Tuesday, July 06, 2004
First thoughts on Edwards for VP
I have little to add to the widespread discussion of the selection of John Edwards for the Democratic nomination for Vice President. While I found myself liking him personally during the primary season -- he was the only one of the Democratic candidates that did not move me to change the channel -- I hate the idea of a contingency fee tort lawyer anywhere near the White House. It is as simple as that.
The rationale behind Kerry's selection, however, is interesting to consider. Kerry opened up any decision to attack by asking John McCain first, not once but apparently seven times. While one might variously interpret this as reflecting Kerry's strength (he had the confidence to reach across party lines) or weakness (he was so desperate he turned first to a pro-life Republican), there is no doubt that the Bush campaign is going to exploit this. See Jonah Goldberg:
Apart from what this says about the depth, or lack of depth, of the Democratic bench, the whole McCain flirtation turned out to be just another one of these exciting but unrealistic VP-selection moments. Remember when Reagan tried to get Gerald Ford to come on as his running mate, allegedly offering a "co-Presidency"?
In any case, John Edwards led the polls among Democrats, seems to balance the ticket (at least from the perspective of accent and geography), might deliver a red state or two, and is widely thought of as a "safe" choice. Maybe, but maybe not.
There is no question that John Edwards is a very talented speaker, and a skilled politician. But he hasn't really been pushed, not by the press and not by the Republicans. How will they attack him? Since Edwards has only a brief record as a politician, Republicans will come after him for his record as a tort lawyer.
Edwards the trial lawyer should offer at least two interesting opportunities for the Republicans. First, there will be a lot of bad "opposition research" that can be dredged up -- the tort system leaves lots of records, and bitter losers. All of them will have a story to tell about John Edwards. Second, and perhaps more significantly, the Republicans will now have an opportunity to attack the trial bar head on. If I were Bush, or the Republican Senate, I would introduce a series of populist initiatives aimed at reducing "frivolous" lawsuits, starting with a national "apology privilege," which would have tremendous appeal for professionals on the fence. It would be very hard for a Kerry/Edwards ticket to attack these initiatives without appearing self-interested, and it would throw the politics of tort reform into sharp relief, which is very much to the advantage of Republicans.
The rationale behind Kerry's selection, however, is interesting to consider. Kerry opened up any decision to attack by asking John McCain first, not once but apparently seven times. While one might variously interpret this as reflecting Kerry's strength (he had the confidence to reach across party lines) or weakness (he was so desperate he turned first to a pro-life Republican), there is no doubt that the Bush campaign is going to exploit this. See Jonah Goldberg:
Already the Bush campaign has released ads touting John McCain's support for Bush and reminding voters that Kerry almost desperately wooed McCain to be his running mate.
The Bush campaign is right on this point. There are only two criteria that would qualify John Edwards as the second pick to John McCain. The first is if Kerry had a peculiarly narcissistic desire to only consider veep candidates named "John." The second would be if Kerry only cares about winning. McCain is a war hero, pro-life, national-security Republican. John Edwards is an untested, one-term, trial-lawyer liberal Democrat.... As Kerry himself asked his staff, What makes John Edwards think he can be president?
Apart from what this says about the depth, or lack of depth, of the Democratic bench, the whole McCain flirtation turned out to be just another one of these exciting but unrealistic VP-selection moments. Remember when Reagan tried to get Gerald Ford to come on as his running mate, allegedly offering a "co-Presidency"?
In any case, John Edwards led the polls among Democrats, seems to balance the ticket (at least from the perspective of accent and geography), might deliver a red state or two, and is widely thought of as a "safe" choice. Maybe, but maybe not.
There is no question that John Edwards is a very talented speaker, and a skilled politician. But he hasn't really been pushed, not by the press and not by the Republicans. How will they attack him? Since Edwards has only a brief record as a politician, Republicans will come after him for his record as a tort lawyer.
Edwards the trial lawyer should offer at least two interesting opportunities for the Republicans. First, there will be a lot of bad "opposition research" that can be dredged up -- the tort system leaves lots of records, and bitter losers. All of them will have a story to tell about John Edwards. Second, and perhaps more significantly, the Republicans will now have an opportunity to attack the trial bar head on. If I were Bush, or the Republican Senate, I would introduce a series of populist initiatives aimed at reducing "frivolous" lawsuits, starting with a national "apology privilege," which would have tremendous appeal for professionals on the fence. It would be very hard for a Kerry/Edwards ticket to attack these initiatives without appearing self-interested, and it would throw the politics of tort reform into sharp relief, which is very much to the advantage of Republicans.
0 Comments:
