Are you sure you’re not thinking of Teresa Heinz-Kerry?
The Republicans had such success with St. Ronald that they are slavering for another actor who looks and acts the part of president. Presto, Fred Thompson.
He is too valuable for Law and Order to lose. Keep him there.
PS, I pay no attention to Candians’ opinions on US presidential elections and those who denigrate Edwards on this thread wouldn’t vote for a Democrat under any circumstances. Their rejection of Edwars is therefore entirely predictable and automatic.
I don’t want to hijack this thread or anything, but does anyone know how either of these guys stands on the issues? I’ll probably vote for whoever I think is the least phony, but it would be kind of interesting to see if either of them has positions on policy matters that align with my own ideas.
:smack:
Yep. I’m an idiot. But I blame John Edwards. He’s so bland I confuse him for other, more interesting people. 
Just kidding. I’m an idiot.
John Mace, try looking at Instapundit . Glenn Reynolds keeps abreast of severl presidential hopefuls doings-on.
Edwards is youthful-looking, handsome and wealthy. Thompson is Arthur Branch. Politics is about image and BS. People attacking Edwards for haircuts don’t bother investigating the coiffures of any other candidates. People who like Branch as an administrator do so on the basis of a TV role. They’ll rationalize these attitudes every way from Sunday, but in the end, that’s what it’s about. You can point out Bush’s faux westernism until you’re blue in the face, but people who bought the image refuse to believe differently.
I think the whole subject area of reputation, image, and persuasion is fascinating but also depressing. It’s bad enough that people research ways of what boils down to bamboozling the public but even worse that it works. All of Dubya’s tenure has only demonstrated how many people willingly put their faith into liars and refuse to grasp actual truth.
I don’t know if there’s a cure. It doesn’t appear that people are interested in being disabused of their credulity.
I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if Thompson won just because of having been Arthur Branch. People will rationalize it, of course, but if you pick apart the rationalizations, it will be apparent that that’s all they are.
If you guys really want some Republicans and independents to switch sides and vote for the Democratic candidate, you should nominate Bill Richardson. He’s a guy I’d vote for if I were in the U.S. and didn’t much like the Republican candidates. He’s got tons of experience, a great track record, and he comes across as being thoughtful and honest, rather than someone who just constantly panders to the special interest of the day. I expect him to do some of that while campaigning, but I’ll bet he’d be a fine president.
By the way, he’s got something that Reagan had, that Thompson has, and that very few other candidates have: A sense of humor. And like the other two, he’s willing to be self-deprecating. People really like that. I think one of the things that hurt Kerry is that he just came across as so incredibly humorless.
And having a sense of humor is a very powerful political tool when done adroitly. Reagan charmed everyone when he was wheeled in for surgery after being shot and said to the doctors, “I hope none of you are Democrats”. He could always get a big laugh in a speech. Richardson’s got that in spades.
Of course, if you try for it and do it badly, like the current president does, it just makes you look like a buffoon. So you need the skills to go along with the willingness to be funny. Bush sometimes manages it, but he misses the mark often enough for his humor to be a liability.
Which one does he own?
Could you cite something to back up the “Orange County…is no slouch when it comes to big homes” part?
I’m not saying you’re wrong; I’m just saying it’s hardly common knowledge (certainly comes as a surprise to me!), and needs substantiation.
What do you mean "play the ‘man of the people’ "? Are you saying that Edwards is pretending to be something he’s not? Or are you saying that Edwards is a rich man who wants to do something about the problems of lower- and middle-class Americans?
I don’t recall the latter being a problem when FDR or JFK did it. And even Republicans like Ronald Reagan, who was wealthy, claimed that their policies would serve average Americans best.
And with respect to the former, I don’t see how he’s pretending not to be a rich man. And if it’s insincere to pretend to be able to relate to people who aren’t rich just because you are, then the whole GWB “candidate you’d most like to have a beer with” schtick was a huge, steaming pile of insincerity that maybe I misremember, but I don’t recall your having been bothered with at the time.
Now let’s talk about the logistics and costs of candidates’ physical appearances, and the media’s reporting of such things.
Let’s say I was running for President, flying from Maryland (where I live) to Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and other early primary states.
My time is valuable, so I’m going to have the woman who cuts my hair, and charges me $15, driven up to BWI to cut my hair as my plane touches down on the way from SC to NH, say.
She’s probably going to have to block out the whole morning to be there when I need her to be. She’ll miss eight $15 appointments, plus lose some tips, so we’re probably talking $150 at a minimum that my campaign will have to pay her for that haircut.
I won’t have to get every haircut this way - chances are I’ll be home fairly often when I need a haircut - but my media people will probably want my hair trimmed every three weeks, max, so that I have the same ‘look’ all the time. There will be times when I have to grab a haircut at the airport in the manner I’ve just described.
And chances are that most Presidential candidates pay a good deal more than $15 plus tip for a haircut when they’re at home, so that $150 haircut would become a haircut that could well hit $400.
I’ve noticed the absence of any reporting on what the other candidates spend on their hair, TV makeup, wardrobe, etc. I’d be willing to bet that Edwards is hardly a standout in the overall category of “what a candidate spends on looking nice.” But all we have is this one story on one candidate, which is indicative of lazy ‘news’ media not doing their job, but rather waiting for oppo researchers to feed them stories.
This, OTOH, was totally phony. He was overtly pretending to be something he unquestionably wasn’t - the sort of guy who drives a pickup truck.
Can you distinguish between ‘splitting people by class’ and simply pointing out the splitting that has already been happening over the past few decades?
Like the late Molly Ivins, I get tired of how legal and systemic changes leading to greater inequality of wealth isn’t somehow class war, but pointing out the reality of those changes and desiring to address them, is.
It was a symbol, a gimmick, a LIE. Explain what part of Edwards’ presentation of himself to the public is somehow more hypocritical and deceptive than [this](True story: it is a warm evening in the summer of 1995. A crowd has gathered in the auditorium of a suburban high school in Knoxville, Tennessee. Seated in the audience is a childhood friend of mine who now teaches at the school. On stage is Republican Sen. Fred Dalton Thompson, the lawyer/actor elected in 1994 to serve out the remainder of Vice President Al Gore’s Senate term (when Gore’s appointed successor retired after just two years). The local TV stations are on hand as Thompson wraps up his presentation on tax reform, in the plain-spoken, down-to-earth style so familiar to those who have seen him in any of his numerous film and television performances.
Finishing his talk, Thompson shakes a few hands, then walks out with the rest of the crowd to the red pickup truck he made famous during his 1994 Senate campaign. My friend stands talking with her colleagues as the senator is driven away by a blond, all-American staffer. A few minutes later, my friend gets into her car to head home. As she pulls up to the stop sign at the parking lot exit, rolling up to the intersection is Senator Thompson, now behind the wheel of a sweet silver luxury sedan. He gives my friend a slight nod as he drives past. Turning onto the main road, my friend passes the school’s small, side parking area. Lo and behold: There sits the abandoned red pickup, along with the all-American staffer.):
Why should that be a consideration? There’s more Democrats *and * more independents than Republicans at present, and the independents are mostly Democratic-leaning now anyway.
Your latest well-intentioned advice on what the Democrats should do is as valuable as ever. It would, however, be interesting to read which of Richardson’s positive attributes (which I actually agree with you about, btw) have anything at all to do with party affiliation.
John, Here you go
Thompson: Tax cuts, free trade, pro-war, anti-abortion, global warming “skeptic”, anti gun control, anti-immigration, anti-SOCAS.
How’s that sound to you? Any better than this?
Edwards: Pro-choice, global warming realist, universal health care, restore taxes on wealthy, expanding immigration, get out of Iraq, gay marriage fence-sitter, national service program.
A bit off topic, but I heard Law & Order’s status was questionable, and that NBC hadn’t decided yet if it was going to pick it up for another season. Have they in fact given the show another year?
Its ratings have fallen below the spinoff L&O: SVU and it was even moved from its longtime time slot last season.
I like Richardson a lot, too, Sam, but I fear that the realities of the situation are daunting. He has an excellent resume and would, I think, make quite a good President. If anybody had any idea who he was. At this point in time, I lean to Edwards because I like his positions and think he has a good shot at it. Obama would be acceptable but I am troubled by his novelty and his image as something of a visionary. I am wary of visionaries.
I just flat out don’t like Hillary, and for the life of me cannot tell you why. I would vote for her, I suppose, but if a soul of sweet reason (such as myself) has such a strong visceral reaction, why take such a risk that others would as well? Her positions are in no wise superior or different from Edwards, Richardson, or Obama, why take such a risk?
Thanks, but I was just kidding. I guess that joke fell flat. I’m pretty familiar with where most of these guys stand on the issues, but we’re far from hearing much from Thompson himself yet on what his vision for the future is.
Blame George Washington with his 4 balls and, like, 30 goddamn dicks.
I really, really could have done without the image of Fred Thompson’s balls, thank you very much.
Northern Piper-dammit!
-Hey, I know-let’s get Sam Waterston to run! Jack McCoy in '08!
I dunno - didn’t Jack get into trouble a while ago with his own personal extraordinary rendition program? Dunno if we need to put him in a situation where he could expand on it…
I’m doing my damnedest to understand why doing this would be more ‘authentic’ than what the ‘phony’ Edwards did. (And I disagree with most of Edwards’ stances).
(Damn editing time window!)
I think I know what you mean, elucidator. Hillary strikes me as being very cold and unfriendly. Like she feels that everyone else is beneath her. Now, I don’t know her personally, and I could be wrong. Now, as far as her position on several issues goes, I have no problem with her. But I don’t think she’s charismatic enough for the office. And I do think that’s important, at least when dealing with foreign relations, and public relations. You have to be able to get along well with others, and make them feel welcome.
And it’s not that she’s a strong, independent woman, either. I for one, adore Teresa Heinz-Kerry and that was one of my disappointments when Kerry lost. I would have LOVED to have seen her in the office of First Lady.
Mr. Moto, I see now that you don’t consider Edwards to be a phony. My bad.
In my world the only time a man ought to be getting billed by a place called the Pink Sapphire, that establishment ought to have a stage and poles.
One big hairy manly thing in favor of Thompson: he is an older man married to a pretty woman, whereas Edwards is a pretty man married to an older woman.
Lest we forget quite possibly the greatest campaign ad ever: Sheriff Bill cleans up the town. 
Well, although I can’t provide a cite off the top of my head, I live just over the county line from Orange (NC), and there are some big homes here. It’s really nothing like wealthy big-city suburbs such as near Dallas or Atlanta, but there are many homes that go for around $500,000 and up.
Still, I don’t fault John Edwards for having a sprawling house. Big deal. I know a few very wealthy people who have tons and tons of property (one who has several houses in places like Hawaii and New York), and they’re about the leas disingenuous people I’ve ever met. Wealth alone does not make people assholes. It’s their world view and how they relate to others that determines this. They’ve earned their money, they should be able to do whatever the hell they want with it. So unless they’re spending it on, say, child pornography or methamphetamines, I really can’t bring myself to care. It’s not really my business. Besides, from what I’ve heard, Edwards’ estate near here (just a few miles from where I live, actually) is situated on something like 100 acres of land. A part of me is glad that, for once, that 100 acres is in the hands of one person who is NOT going to raze it to build 100 half-million dollar homes, as has happened in my area as well.