Can someone please explain...

[heidi]

(I admit - I will be generalizing in the next few paragraphs. You are forewarned.)

Why is it that Republicans think voting for Mike Ditka (who has no foreign policy experience, or domestic for that matter) into the Senate is a Good Thing, but that Edwards, who has at least served on the Senate Intelligence Committee, is unqualified to be Vice President?

Yes, I know there are 100 senators, and only one vice-president. And yes, I know that the vice-president has to be qualified to *be* president. And yes, I know that comparing Edwards to Bush's experience level on foreign policy pre-his own assumption of the office of the president is kind of icky.

But we're not talking about actualities. We're talking about the same group of people who on one hand say Yay Ditka and on the other hand say Unqualified Edwards.

Is there any linear thinking in that?

Comments

[shelaghc.livejournal.com]

Because they don't give a shit about whether Ditka is qualified.

They just don't want a Democrat to win that Senate seat.

I read a newspaper article yesterday via AP where Ditka was quoted (I'm paraphrasing) as saying that he didn't just want to be one of those guys sitting around. That wouldn't be "fun for him." (Not paraphrasing that last part.) The same article stated that his wife threatened to divorce him if he ran and he said that she'd do what he wanted to do.

Just a few minutes later, that same article was completely updated (I'd kill for a copy of the original, dammit!) so Ditka seemed far more polished and smooth and as if he actually had something professional to say and the bits about his response to his wife's divorce threat was completely gone.

Anyone have a hardcopy of the original?

[abigail89.livejournal.com]

No, there isn't. Ditka just has the image/celebrity thing going for him, and in this day and age where image is everything, it happens to be working for him.

Edwards has been a very good Senator for North Carolina. He has an excellent voting record on the environment (a top concern for us living in the mountains where acid rain and air pollution are destroying the forest), and truly seems interested in the plighty of working people. Yeah, I don't get what the nay sayers are about. I mean, Dick Cheney was sooo much more qualified? Riiiight. And George W. was sooo much more qualified? Riiiight. Stinkin' Republicans.

It's just the season to nit pick and find every tiny flaw and magnify them. Edwards is well qualified, and he articulates the issues very well. I'm well pleased Kerry picked him, even if it does mean I lose the best senator I've ever had.

[lizardlaugh.livejournal.com]

Well, to be fair, Kerry said Edwards was unqualified to be president. I haven't really heard people say Edwards was unqualified for VP, but I have heard a lot of them bring up Kerry's charge from the primaries, is that what you are talking about?

Personally, I think the unqualified charge is just plain silly. Ideology is much more important.

[annearchy.livejournal.com]

You were going to lose Edwards anyway because he chose not to run for re-election this year. But, yes, you're losing a terrific senator (IMO). Let's hope we'll be gaining a great vice-president:)

And word about the Republicans, Heidi. They just don't want Barack Obama to run away with the election in Illinois. They'd probably put up George Halas if they though they could get away with it ;)

[mizbean.livejournal.com]

As an Illinoisan (not sure if that is a word) I can say that the Illinois Republican party is in full desperation mode. Party leaders and the former governor have been indicted, their hand-picked candidate, Jack Ryan, implodes in a sex scandal and no real Republican politician has expressed interest in running against Obama, because they know they would get clobbered. Ditka loves the attention and everyone in Illinois knows that. Trust me, he won't get elected. I'm still not sure that he is actually going to run, either.

That doesn't really answer your question about Ditka's vs. Edwards qualification. People in Illinois are only excited to see Ditka run because they want to see him spar with the political reporters like he used to do with sports reporters. He had quite a temper in the his day as Da Coach, something I think Republicans have forgotten. His meltdowns during Bear's press conferences after their record went south were downright embarrassing.

[herlifeisbroken.livejournal.com]

It's because they have nothing - nothing - bad to say about Edwards, so they just make up stuff.

I am amazed constantly at the hypocrisy too.

[hedwig-snowy.livejournal.com]

Can you say Schwarzenegger? We have come to a point in our history where it doesn't matter who gets into office as long as he's one of our political party. Also, we are still in the TV Generation/Cult of Personality that was started by Kennedy, amplified by Reagan, and perfected by Clinton. So, does it really matter if the person running is qualified? Yes. Is it essential? Apparently not. Ask the people of Minnesota if they're happy with Governor Ventura's reign???

[cathboblet.livejournal.com]

Amen.

We had a similar situation here in Iowa two/three years ago, when Dan Gable made rumblings about running for Governor. Dan Gable was the wrestling coach at the U of IA, and ridiculously popular in the state -- and considering our smaller population size and the level of adoration attached to Gable, it's a very similar thing to the Ditka proposition. The Republicans were desperate, and seemed to believe Gable would be swept into office on a tide of wistful 'remember when we won all those NCAA championships?'

But the great thing was that after the general babble of 'Oh Dan Gable's a prince among men' had died down, even the die-hard Gablies couldn't imagine his coaching skills spilling over into a political career. It was a flight of fancy that ate up column inches and airwaves for a couple of weeks and then died to a gentle "remember when Gable thought about running for Governor?" The Republicans ran a man (no lie) called Gross, and the voters (imagine) decided that described the character of the candidate just a little too well . . .

[empressov.livejournal.com]

I now have the image of Ditka cussing, swearing, breaking and kicking things around in a Senate chamber like he did on the field. Wasn't he the guy--I'm almost sure he was--who spit his wad of gum at a heckling fan and got charged with assualt? I'm always against another Republican but, if there has to be one, I think it might at least be fun to see Ditka spit a wad a gum across the Senate at someone who doesn't agree with him. It would at least be entertaining news. And it would make Them look bad. Always a good thing. Is he really the best they can come up??? Cuz, if he is, that says a lot.

[isiscolo.livejournal.com]

Edwards is more qualified than George W. was during the previous election.

And remember Dan Quayle?

[annearchy.livejournal.com]

You mean Mr. Potatoe Head?? It was obvious he was chosen because Bush I didn't want to be "shown up" by his Veep candidate. I thought Kerry showed some cojones picking a running mate who kind of eclipses him on the charisma scale. Good thing Edwards also happens to be Kerry's best salesman :D

[aome.livejournal.com]

To me, it's comparable to the way Republicans sling mud at Kerry for being so busy campaigning that he's not doing his *job* as Senator and I think - yeah, and Bush is doing exactly the same thing. You going to boot *him* out for that? :-P

[isiscolo.livejournal.com]

Actually, I saw the candidates speak at a rally recently, and it's clear that Kerry has risen to the challenge. He's really upped his energy and charisma level to match - I think there's some great synergy going on!

[jessryn.livejournal.com]

The only thinking there is that one is Democrat and the other is Republican. You see it all the time with the Republicans who tried to tear President Clinton apart, and did every thing they could to try and divert his work, that as soon as a Democrat challenges a Republican say, "There those Democrats go again, playing partisan politics, trying to divide the country."

They probably enjoy the fact that he's not qualified to be a Senator, that means they can tell him what to do.

[ladylisse.livejournal.com]

Because this is Illinois politics, and if Illinois politics ever make sense, it's purely by accident.

[tenebris.livejournal.com]

You ain't kiddin' about that.

[sugarjet03.livejournal.com]

Word to everything. I'm going to miss him like crazy.

*prays that Bowles wins his seat*

[abigail89.livejournal.com]

Hell, yes! At least people know who Bowles is. Who's running against him? I don't even know.

[sugarjet03.livejournal.com]

There are about five, from what I've gathered on TV commericals. I think the main opponent is Richard Burr (or he will be the main opponent, after Tuesday). Right now, though, Bowles has a solid lead. I hope he can hold it.

I actually am going to get to meet him next week at an ice cream social when he comes to the mountains. It should be fun :-)

[abigail89.livejournal.com]

Oh yeah, Burr, I think I've seen his commercials.

When is Bowles going to be here? I'm in Asheville.

[sugarjet03.livejournal.com]

The 23 & 24th. I'm in Asheville too, and on the 23rd he's going to be at Owen Middle School. I know he's making another appearance that day, and on the 24th he's going to be in Spindale.

I got tickets for the ice cream social because I work for the Keever campaign. I could probably get some more if you were interested in coming.

[abigail89.livejournal.com]

Dang! Finally another fan in Asheville!

email me: abigail89@gmail.com
'cause we're spamming Heidi's LJ

[sugarjet03.livejournal.com]

Okay :-)

[(Anonymous)]

You Said:
"I am amazed constantly at the hypocrisy too."

I assume you are talking about Republican hypocrisy? What about Democratic hypocrisy> They flip flop on so many issues that you need a scorecard to keep track of it all. Sometimes it seems like all they do is flip a coin.

[heidi8.livejournal.com]

Wow, an anonymouse in my lj.

Look, mousie, there's reasons for people to change their minds. You learn that the cia's fed you false info, you change your take on whether we should've attacked iraq. You realise that stem cell research holds promises of miracles, you decide that research on those derived from blastocysts is reasonable.

That's not hypocracy, hon. Hypocracy is talking out of both sides of your mouth at once.

[herlifeisbroken.livejournal.com]

@_@

At least I sign when I have an opinion. Next time, if you want me to listen, please tell me your name. I have very nice discussions all the time with my Republican friends.

*waves to Heidi* Sorry...I've been reading your journal, for like, ever and just felt compelled to comment. Now I feel like Professor Quirrel letting in the troll :D

[heidi8.livejournal.com]

Oh, don't worry; I'm actually quite amused. Wonder who it is...

[(Anonymous)]

I would sign except I don't have an account.

So does this mean we think Kerry is the golden-boy? Won't say or do anything just to get into office? Any politician, and I mean any from either party, will say and do anything to get (re)elected. It's just a part of politics. Both parties do it. And I suppose the post I originally replied to didn't specify which party they were talking about, so in making my assumption that is was the Republicans was wrong. But I still say that Democrats are as guilty of being hypocrits as anyone else.

[heidi8.livejournal.com]

HI anonymouse! Do you have a name? If you do, it's considered polite to use it. And given that LJ accounts are free for the taking, the fact that you're not using one leads me to believe that you are too embarrassed by your positions to associate them wiht a name.

I had a conversation similar to this yesterday at a birthday party - the person I was speaking with was under the misguided belief that back in the 30s and 40s, campaigns for office were financed the way they are now (silly and uninformed person, he was) and believed that Kerry had accepted the endorsement of Hamas, where, in fact, he'd publicly called for Israel to continue deathstrikes against terrorists.

I actually don't think Bush is a hypocrite when it comes to the big issues. I think he really and truly believes that he is chosen by God to rescue the Iraquis from a Satanic dictator. I think he really and truly believes that it's better to discard blastocysts, because they held the potential for life, rather than potentially save the lives of living, breathing people. I think he really and truly believes that it is tratorious to criticize the executive branch of government, and blessed to criticize the legislative and the judiciary.

Of course, I also think, to quote an article in Salon Magazine about the frontline documentary, "The Jesus Factor", that he's trying to turn the US into a theocracy, and that is where his hypocracy manifests:

you cannot take a pledge to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and then make a statement that our rights are derived from God. You cannot, as Wallis notes, misquote lines from the Gospel of John, as Bush did, to make the light of Christ into the light of America.
But, conversely, you cannot claim to be a Christian and hear, as Bush apparently does, the Gospel's instruction to "succor the poor" as "sucker the poor." You cannot claim to be a Christian and strip away environmental protection from the land that, surely any Christian believes, is God's handiwork.
But when Bush sponsors a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, when he opposes stem-cell research (which, as even Nancy Reagan has pointed out, could very well have benefited her husband, a hero to conservative Christians), when in the face of AIDS in Africa or teen pregnancy in America, he ties sex education funding to abstinence programs, he is using private reasoning for ends that may please a portion of the community but do not serve a majority.