Obama Camp: John Edwards will be my AG

Ron P. Reagan

Chieftain
Joined
Jan 15, 2008
Messages
81
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/01/26/obama_backers_drop_hints_about_edwards.html

"Illinois Democrats close to Sen. Barack Obama are quietly passing the word that John Edwards will be named attorney general in an Obama administration," according to Robert Novak.

The appointment of Edwards "would please not only the union leaders supporting him for president but organized labor in general. The unions relish the prospect of an unequivocal labor partisan as the nation's top legal officer."

"In public debates, Obama and Edwards often seem to bond together in alliance against front-running Sen. Hillary Clinton. While running a poor third, Edwards could collect a substantial bag of delegates under the Democratic Party's proportional representation. Edwards then could try to turn his delegates over to Obama in the still unlikely event of a deadlocked Democratic National Convention."

What do you guys think about that? I don't like it at all.
 

Symphony D.

Deity
Joined
Apr 27, 2003
Messages
8,991
Location
ALNITAHIA FOREVER
Blame Kerry? He's the one who started the modern trend of giving an opponent a position in their Administration. And it's what Edwards is jockeying for now.
 

Symphony D.

Deity
Joined
Apr 27, 2003
Messages
8,991
Location
ALNITAHIA FOREVER
Not in the past two decades or so. Bush certainly didn't give McCain anything, Bill didn't give any of his contenders anything, Bush Sr. gave Jack Kemp all of Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. That takes us back to 1988. So for the past 20 years, other than Kerry-Edwards, there has been a single, extremely minor incidence of this occurring. Whatever happened before is more or less irrelevant given how the political landscape changes dramatically every generation or so, and I maintain that despite the Republicans' penchant for invoking Reagan, since they aren't the ones appointing foes now (yet). Bush-Reagan was 28 years ago--or, to put it another way, before everyone alive today under 28 was born. I would deem that to be fairly old history, frankly, as far as American politics goes.

In recent American politics, giving a defeated opponent a position in your Administration is virtually unheard of. Edwards' gamut is a direct result of John Kerry's decision--it was a bad precedent to (re)set, and it's part of why what's happening is happening.
 

bhsup

Deity
Joined
Jan 1, 2004
Messages
30,387
Reagan gave Bush the Vice-Presidency in 1980

I had to repeat that. You said "modern" previously. I'm only 39 years old, so please don't relegate things that I can actually remember to being before the modern era. Thank you. :) It is depressing enough when I hear 70s rock bands who had hits when I was a kid being played on the oldies station.
 

Symphony D.

Deity
Joined
Apr 27, 2003
Messages
8,991
Location
ALNITAHIA FOREVER
I had to repeat that. You said "modern" previously. I'm only 39 years old, so please don't relegate things that I can actually remember to being before the modern era. Thank you. :) It is depressing enough when I hear 70s rock bands who had hits when I was a kid being played on the oldies station.
I read what you said. I mentioned it. I say it doesn't matter. I continue to maintain it doesn't matter. :p Congress has seen no less than three major shifts in that time period, and an interval of almost three decades has passed since it occurred. There have been four Presidents serving seven terms since then, including Reagan himself. An entire new generation of voters has appeared. The structure of the parties and their agendas have been altered comparatively drastically, as have their tactics and strategies. There is even now debate among the talking heads as to whether the Republican Party of Reagan's time is dead and gone.

The example is sufficiently removed from the current political reality as to be as relevant as what Lincoln did, or the fact that Thomas Jefferson was John Adams' VP despite being in the opposite party. If that makes you feel old, I'm sorry, but I don't see how it has a bearing on decisions made in today's political climate when it was as far back as the Iran Hostage Crisis. I don't think you'd be arguing that continues to significantly affect American relations with Iran today as regards policy.

Jimmy Carter also had Walter Mondale as VP. The trend of a Presidential candidate picking an opposing candidate for a significant position ended with George H.W. Bush in 1988. It was not revived until 2004 by John Kerry. I think that gap is demonstrative of a disconnect in the policy of doing that and only a recent resurgence in it. That resurgence is a direct result, then, of John Kerry. I further think this is evidenced by the fact that the man who angled for that--John Edwards--is the only known one doing it in both recent incidences of 2004 and 2008.
 

bhsup

Deity
Joined
Jan 1, 2004
Messages
30,387
Then don't say "modern" next time. Say "current" instead, or something else. But to try to suggest that 1980 isn't a part of the modern era is just downright silly.
 

Godwynn

March to the Sea
Joined
May 17, 2003
Messages
20,502
I like Edwards, his passion and his charisma. I think he would be a great pick for AG.
 

Symphony D.

Deity
Joined
Apr 27, 2003
Messages
8,991
Location
ALNITAHIA FOREVER
Modern as a word does not necessarily imply the modern era. English words are versatile things, you know. ;)

I could also argue what I think to be a fairly strong case that the monopolar event of the collapse of the Soviet Union divides the Cold War from a narrow definition of the "modern" era, as it was a distinctly different era from that in which we are now living, but that's beyond the point.

Still, I say you can blame the most recent trend on Kerry, or, for pressing the matter again, Edwards himself. Regardless, he's deliberately trying to play "Kingmaker" since he has no realistic chance of winning... no doubt to try again in 2012 or 2016...
 

EnlightenmentHK

Emperor
Joined
May 28, 2007
Messages
1,479
Could you imagine a possible AG that would be more antagonistic to the interests of business?

Considering businesses are generally the ones in desperate need of oversight, I hardly see how that's a bad thing. Better than the 'give them the keys to the bank vault and act stupid when stuff goes missing' approach this Administration has taken.
 

bhsup

Deity
Joined
Jan 1, 2004
Messages
30,387
Businesses fund this country, EHK. They hire workers, make products, and so forth and so on. The less restrictions the better, within reason.
 

JollyRoger

Slippin' Jimmy
Supporter
Joined
Oct 14, 2001
Messages
43,565
Location
Chicago Sunroofing
Edwards as AG would be perfect. Kind of a balance to the corporist giveaways currently going on at the Supreme Court.
 

EnlightenmentHK

Emperor
Joined
May 28, 2007
Messages
1,479
Businesses fund this country, EHK. They hire workers, make products, and so forth and so on. The less restrictions the better, within reason.

Sure they do. And if not watched closely, they'd rape the country blind than ask for handouts. And no, not the less restrictions the better. Less restrictions was tried once. It led to industry wide monopolies and moguls who could destabilize entire global economies on whims of fancy or a bit of insider trading. Less gave us Enron. The current debacle with cronyism/war-profiteering in Iraq. Corporate frauds on an unimaginable scale.

And from the workers end of the bargain, it gave us longer days with less pay. Crap quality control standards, leading to defective and sometimes dangerous products from meat to cars. Dangerous workplaces. Child labor.

'within reason' means something completely different to just about every person you ask. And the best intentioned, most skillfully written legislation in the world is useless if the enforcers of those regulations are in bed with the companies they're supposed to police. Bush tried that 'hand in hand with big business' crap and we're still searching for untold billions of dollars lost in sweetheart, no-bid contracts. I'll pass.
 

bhsup

Deity
Joined
Jan 1, 2004
Messages
30,387
Yeah, but it goes too far. I mean come on, 40 hour work week, and anything over that OT? "Whaaa, whaaa, I worked 42 hours and it's sooooo hard on me, so I deserve more pay for those last two hours!". And it is even worse in Europe. Cry me a river, things are easy enough as it is for workers.
 

Godwynn

March to the Sea
Joined
May 17, 2003
Messages
20,502
Yeah, but it goes too far. I mean come on, 40 hour work week, and anything over that OT? "Whaaa, whaaa, I worked 42 hours and it's sooooo hard on me, so I deserve more pay for those last two hours!". And it is even worse in Europe. Cry me a river, things are easy enough as it is for workers.

You sound bitter. A recent bad experience with an employee?
 

bhsup

Deity
Joined
Jan 1, 2004
Messages
30,387
Nope. We don't hire anyone because it is such a PITA. Just me and my sis everyday, all day, every week, all year.
 
Top Bottom