Wizblog

Pejman on Edwards

I believe that Pejman has rounded up, linked and astutely commented on every word that was written or spoken today about John Edwards on the day he was announced as the running mate of John Kerry. Well, pretty close anyway. Included are "keeper" links to Edwards historical positions on issues. Pejman calls him "a protectionist with a pretty face". Yes, and one who might continue on his divisive "Two Americas" theme if someone doesn't rein him in. The Democrats went with a face (with good hair as well) and a great stump speaker instead of doing the more responsible thing. Excerpting Pejman:

What matters regarding the Vice Presidential choice is that this was Kerry's first--and unless he is elected, only--chance to make a Presidential decision. He could have signalled his seriousness about having a person qualified to step into the Presidency should something happen to Kerry. It's not an academic exercise--especially given the effort of the 9/11 terrorists to decapitate the government. Kerry could have also shown that he was responsible enough to have a Vice President with strong national security credentials who would be a crucial and valuable advisor in the war on terrorism--regardless of whether that Vice President ended up being President.

Instead, we got the Democrats' version of Dan Quayle. And given the fact that Quayle (who I was never a fan of) served twelve years in Congress before ascending to the Vice Presidency (as opposed to Edwards's five and a half years), it might be said that we got Quayle Light.

Great blog, Pejmanesque.

UPDATE: At Power Line, deacon seems to disagree, with a left-handed compliment to Edwards. On his national security credentials among Democrats...

Edwards was a better than average choice among the Democratic contenders in this regard. Why? Because the Democratic party is so diseased that experience with foreign policy and national security issues is generally a dangerous thing (think Joe Biden). For Democrats, sophistication in these areas usually manifests itself in doubts about the U.S. as a force for good in the world and distrust of the exercise of U.S. power (think John Kerry). Hence, the preference for foreign interventions that seem to have little to do with American interests and, if our interests are at stake, the imperative of approval by international organizations.

I get the impression that Edwards, precisely because he hadn't paid much attention to these matters until quite recently, missed this indoctrination. He was too busy becoming rich to develop the appropriate level of skepticism about our country.