Love this potential choice: * smart * experienced * moderate * military issues credentials * deficit hawk * excellent ethics & * name "Chet" is awesome with "Barack" Brings to mind Akbar and Jeff.
The Case For Edwards: By Matt Glazer of the progressive Texas blog Burnt Orange Report: Answering the Question: Why Chet Edwards by: Matt Glazer Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 02:32 PM CDT So what is the case the Obama should pick Texas' Chet Edwards as his VP pick? Admittedly, Edwards brings a low national profile, outside of his work on veterans' issues and his reputation in the House. Here's what we Texans know about Congressman Edwards: * He is a nationally recognized veterans champion in Congress, with strong military support in deep connections in the U.S. Army and at the Pentagon. Just this year, he's been honored by the Veterans of Foreign Wars and the American Legion. And as chair of the House Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Subcommittee, he just authorized the largest increase in veterans' funding in the history of the VA. * Congressman Chet Edwards is fresh face who won't overshadow Obama. He's a southern, moderate, white male in his late 50s who brings geographic and demographic balance to the ticket. He has humble blue collar roots, and has been known to speak Spanish from time to time. * Chet Edwards is a pretty darn good campaigner, with a record of winning in Republican turf. But in spite of (or perhaps because of) his broad appeal to Democrats as well as Republicans and Independents, he is well respected on Capitol Hill - with a wide range of support among liberals and conservatives. (An example: Congressman John Lewis, a liberal African American from Atlanta who fought beside Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr, has been known to campaign with Edwards in Central Texas). So - we've got a southern moderate, a leader on veterans' issues who knows how to win in Republican territory. That's the Chet Edwards we know in Texas. While there are certainly other qualified potential VPs, and we'll of course support whoever Obama picks, it's clear there is a case to be made for the only person from Texas on the "short list." http://www.burntorangereport.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=6450
From Huffington: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/22/chet-edwards-obamas-vice_n_120635.html Pro-Edwards: He is a nationally recognized veterans champion in Congress, with strong military support in deep connections in the U.S. Army and at the Pentagon. Just this year, he's been honored by the Veterans of Foreign Wars and the American Legion. And as chair of the House Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Subcommittee, he just authorized the largest increase in veterans' funding in the history of the VA. Edwards is fresh face who won't overshadow Obama. He's a southern, moderate, white male in his late 50s who brings geographic and demographic balance to the ticket. He has humble blue collar roots, and has been known to speak Spanish from time to time. Chet Edwards is a pretty darn good campaigner, with a record of winning in Republican turf. But in spite of (or perhaps because of) his broad appeal to Democrats as well as Republicans and Independents, he is well respected on Capitol Hill - with a wide range of support among liberals and conservatives. (An example: Congressman John Lewis, a liberal African American from Atlanta who fought beside Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr, has been known to campaign with Edwards in Central Texas). Anti-Edwards: While the appeal of picking a Texas Democrat, especially one who has beaten back adversaries like DeLay in past elections, is understandable, Edwards would be a poor choice. Not only did he vote for the Iraq war authorization in 2002, a vote which could undermine the Obama campaign's emphasis on foreign policy judgment, he has an, at best, mixed record when it comes to votes on withdrawal. While he voted for the House leadership's Responsible Redeployment from Iraq Act in 2007, he also voted for a Republican resolution in 2006 rejecting an "arbitrary date for withdrawal or redeployment", and for a 2007 emergency appropriations bill for the war without a timetable for withdrawal (he even voted against an amendment adding such a timetable). The latter two votes, along with his votes in 2007 and this past week for telecom immunity have led to his inclusion on Matt Stoller and Chris Bowers' list of "Bush Dog Democrats". His conservative record doesn't stop with national security issues; he voted to make permanent the repeal of the estate tax, in favor of the Bankruptcy Reform bill, for drilling in ANWR, and against the 2007 House renewable energy bill. Perhaps most egregiously, he was one of thirty-six House Democrats to vote in favor of the the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2004. Is it really too much to expect the Democratic vice presidential nominee to be, at least, not to the right of John McCain on LGBT equality? I don't think an Edwards pick makes sense. You can't hype up a pick this much and send a text message that makes people go "who"? He's not change. He's not really someone anyone would think "he's ready for the Presidency". He doesn't really fit on the issues. I suspect his name is being hyped up kind of like Jindal - to bring life to a fresh face in the party and set him up for future state or national politics (I heard Gov/Sen race).
HA!! When I was at Baylor I worked for Chet Edwards for a school internship. I sat in his office. I am not a democrat by any means of the word, but he is a decent guy for a democrat . Very family oriented, and he does seem to toe the line on a bunch of issues, kinda like a John Edwards.
Tell more please! Does he come off as sincere, genuine? What is his intensity level? Did he hire smart people? (give or take you, that is ) I didn't love the only videos I've seen of him speaking...
The only thing I could say was derogatory about him was the way he answered people during interviews, especially if they were republicans. He would come off as an ingrateful b*stard, which truly wasnt him. I think he may have been one of those "power trip" guys, that liked being in front of people asking questions of his opinions. I remember one example, was at the Clarion off of I-35. This guy named John who was the Baylor Class President, very much a pompus rich "dont know why I am conservative, but I just am conservative" guy asked him a question regarding Waco Transit or something like that, and Chet answered him with a very snyde "how old are you?" One inglorius b*stard answering another I guess you could say. Other than that, he was a genuine guy. His family would come up there to see him all the time. Was very humorous in the office there, would cut up with people, comment on their kids getting big and what not.......mind you this was almost 6 yrs ago, and I am sure he now has alot more experience under his belt. I would like to see him speak now and see if there is any change.
Sure he is. In fact, as a motivated Congressman with really respectable committee assignments, he's more ready for the Presidency than a Freshman Senator, a Senator with a reputation for carrying the populist banner by sponsoring really damaging bills (most of which never make the floor), or a governor of a small state. As a Congressman, Edwards doesn't get his name in the lights as often, but that shouldn't discredit his experience. There are only two better-qualified Democrats that have been mentioned, Clinton and Bayh, and both of them are generally thought to be out of it at this point.
One can only hope that this is a feint to make us happy with Bayh (uggh)or anyone else who has made a known short list.
Why Chet Edwards Can't Be VP by Nate Nelson Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:05:12 PM PDT According to The Houston Chronicle and other sources, Texas Rep. Chet Edwards has been vetted by the Obama campaign and is on Obama's short list. This indicates that Barack Obama did indeed take a sip of the Kool-Aid offered him by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who has been pushing for Edwards to be Obama's running mate. But to borrow a phrase from the McCain campaign, is Chet Edwards ready to lead our party? The answer is an emphatic no. Let me preface this by saying that I don't have a problem with Chet Edwards being in Congress. He represents Texas' 17th congressional district, one of the most conservative districts in the state and a district that includes Bush's home in Crawford. So it's not hard to believe that Edwards has distanced himself from his own party on some key issues, and given that this distance is likely what it takes for him to be elected in his district I don't really have a problem with it. * But Vice President Chet Edwards is unacceptable. Edwards' record differs significantly from Obama's, which means that Edwards would not be a reinforcing pick. He is a little known congressman, which means that he likely won't give Obama any kind of boost. An Edwards choice would mean that Democrats are yet again miscalculating and hoping that if they run as Republican imitations voters will choose them instead of the real thing. But thinking beyond the election and toward the next administration, that's where we really see why Chet Edwards can't be vice president. Can you imagine a conservative Democrat like Edwards having a tie-breaking vote in the Senate? And is this really who we want as the standard bearer of the Democratic Party and its progressive values in eight years? On national security and foreign policy, particularly, Edwards has trended conservative. For starters, he voted for the Iraq War (but, then again, so did many folks on Obama's short list). If that's not enough for you, he joined 32 other House Democrats to cross the aisle and vote for the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which essentially gave the Bush administration legal cover to continue torturing detainees. He also voted for the failed Electronic Surveillance Modernization Act of 2006, which was even worse than the recent telecom immunity bill passed by Congress. But maybe worst and most damning of all, he voted for the 2006 non-binding resolution that endorsed President Bush's policy in the Iraq War and rejected time tables for withdrawal from Iraq. He's not much better on fiscal and economic issues. He voted for tort reform, which would limit what malpractice victims can be awarded in lawsuits and which is often proposed by Republicans as the solution to our health care crisis. He voted for permanent repeal of the Estate Tax and reduction of capital gains taxes for the rich, but also voted to tighten bankruptcy rules for the working class. He voted to replace illegal export tax breaks with $140 billion in legal breaks. He voted for the Bush-Cheney energy policy and voted to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) for oil drilling. He voted to give the president "fast track authority" on trade agreements and he voted for free trade agreements with Chile, Singapore, and Australia. And then there are the social issues. Edwards was a vocal opponent of bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform. He has adopted the Republican meme that supposedly favors securing our borders and opposing "amnesty." He supported the expiration of the assault weapons ban in 2004. He was one of the few Democrats to vote in favor of a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage in 2004, and he voted in 2003 for another constitutional amendment to ban flag desecration. An Obama-Edwards '08 ticket would offer a little slap in the face for every Democrat on just about any issue. It would also thwart any attempt by the Obama campaign to attack McCain on national security, foreign policy, fiscal policy, economic policy, or social policy, because Chet Edwards has voted with Republicans on a number of the issues that demonstrate Republicans' poor judgement in these areas. Chet Edwards wouldn't balance the ticket; he would destroy it. He would be worse than Al Gore's choice of Joe Lieberman in 2000. Chet Edwards is not the right man for Obama's running mate. He offers nothing but trouble for the ticket. Moreover, he absolutely cannot be trusted to be a reliable tie-breaking vote in the Senate, and he should not be our party's future eight years from now. Shame on Nancy Pelosi for even suggesting that he should be Obama's running mate, and shame on the Obama campaign for even taking him under consideration. Let's just hope they don't make a disastrous mistake and choose him. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/22/144955/645
There is a scandal out there on Edwards, and you can take that to the bank. I'll tell you that it involves his family, but that's all I'll say.
