Posted on 09/17/2004 8:54:26 PM PDT by Tribemike
Rush spent quite a bit of time on Thursday marvelling at just how ineffective the insipid and innocuous John Edwards has been. The Democrats have pulled him off the road - not drawing crowds and a liability during the National Guard/Medals debate.
Democrats could pull a Tom Eagleton and ask Edwards to step down from the ticket. In a Sargent Shriver moment, Kerry could ask Hillary to join. Since no one would expect them to win, it wouldn't be a liability to her and she would gain experience in running for national office and then be the 4 - year candidate for the next election.
Scary thought huh? Edwards is SOOOOO bad. He's a pipsqueak, Dan Quayle WITHOUT the gravitas (as Rush put it).....
You kiddin'? He'd sue the pants off the DNC.
Let's review. The candidate's running mate is off the road because he's an apparent embarassment to the campaign. The candidate's wife now operates separately from the main caravan because she, too, is an embarassment to the campaign. The candidate himself must also be considered an embarassment, since he's been getting booed on the road himself, most recently at the National Guard appearance. The campaign staff is an embarassment to the campaign as proven by the fact that they have had to shuffle people around, bring in new people, formulate what passes for a new campaign strategy, one that also includes no platform specifics but plenty of cheap shots at the President through surrogates like Dan Rather and CBS. As far as I can see, the only one who isn't an embarassment to the campaign is the janitor at campaign headquarters.
It's so funny that Edwards is being so heavily criticized. Back when he won his election, lots of high powered players in the DemocRAT party were saying he would be a formidable candidate for President.
All the more reason to put him on stage against Dick Cheney, hehehe;)
Looks like a bust all around.
If the RATS try this strategy of dumping Edwards for Hillary, you know it won't happen until after the VP debate. They wouldn't want to see her get bloodied so badly by Cheney.
According to Edwards, he's already adept at channeling communications from dead little girls. With a little coaching from Hillary and her close friend Eleanor Roosevelt, he could probably learn to consult FDR about how to campaign. FDR liked kids, so kerry can break the ice by introducing the dead girl to Franklin. That's probably Edwards' best shot at this point.
But Kerry IS pretty good at snowboarding and windsurfing. He has had lots of practice because he hasn't had to work for the past 20+ years.
It's too late.
Eagleton was replaced before certain deadlines passed
(the ones aligned with the last day of RNC2004).
Even so, it was apparently not trivial to get Eagleton
off all the ballots.
The DNC would be looking at trying to pull off 50 very
different Toricelli-Lautenberg maneuvers, with only NJ
having a reliably corrupt legal system to assure it.
If they're gonna replace Edwards, they might as well
deal with the REAL problem: Kerry. Replacing him would
at least get the Swifties out of the picture. But that
is also too late.
Kerry is the Designated Loser that the Clintons either
groomed for the spot, or merely allowed to float to the
top. He needs to walk to the gallows with as much
dignity as his deficient acting skills permit.
And given that the Clinton Sabotage Theory requires a
Dem loss this year, Edwards doesn't need replacing.
Exactly. It must have been a slow news day for Rush. I do, however, believe that the Clintonistas are working behind the scenes to insure a Kerry defeat.
Lol! Great analysis. However, I believe you left out the greatest embarassment: the American Democrat voter who allowed someone like these clowns a place on the ballot. They almost make Jimmy Carter look competent.
But his being bumped off the ticket showed what hypocrites the RATS are.
"Hell...he was better people than that bastard Agnew."
"But his being bumped off the ticket showed what hypocrites the RATS are."
You are so right it's scary!
I was 11 years old watching the 72 democratic convention. I remember I was fascinated by the parade of freaks and losers (antiwar protesters, The Gay Raiders, The Grey Raiders...to name a few). But even then the Democrats were not as bad as they are now. McGovern was, and is, though liberal a damn fine man and there were a lot more moderate democrats in the party then than there are now. But even then they threw poor old Eagleton to the wolves without a second glance. Pathetic.
Careful Keith Olberman might discover your true identity.
The most bizarre thing I remember from watching that convention was fractional voting. How could there be tenths of a vote?
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.