Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

WHY aren't democrats talking about the do-nothing job of Texas Governor

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Bombtrack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-07-04 05:43 PM
Original message
WHY aren't democrats talking about the do-nothing job of Texas Governor
being demonsterably inferior a preparation for president+Commander in chief in modern times than 6 years on the US senate intelligence committee and six years in Washington in general?

Hello? Edwards is better qualified to be commander in chief than Bush was and that is so obvious? Instead people are at best saying he's as qualified as Bush was. How many times did Bush visit NATO leaders before he became president? How many times did he visit the middle east?



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Worst Username Ever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-07-04 05:46 PM
Response to Original message
1. We have stellar candidates that
won't stoop to George's level until absolutely necessary. Hasn't been needed yet... it has been George v. George lately, and George is losing. Why get in the way of that? Rest assured, when it DOES come to that, these two dems will have the gloves off. Bush is GREAT at losing the moral high-ground, as we've seen (how is he going to trash them for running a negative campaign when that is all he is doing?)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
keta11 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-07-04 05:47 PM
Response to Original message
2. I like this line - George Bush's only
foreign policy experience before the White House was - watching the Texas Rangers play the Toronto Blue Jays.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zbdent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-07-04 06:39 PM
Response to Reply #2
8. I thought it was crossing the border for some
Mexican poontang.

Oh, and wasn't there a very brief trip to the China or something, for some "mellow yellow"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
library_max Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-07-04 07:22 PM
Response to Reply #2
10. It would have been a good line in 2000.
It's irrelevant now. He's the incumbent. We can't make "unqualified" stick to him any more. That's just preaching to the choir.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JayS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-07-04 05:47 PM
Response to Original message
3. For the non-Texans, keep in mind that the Governorship of...
...Texas is in large part a figurehead role. That is putting it a little strongly but it is the Lieutenant Governor that has much of the power. This is an artifact of Reconstruction that we just never got around to fixing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
booksenkatz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-07-04 05:53 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Exactly, JayS
Even my beloved Ann Richards readily admits that the legislature and Lite Gov are much more powerful in Texas than in many other states. The governorship is part-time and ceremonial in many respects.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
library_max Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-07-04 07:25 PM
Response to Reply #3
11. I dunno, Jay.
I used to think so too, but Perry is throwing an awful lot of weight around lately - cutting education budgets, redistricting, persecuting the Comptroller, etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beaker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-07-04 05:58 PM
Response to Original message
5. the LAST election was the time to make an issue out of this-
and some of us tried.

at this point, the governorship portion of his resume is moot, since he's logged 4 years as POTUS.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kwolf68 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-07-04 06:13 PM
Response to Original message
6. Easy answer


Because the debate centers on the Democrats. Dems are always having to explain or defend themselves.

Kerry had to explain his service in Vietnam and with the exception of sites like this one, very little mention of Bush's time during Vietnam.

If we are always on the defensive, then our ideals and our vision get muddle. That is why Edwards is so important. He has a laser focus on what he wants to say. Being a successful lawyer, he has to remained disciplined at all times.

I feel good about our team and feel good about the election. And that is saying a lot, because I am apathetic as shit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zen Democrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-07-04 06:32 PM
Response to Original message
7. I've heard that several times on CNN today already ...
I was shocked to hear Edwards defended so vigorously -- that Bush had the same amount of time as governor as Edwards has had as a senator and that Edwards had better preparation in foreign affairs as a senator. And .. it was mentioned (by Lou Dobb, I think) that Edwards will be an "understudy" not Commander in Chief, and his time in the Senate shouldn't be a factor.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
carpetbagger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-07-04 06:42 PM
Response to Original message
9. Politicians who win elections set their own agenda.
The discussion of Edwards' relative inexperience is yet another little piece of electoral flamebait. If our candidates play it, they keep kicking the ball. Then from now until November, Bush chooses the subjects and the tenor of the campaign to maximal effect (see Dukakis, Michael).

If you just leave them alone except to occasionally point out how sad their campaign has become, they will implode. The last time we won back the White House, their attacks got increasingly bizarre and irrelevent (see Clown, Bozo and Man, Ozone).

We've got better things to talk about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
katieforeman Donating Member (785 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-07-04 07:31 PM
Response to Original message
12. Bush couldn't name the leader of Pakistan
when he was running. Edwards' has met the leader of Pakistan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 04:39 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC