I shall be brief:
1. John Edwards is Clinton in '92 -- charismatic Southern, moderate, handsome, populist -- but without "bimbo eruptions." I'll be the last to say it: Edwards is the Democrat most likely to beat Bush. (But consider: Edwards is so good on his feet, anything less than total victory in a debate with Bush will be considered as "below expectations.")
2. Richard Cheney is Spiro Agnew. It's as much an image problem as anything else.* Take another look at his picture with Pope John Paul, for instance. Were this a Hollywood movie, would there be any doubt that Cheney is a "bad man"?
3. George Bush needs to mimic Ronald Reagan even more. For example, look again at how Bush enters a room to speak. Bush has the quick, bent forward stride of someone one step shy of a public-speaking phobia. Reagan, on the other hand, was completely at ease -- a natural. C'mon, George: you're the leader of the free world. Slow down.
*Though his latest proclamations on WMD in Iraq do suggest that it may be more than mere image.
I dunno maybe its just my childlike faith in authority but I trust Dick Cheney as my Vice President. When the alien gestating in his head tells me he is processin my family into rocket fuel for a good cause I believe him.
Posted by: fafnir | January 30, 2004 at 05:48 PM
You too, faf? I knew those damn pills were worthless. Should of stopped taking them sooner.
Posted by: RDB | January 30, 2004 at 06:03 PM
found cheney/PJP2 picture with crystal dove gift quite amusing. a crystal dove? really? what exactly are we trying to convey with that? GWB administration use of symbol and rhetoric is really quite brilliant/contemptible in its euphemistic/sensational design. I think it is this clever and persistent use of language and symbol that causes me to distrust the administration so much.
Soylent Green. It's people!
Posted by: bjurk | January 30, 2004 at 06:10 PM
Agreed, I like Richard Cheney as VP as well, because unlike his predecessor, I do not have to worry that he is really some sort of evil alien robot. ;)
Seriously, there is nothing lamer in the realm of political analysis than trying to draw parallels between current and previous political leaders. You can try and comparisons between any two political figures you chose and find something they have in common.
George W Bush is not Ronald Reagan, he does not appear to want to be Reagan, nor should he since every man should aspire to be his own man.
Edwards may be a sleazy, smarmy, and opportunistic piece of work but that does not make him Clinton. Maybe after a few more cheeseburgers and a little less plastic surgery . . .;)
Posted by: Thorley Winston | January 30, 2004 at 06:10 PM
I do not have to worry that he is really some sort of evil alien robot.
is that because you know it to be true? ;)
Posted by: bjurk | January 30, 2004 at 06:14 PM
Unfortunately, it is gonna be Kerry. The voters will have spoken, and the Dems will end up with the worst of all possible candidates. Walter Mondale without the charisma.
Posted by: bob mcmanus | January 30, 2004 at 06:14 PM
And Walter Mondale wasn't an out of touch northeastern liberal. At least he could point to Minnesota. Good luck with that fight.
Dean's committed the only sin I couldn't forgive him for. . wasting my money. It astounds me that he blew through 20 million dollars in two states and still claims to have a 50-state strategy. Mind-boggling.
So! I'll give Edwards some love. Easily the pick of the rest. Edwards/Dean wouldn't be shabby.
Posted by: sidereal | January 30, 2004 at 06:30 PM
Edwards is the one. Makes Bush look like the unfeeling, spoiled, inarticulate boob that he is.
Posted by: praktike | January 30, 2004 at 07:25 PM
Cheney's been at the middle of more than one admin. screw-up, he's a walking poster boy for the admin's bent toward arrogance and unnecessary secrecy, his devotion to the WMD myth is now a kind of D.C. joke, and I still think there's a 40-60 chance he'll step aside - 'health reasons' -- and let Giuliani, or someone like him, take over.
Which would be the first decent thing he ever did for his country.
Posted by: Harley | January 30, 2004 at 08:23 PM
It astounds me that he blew through 20 million dollars
Sidereal: 20 million? They say he blew through 40 million. Dunno.
Edwards is so good on his feet, anything less than total victory in a debate with Bush will be considered as "below expectations.
von, it seems to me that Edwards has been at his least impressive during the debates. Maybe he would do better if there were only two people, but he seems best in the loose format of a stump speech. When there are questions and answers, he seems to be less effective.
Praktike, have you completely given up on Clark? Just curious. I think I can see a way for him to get the nomination if he is willing to get aggressive; something he didn't show in the last debate. Admittedly, it's a long shot.
Posted by: poputonian | January 30, 2004 at 08:32 PM
Which would be the first decent thing he ever did for his country.
Isn't it irrelevant at this point, Harley? The repugs are going to be sent packing in November.
Posted by: poputonian | January 30, 2004 at 08:34 PM
"The repugs are going to be sent packing in November."
Republicans. This is not Democratic Underground or Free Republic; the name of the party that George W Bush belongs to is called the Republican Party and the name of the party that Howard Dean belongs to is called the Democratic Party. I am not mad at the lapse - but I would also much rather not have to update the Posting Rules to make this official.
Moe
Posted by: Moe Lane | January 30, 2004 at 09:54 PM
At this point, given W's domestic spending, I am prepared to listen to ANY reasonable Democrat. At least a Dem will get his n**s squeezed by a Republican Congress so that spending growth will be slowed ala the 1990's.
The reasonable part requires that the Dem in question treat the war on terror as a WAR, not a crime problem.
As much as I like W on foreign affairs? Somebody needs to hit him in the head with a hammer and explain that conservatism is more essential than compassion as far as government is concerned.
Posted by: spc67 | January 30, 2004 at 10:14 PM
Oh wow. I had no idea. I didn't see your posting rules, and I don't think I've even used the term repug before. In fact, at first I said repubs, but somehow thought that sounded too weak for the sentiment I was trying to express. So, if I have to police my thoughts in order to to conform to your not so free speech rules, I think I'll just stay away from here. I've never even been to Democratic Underground or Free Republic.
Posted by: poputonian | January 30, 2004 at 10:21 PM
"So, if I have to police my thoughts in order to to conform to your not so free speech rules, I think I'll just stay away from here."
I am sorry that you feel this way, but it's a very simple and straightforward rule. If you want to call George Bush a big weenie, fine: he doesn't read this weblog. I, however, do - and there are minimum standards for the kind of language used that might apply to other posters.
Posted by: Moe Lane | January 30, 2004 at 10:29 PM
Dangerous territory Moe, and a little on the sensitive side. Folks can intimate that the other side harbors traitors. They can snark and insult and do the ad hominem hora. But heaven forbid they should refuse to offer appropriate respect to...the Republican and Democratic parties??????
And he's not a big weenie. He's a super big weenie with saggy buns.
Posted by: Harley | January 30, 2004 at 10:42 PM
Moe,
Pupo's wrong about most things ;) but he's one of the good commentators over at Kevin Drum's and he'd be a good regular here.
"Repugs" pisses me off too, but it's only a venial sin. May I ask that you let it slide?
Posted by: spc67 | January 30, 2004 at 10:50 PM
Of course it's your blog, so if my view on this matter isn't welcome, my apologies.
Posted by: spc67 | January 30, 2004 at 10:51 PM
" but he's one of the good commentators over at Kevin Drum's and he'd be a good regular here."
I like his comments myself and I didn't consider it more than a minor issue; you'll note that I specifically said that I wasn't mad about this, and I'm still not, Harley's attempts to get my goat nonwithstanding*.
Moe
*Joke. And I have absolutely no interest in discussing further Bush's... stuff, sorry.
Posted by: Moe Lane | January 30, 2004 at 11:06 PM
Soylent Green. It's people!
Oh? Well, if you like Soylent Green, you'll love...
Soylent Clear! Clearly less people!
Posted by: Anarch | January 31, 2004 at 02:12 PM
Vaguely relevant:
So, if I have to police my thoughts in order to to conform to your not so free speech rules, I think I'll just stay away from here.
Dude, he's just asking that you curb some of the more excessive ranges of your speech; it's not like he's sending out jackbooted thugs to whack you over the head at the slightest infraction of his rigidly unbending diktat.
...you're not, right, Moe? I mean... ummm... Oceania's always been at war with that other place...
Posted by: Anarch | January 31, 2004 at 02:14 PM
"you're not, right, Moe?"
I dunno, Anarch: a guy's rigidly unbending diktat is kind of important to him, you know what I mean? :)
Moe
Posted by: Moe Lane | January 31, 2004 at 03:38 PM
"So, if I have to police my thoughts in order to to conform to your not so free speech rules, I think I'll just stay away from here."
This is an idiotic comment. Everyone should be able to tell the difference between "thought" and "speech."
And being asked to police one's speech to a stated minimum of respect and courtesy is the privilege of the owner of a site. There is no obligation to indulge people in their desire to spew anything from rudeness to hate. There's always another blog or website or, after all, Usenet.
And, on the point, nothing is gained by engaging in insults and word games, other than making one's inner child feel all Superior And Good. Which can be done in any number of places; it isn't necessary to go out online, or to a given blog, to accomplish that.
Posted by: Gary Farber | January 31, 2004 at 04:39 PM