate to win. Nope — don’t know why that is. No one really does. But the correlation is there. What is Entirely Clear is that the reasons folks give for voting as they do is largely idiosynctatic, though the regression models in the market research indicate that the largest single indicator is how their parents voted. But for certain, there is No requirement out there that other folks’ reasons conform either to yours or to what you think their should be. Which is, at the core, the Genius of American Politics. No one is required to be in lockstep with anyone else, across the board.

Whining that Edwards was chosen because he’d Get Some Votes seems rather odd. Cheney was chosen for that reason. So was Al Gore, so was Daddy Dubya, Mondale, etc. The only one in memory Not chosen for that reason was Spiro Agnew — and he was chosen to provide a distinction between him and RMN, so that in the comparison, RMN would look somehow More Human than otherwise. And to be an Attack Dog on the campaign trail — a function he undertook with gusto and considerable skill.

Which reminds me of your above discussion on Ethics, inter alia. Spiro was Known to be corrupt before he was picked, but the fact was glossed over at the time. Apparently the consideration doesn’t cover all such instances, does it?

Posted by: Don at July 21, 2004 04:21 PM

Leaddog2, you have left one very important one out of your list. He therefore voted to ‘kill the troops’. He’s been working on that since he sided up with the enemy in Viet Nam.

By the way, where’s Kerry’s drunk gay buddy, Ted? Haven’t seen him in awhile. Must have figured it doesn’t look good to hang out with murderers.

Posted by: No Party at July 21, 2004 04:25 PM

Nonsense Don, Cheney was the choice because of his ability to govern. If he brought votes so much the better.

After all those years of a president that selected his vacation plans based on market research we’ve just seen too much.

Time for some principles Don, something other than how a given idea tests out with market research guys.

One thing I admire about our current leadership is their courage to do what’s right even though it might not “play” well with certain demographic cells.

Clinton would have had a focus group before going to war and he’d only go if he felt it would help him politically, not because it was the best thing for America.

Look at the statement Ashcroft made about the 9/11 crapola. He’s really clear: doing what needs to be done means taking heat from people like you Don, but he does it anyway. And why? Because its the right thing to do.

Here’s another tack. Cheney was picked because he was the best for the job. was market research done? Perhaps, but the selection was based on somethings OTHER than the research. You are saying that Edwards was picked BECAUSE of the research. Do you see the subtle but important distinction?

So Kerry made a cold calculation based on what’s best for his election and I guess he’ll worry about governing after he recovers from the inauguration party, right?

Posted by: skip at July 21, 2004 04:40 PM

Skip,

I agree with you except that I DO NOT believe that the American people are stupid enough to elect John Kerry.

They are NOT IDIOTS, unlike our resident Trolls.

Posted by: leaddog2 at July 21, 2004 04:55 PM

Edwards is every bit as qualified to be President now as Dubya was four years ago or Bill Clinton was in 1992. He is twice as smart as Dubya and, unlike him, does not consider the rich and the richer to be his “base.”

Posted by: rdelephant at July 21, 2004 06:25 PM

Skip: With all due respect, you are not a campaign professional. Cheney was picked Primarily because he nailed down the GOP base vote. Had the market research indicated he would not have done so, he wouldn’t have been picked.

That was the point of the Gravitas discussion at the time — the fear that Dubya was seen as far too much of a lightweight to be president all on his own. The fear was that the GOP base wouldn’t have supported him had there not been someone else to keep their allegiance in good order.

Now, it was spun into something else instead — as would reasonably be expected. And your memory, being selective and all, would reflect that at this point in your campaign. Hero Worship becomes you. You are supposed to react in Precisely that fashion.

But what actually did happen was that all of the GOP vice presidential candidates were carefully vetted, focus-grouped and polled. That’s How It’s Done these days.

That you are unaware of it only indicates how skillfully it’s done.

That I amd willing to tell you that Edwards had the same treatment (as did the other D candidate potentials) merely indicates that I don’t find the practice particularly troublesome — regardless of what party it comes from.

Posted by: Don at July 21, 2004 08:51 PM

So Don,

are you saying that Donald Rumsfeld, Condi Rice, Ann Veneman and yes, Colin Powell, were selected merely for their political prowess? Or were they the best for the job. Dick Cheney brought knowledge of the inner workings of Washington, as well as real political clout to the ticket. He and Rumsfeld together would make a formidable adversary for anyone. Edwards brings nowhere near the political weight or knowledge that either of these two would. Face it, it’s a fluff ticket all the way around.

So yes, Cheney secured the base and brought votes, but he was also imminently qualified, as was the rest of Bush’s Cabinet. Can you say that for Kerry’s picks so far? What exactly could Edwards get done in Washington? Where’s his pull?

Chads

Posted by: Chads at July 21, 2004 10:18 PM

Chads: Nope — vote getting wasn’t Ever an issue for the cabinet members. They didn’t actually Run for anything. In fact, they weren’t selected until well After the presidency was decided.

It was not that way for Cheney, and he was appropriately researched to ensure that he could get some votes. It was especially important to add Gravitas to the ticket, for fear that Dubya would be seen as a lightweight. I repeat, for edification purposes — had he Not shown that basic ability, he wouldn’t have been picked in the first place.

Kerry doesn’t face the same problem.

Edwards, therefore, doesn’t need to add Gravitas — he merely needs to get some votes. I can assure you — it’s been thoroughly researched, and he can indeed do that.

Which is kindasorta what the question that headlines the instant topic discusses, if you read it.

The term you seek is Emminently Qualified — which is a judgement call on its face. But if you wish to assert that Cheney was arguably More qualified to be President than was Dubya, I won’t argue the point with you.

Edwards will bring Votes to the Kerry-Edwards ticket. That characteristic is the sine qua non of all Vice Presidential picks in the modern era — with the possible exception of Spiro Agnew. He will, as all Vice Presidents eventually do, fulfill his Constitutional functions without any problem.

I remind you that the complaint you are making about Edwards reads the same as the complaint the Rs gave about HST. He worked out Just Fine.

Your rant is, alas, content-free. But that’s OK — no one who really is open for persuasion is ever going to see it regardless. This contest is between Dubya and Kerry — not Cheney and Edwards. Keep the important stuff in focus here.

Posted by: Don at July 21, 2004 10:32 PM

Don wishes either one of the dem candidates had the ‘gravitas’ of Harry S Truman. Face it, Don, Harry would kick both their asses before breakfast.

The problem today is the democratic party is less interested in electing a leader than they are in electing Prom King.

This pair have all the gravitas of 21-day old Rice Krispie Treats left out in the sun.

Posted by: torpedo_eight at July 21, 2004 11:27 PM

T8: I remain focused on the question asked above.

Whatever the rest of you folks are doing seems far afield.

Posted by: Don at July 21, 2004 11:32 PM