Posted on 07/06/2004 8:37:51 AM PDT by tellw
Why Edwards Hurts Kerry: Hes weakest on issues that matter most.
For several months during the Democratic-primary season, the political chattering class swooned over Sen. John Edwards's "Two Americas" speech. But the speech which may have been the single most important factor in earning Edwards a spot on the Democratic ticket was carefully crafted to win the support of the Democratic core voters who dominate state primaries. Now, in a general election, the speech and the man who delivered it may come to be seen more as a good performance, and the work of an able politician, but an unsatisfactory answer to the problems facing America at this moment.
Perhaps the most notable thing about "Two Americas," at least as it delivered from Iowa to New Hampshire to South Carolina and beyond, was that it said nothing literally nothing about the issue of terrorism. Nor did the speech cover the war in Iraq, which Edwards voted to authorize. Nor, for that matter, did it discuss foreign affairs in general. In fact, the only mention of foreign issues in "Two Americas" was Edwards's promise to restore America's image in the world to "the image we used to have, America as the shining light on top of the hill, beacon of freedom, democracy, human rights."
A look at exit polls conducted after Democratic primaries shows just how little Edwards appealed to voters concerned about national security. In New Hampshire, for example, among voters who felt the war in Iraq was the major concern facing the United States, just three percent voted for Edwards, placing him barely ahead of fringe candidate Dennis Kucinich. Among those who felt that terrorism/national security was the top issue, just five percent voted for Edwards. The results were much the same in several other primary states.
Doubts about Edwards and national security were also suggested in another exit-poll question which asked voters which single candidate quality most influenced their vote. Of New Hampshire voters who answered that having the right experience was most important, just three percent chose Edwards, again placing him barely in front of Kucinich. Of voters who said they most valued a candidate who stands up for what he believes, just five percent chose Edwards. None of that bodes well for Democrats' efforts to cast Edwards as a credible commander in chief.
Party strategists will undoubtedly answer that in the general election it is the presidential candidate who really matters, and that in the area of national security, voters placed much more trust in John Kerry. That's true. But given that the war in Iraq, and to some extent the larger issue of national security, will likely dominate the fall campaign, it's also true that Kerry has chosen a running mate who is extraordinarily weak on those issues that matter most
He probably has a very good plan for dealing with terrorism: He will simply sue them. Hit al Quaida where it hurts them the most, in their wallets. Everyone knows that the fear of lawsuits is paralyzing in itself, so the fear of being sued will certainly get the terrorists to get honest jobs and stop trying to blow everything up.
He just after his 30 percent, afterall...
Let the Democrats play the economic populism card all they want. This is 2004, not 1932. More and more Americans are realizing that economic policies that benefit investors and stock holders benefit them because through their 401k's, IRA's and pension plans, they are investors and stock holders.
You're comments reflect my opinion to the 't'. If he's even a factor in people's voting decision then men won't vote for him because he's a shyster lawyer and he's cute and women will vote for him because he's cute.
York is wrong. First, Kerry is the nominee. Edwards will repeat Kerry rhetoric not the other way around. Second, VP only help at the margins. In this case, Kerry thinks it might help secure his base of single women (millions of which didn't vote in 2000) and steal some married women votes from Bush.
"...if you read the court transcripts of his arguments you get the impression that you're dealing with a loony-tune."
Looney-tune or not, did he win the case? Underestimating a foe - thinking he's looney tune' is a great way to end up a loser.
I would suppose those concerned about protectionism/outsourcing as their primary voting issue have made up their minds. Those opposing outsourcing/free trade will vote against Bush, so why expend energy on an automatic win?
Outsourcing elicits a very personal political view when it directly affects someone. Part of that political view is the supposition that the issue should be at the forefront of the presidential debate. Unfortunately for those people, I do not believe it will get a big role in the campaign.
Besides, no one votes for a presidential ticket based the running mate. Kerry is still a screaming Massachusetts liberal. He can't change that.
And on this, Edwards merely has to handle the single VP debate to not hurt the ticket on national security. Voters won't decide on Edwards' strength on national security until then. It doesn't matter what the issue, in a re-election year, voting is a two-step process: do I like the current guy's policy; if not, is the other guy's okay. So, if voters are even considering Kerry-Edwards, they've already got them half-way where they want them. Kerry-Edwards will run untited on the notion that everything wrong with Bush's policies on national security can be fixed with being more friendly toward our allies in Europe, and less like a shoot-first cowboy. That utopian garbage will sell with plenty of voters.
Hope to see them posted online soon.
I totally agree with you. Its the one winning issue they have and since their primaries some months ago, I can't figure out why they are not attacking from that angle. My only guess is that both Kerry and Edwards must have personal wealth or their donors have business ties to outsourcing projects. For the life of me I can't understand. Instead they are focusing on issues they lose hands down.
Being from the south and being a southerner are two different things. Even NC would be more of a border state. I think Edwards was basically to add some "spice" to the ticket. However, I may be wrong. I do suspect CBS or NBC will have a poll by end of day Wednesday showing a big bump for Kerry overall, and that they are now leading in NC and possibly some other states.
Question?? Which southern states does this put in play?
Question for both of you: are you against outsourcing, and if so, will you vote for Kerry if he opposes it?
It would be wise to paint smilin' edwards as the same as smilin' jimmy carter.
true, those in miami FL are not "the south".
Keep in mind, though, that in a courtroom he is not dealing with your average person . . . he's dealing with twelve jurors who have been selected from a large pool of "average people" -- and the lawyers themselves were part of the selection process that reduced the pool from 100 or so down to 12.
You'd probably find that a typical "summation" or "closing argument" is aimed at someone with an eighth-grade education and an IQ of 85.
Turn the tables on the dems' quips from 88 thru 92 and put it into a sound bite for your dem-leaning friends:
"Wow, the Democrats were so critical of Dan Quayle and now they've got a VP candidate with LESS experience in elected office than him. Guess Kerry flip-flopped on that one too."
"Which southern states does this put in play?"
Those that wee already closer than expected - Virginia, for one. There are also a couple of the 'battleground' states where Edwards could make a difference; WV, MO, OH, PA, WI.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.