Heeeere's Johnny!

[Hessian]

That's right, John Edwards, an "everyman for hard working middle class America":


Oh, did I forget to mention.......
"From judgments or settlements related to medical malpractice, Edwards built a personal fortune estimated at between $12.8 and $60 million. His former law firm, Edwards & Kirby of Raleigh, N.C., reportedly kept between 25 and 40 percent of the jury awards and settlements during the time he worked there, CNSNews.com said.

In 63 lawsuits alone, Edwards won "more than $152 million," according to the Center for Public Integrity. "
(WND 7/7/04)

America loves Ambulance chaser's right?

 

[Sharon]

Originally posted by Hessian


America loves Ambulance chaser's right?

Yep, and bootlegger's who make securities laws after the fact.

 

[SamSpade]

If Edwards "helps" Kerry, Kerry is in serious trouble. Time and again, it's been shown that vice-presidential selection almost never helps a campaign, although it's been known to hurt some.

I mean, if you were going to vote FOR Kerry, you can say "cool! I like Edwards too" because you probably do, but there ain't no way that his inclusion on the ticket is going to sway someone undecided.

I listened to Rush on the way home yesterday. He mentioned that the same guys who designated Kerry as the most liberal in the Senate said that Edwards is ranked number *4*. Also played the bit where he didn't know who Yitzhak Rabin was. And some stuff from his lawsuits against medical staff, and played his "Meet the Press" appearance a year ago. Honestly? I can't wait for the VP debates, Cheney will eat him alive. He's very emotive and charismatic, but he's a little light in the head. Kerry is dreaming if he thinks an Edwards pick will pick up votes in the South - all evidence points to Edwards losing re-election.

So basically, I like Edwards as a pick. It doesn't hurt Bush at all. After all, Kerry's FIRST pick is stumping for Bush.

 

[Hessian]

Someone's doing their Homework...

* From 1999-2002, Edwards Voted With Senator Ted Kennedy 90% Of The Time. (CQ Vote Comparison, CQ Online Website, www.oncongresscq.com, 106th and 107th Congresses)

* From 2001-2002, Edwards Voted With Senator Hillary Clinton 89% Of The Time. (CQ Vote Comparison, CQ Online Website, www.oncongresscq.com, 107th Congress)

(credit Larry Gude with finding the site... )

Yesiree...Edwards lines up with the center of America doesn't he?

I saw the photo ops though...wife, cute kids,...looks like a JFK remake. I can picture Kerry staffer's giving each other high 5's when you can remind Americans of the Kennedy Mistique.

 

[jlabsher]

So we have two Kennedy loving east coast liberals running against two oil rich draft evading conservatives. Hmmm, sounds like good choices to me.

 

[rraley]

Read Four Trials, Edwards' book, and you will know why he fought the corporations that abused their power and caused serious harm to those he represented. You can yell foul all that you want to against trial lawyers, but you have to realize that trial lawyers have done some great things for this country, including, in most of your opinions, ensure that George W. Bush become president when they sued Al Gore to stop the recount in Florida. They can criticize John Edwards all they want for sticking up for the little guy, they can defend the big businesses of this nation all they - it will only tie the Bush-Cheney ticket even closer to the Ken Lay's and Haliburton's (which people don't like). And on a personal note, I don't like the lawyer bash that I hear so often - the law is a noble profession to get involved in (it is my profession of choice in fact).

What is so wrong with John Edwards calling himself a "man of the people." We know that George W. Bush and John Kerry are not, both were educated at New England boarding schools and Yale, both were set up by inheritance or their family connections. They are not of the people. John Edwards is. He was born into a working class environment where he learned hard work. He didn't get a whole lot at the beginning of his life, but by his own personal strength came up the line and won a fortune. And has he forgotten those roots? Absolutely not. His wife still wears the $12 engagement ring he gave her. They still go to Wendy's on their wedding aniversary because they went to one on their first anniversary when they were in the middle of a move. John Edwards fights for an economic policy that is directed towards all of us. How is he not a man of the people? He is, he's a success story of going from the lowest to the highest. Recall, all you conservatives, that Ronald Reagan also had to live through poverty, and then he made his living through acting. I would never say that just because of his later fortune that he was not a man of the people.

As for the ridiculous "guilty by association" lines about Senator Ted Kennedy and Hilary Clinton. You can make connections between any two senators in Washington and I won't give those percentages the time of day. What I do know is that Senator Edwards worked hard in the chamber to bridge the partisan divide, which he evidenced by joining with John McCain in fighting for the rights of patients. As for the fourth most liberal rating, that was based on votes from the last session of the Senate, when Edwards was running for president. The rating is derived from a survey of twenty-two votes during that session. Kerry and Edwards were out campaigning most of the time during the session and only came back to Washington when high profile bills were voted on and imagine as Democratic presidential candidates - they voted the liberal line on those bills. They also voted against the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit, which many conservatives did as well and that was counted as a "liberal" vote. The fact is that Senator Edwards is a moderate senator. He wants to maintain the Bush tax cuts for the middle class. He believes that gay marriage is an issue to be tackled by the states and he himself opposes it. He has proposed cutting many business taxes, including the capital gains tax. He believes that the federal deficit should be decreased as soon as possible. He supports the death penatly. He has proposed an innovative method for tort reform. This man is not a Ted Kennedy liberal.

To SamSpade, I agree that running mate selections do not have major effects on the top of the ticket. The only instance where I can think of this happening is the Kennedy selection of LBJ in 1960, which was the biggest reason for the Kennedy victory that year. But the Edwards selection will not hurt the ticket, rather it will enhance it. These things that the Republicans are throwing around are distorted, guilty by association, and some of it just plain mean (read the "who is John Edwards?" posts on the RNC website; it's heavy on harsh rhetoric and light on true fact). That is to be expected - they would have done this for any of the running mats. These things are only meant to reenergize the GOP base. Edwards offers a strong complement to the longwinded Kerry with his charisma and ability to connect. And to say that he is light in the end is just wrong. Joe Klein, a Time columinst, says that Edwards is a natural policy wonk. The Meet the Press interview was not the best for him before he started to run, but since then he has gotten much better as he has gained the experience from running a national campaign. According to Gallup, 64% said that the Edwards choice was "excellent or good," as compared to the 55% who said that of Cheney, 53% of Lieberman, and the 44% of Qualye. And the assertion that Edwards was headed for a reelection loss in North Carolina is straight wrong as well. He was ahead by double digits over all his opponents on the GOP side before he left the race, he was defeating George W. Bush for president in the state (a state that Bush won by 13 points in 2000), and the person that is replacing him, Erskine Bowles, is winning by 7 points right now. Edwards would have won reelection. The Kerry campaign is going to saturate the airwaves in North Carolina with the new ad about a "New Team for a New America" and the state is now seriously in play (it was close before anyway, Kerry was only done by five and a Kerry/Edwards ticket beat Bush/Cheney by one). Edwards will help attract North Carolinians, the rural Virginians who voted for him during the primaries (Kerry is currently only losing by two in the state), and blue collar Rustbelt state residents. Kerry could not have made a better choice.

As for the McCain nonsense, Kerry had a list of 25 names that included two Republicans, McCain and former Defense Secretary William Cohen. He called both and the media got wind of the McCain call and ran with it. They blew it out proportion - Kerry was merely intrigued by the possibility. After all how many private meetings did the two have about the vice-presidency? None I do believe.

 

[vraiblonde]

The best thing about John Edwards is his daughter's name - Emma Claire. Isn't that pretty?

How much does the VP really matter, anyway? The only one in recent history that's actually done any policy work or been a part of the process is Cheney. The rest were fundraisers and add-ons. I didn't really vote for Bush because of Cheney, although I did think it was a good choice. I can't imagine anyone voted for Clinton based on Al Gore - if anything, Gore was a liability, not an asset. Same with Dan Quayle and Big Bush.

 

[Larry Gude]

I have no idea how...

...you live with stuff like this:

ensure that George W. Bush become president when they sued Al Gore to stop the recount in Florida.

Bush WON the vote.

The re-count was DONE. D-O-N-E. Bush WON THE VOTE.

Several selective recounts were done. BUSH WON THE VOTE.

The state then certified the election as complete and conforming to state law. The Florida Supreme Court decided that more counting should be done. How? Just keep doing it until it comes up heads (Al Gore wins).

The Florida Supreme tried to re-write Florida election law and the US Supreme Court said, 5-4, correctly, you can't do that.

The US Supreme Court wrote an opinion, 7-2, that what Florida's Supreme Court was trying to do was highly suspect. Two members voted against stopping them, however, hoping that, somehow or other, things would turn out allright. Somehow.

A year later, several major media outlets paid for and conducted their own examination and re-count in Florida and... BUSH STILL WON.

ALL of the 'suspect' problems happened in counties CONTROLLED by Democrats. One local leader even quit because so much pressure was being exerted on them to CHEAT.

You fine folks have got serious psychological problems.

Here's your choices:

1. Bush won fair and square, get on with your life.

2. Bush somehow cheated, can do whatever he wants and guess what, what you want doesn't matter in any event because he has SO MUCH power, he'll just steal it again.

Either way, you are living a lie and it's bad for you. Have you once, just once, EVER considered how all the people who KNOW they voted for Bush, including 250,000 democrats in the state, would feel if Gore had won by 1 vote? or 500?

How would they feel about the result? Fair? Cheated? How big a deal would it be if we re-counted UNTIL Gore won by ELIMINATING, as he tried to do, absentee votes of service members overseas?

How would they feel about the chads? The closed doors? The army of lawyers the DNC sent down to, like goons, look over everyones shoulders?

How would they feel if, after Florida law was satisfied, the election was certified and over turned by the Florida Supreme Court time and again UNTIL Gore won?

It was a close damn race.

Start respecting the laws of Florida. Start respecting the laws of the United States of America (which will protect you just as readily as the rights of Floridians) and...

...GET OVER IT

 

[rraley]

My God, Mr. Gude, you took one line of a long post and took it way too seriously. Never did I say that George W. Bush did not really win the vote in Florida. I was trying to prove a point about trial lawyers and their value to society. If it weren't for Bush's trial lawyers, then they still might be counting the votes down in Florida. I am perfectly content with the decision in the 2000 Election, I honestly believe that the actual vote total favored Bush. But had it not been for that Democratic election supervisor in West Palm Beach, I firmly believe that Gore would have won. Anyhow, that was the past and I wasn't trying to reopen old wounds. Just trying to prove a point about lawyers.

Just watched the Kerry/Edwards event in Ohio...they looked very good together. There is an incredible excitement for this ticket unlike the excitement we saw for Gore/Lieberman. To vraiblonde, most of the time, the vice-president is a ceremonial official. Cheney has deviated the most from that pattern, but many vice-president's have become very involved in the policy making process. Al Gore was a major player in President Clinton's "Reinventing Government" iniative and Dan Qualye was the first Bush Administration's point man on environmental concerns. But before these events, vice-presidents did not matter jack squat.

 

[Hessian]

Mr Edwards...sir...
I decided to make a meal for myself the other day and the bulge in the bottle should have told me not to use it...but It smelled Ok so I put it on my Hot Dog...I spewed for three days straight and I'm afraid of Hot Dogs now...What can I do?
Will you help me sue Heinz?

 

[Larry Gude]

Guess I just...

ensure that George W. Bush become president when they sued Al Gore to stop the recount in Florida

...didn't understand what that meant.

I honestly believe that the actual vote total favored Bush. But had it not been for that Democratic election supervisor in West Palm Beach, I firmly believe that Gore would have won.

...I know I don't understand that one.

You know perfectly well one of the mantras of the left is Bush stole the election. Your analogy about lawyers is flawed from the standpoint that Gore started the lawyer war, not W.

Gore, rightly, conceded that night when the race was over and wrongly took it back shortly thereafter under the advice of his campaign lawyers, starting an ugly cycle of mistrust, vulgarity, anger and rage that festers to this day.

As far as Edwards goes, I'm glad for you that you like him. We'll see how far he gets if he refuses to toe the party line that;

1. Bush is illegitmate (stole the election)
2. Bush and Cheney are crooks (Haliburton)
3. Bush is a warmonger (Iraq)

Frankly, one of his positives in the primary was he DIDN'T engage in that crap but it didn't win him anything.

We'll see.

 

[rraley]

Re: Guess I just...

Originally posted by Larry Gude
1. Bush is illegitmate (stole the election)

I think that the reason that so many Democrats believe that Bush is illegitmate is not because they believe that he stole the election, but because he received half a million less votes than Al Gore. These are the more sensible Democrats and not the left wing fringies like Moore. I, myself, think that they are both full of crap, because the only legitamcy that is needed is that from the Constitution, which says that the winner of the Electoral College is the president. Just my opinion. But you know the right said during Clinton's term that he was illegitmate because he only received 43% of the vote in 1992; so goes the world of the hyper-partisan nature of our country.

What I meant in that line that you don't understand is that if it were not for the butterfly ballot, Gore would have won because West Palm Beach residents wouldn't be mistakingly voting for Pat Buchannan. But once again, that is in the past.

 

[Larry Gude]

I'm trying not to be rude here...

I think that the reason that so many Democrats believe that Bush is illegitmate is not because they believe that he stole the election

...but this is why...

http://www.washtimes.com/national/inbeltway.htm

Scroll down to "Bush v. Gore"

I'm glad to hear you are not suffering dementia but a great deal of people are, including a great many who should know better.

the only legitamcy that is needed is that from the Constitution, which says that the winner of the Electoral College is the president. Just my opinion

Kudos for you. If you weren't so alone in your party, Moore, Gore and Terry McCauliffe and Howard Dean and their ilk would all be minor nobody's, not central players.

I understand you discomfort but your party sowed these people and your party is reaping these people.

They live to incite and they are ugly, mean spirited and wrong hence my sensitivity to anything that smacks of supporting their disease.

As far as Florida...

Gore would have won because West Palm Beach residents wouldn't be mistakingly voting for Pat Buchannan

It's simply not true. Votes for Buchanan were proportional to vote totals he got in other places nationwide and the newspaper people addressed that issue especially.

There is no doubt that Bush won fair and square.

Again, Gore did far more ugly things, especially trying to exclude the absentee military votes. So, please, imagine the taint of a Gore presidency had he been successful by 600 some odd more votes.

Ask yourself as well; what is better, the Florida Supreme Court re-writing the rules DURING a close election or the US Supremes saying "Cut it out".

 

[Larry Gude]

I disagree...

But you know the right said during Clinton's term that he was illegitmate because he only received 43% of the vote in 1992;

Nobody on the right would say that in and of itself. Perhaps in an argument with someone who said Gore should have won BECAUSE he had a majority.

Bill Clinton won fair and square both times, by the rules but neither with a majority and nobody was raging about like the left does about Florida 2000. People are following Moore because that is how they see the world.

 

[rraley]

I've seen alot from the Republicans on how terrible being a trial lawyer is for the best two days. Accordingto this poll, their attacks are way outside the mainstream.

 

[Larry Gude]

Fine...

...I'll fess up; We're not perfect.

You do know, however, that trial lawyers are one of the largest constituencies of your party, yes?

 

[Pete]

Re: Fine...

Originally posted by Larry Gude
...I'll fess up; We're not perfect.

You do know, however, that trial lawyers are one of the largest constituencies of your party, yes?

Speak for yourself Mr Guuuuuude. (read the Mr Gude part with an accent like the old mean dude from "Paper chase" many years ago)

 

[rraley]

Re: Fine...

Originally posted by Larry Gude
...I'll fess up; We're not perfect.

You do know, however, that trial lawyers are one of the largest constituencies of your party, yes?

Yes I do know and I am damn proud of it. The people who represent average Joe's against abusive practices are people that any party should be proud to count in their constituency.

 

[Hessian]

Are you also proud about the millions of hours that small businessmen & women waste filling out forms and spending hard earned money on business modifications to try to head off lawsuits? Why do we need 10 teachers out on car-pool duty...possible lawsuits? Why do we each have duty stations in case of germ attack...ready in hand with tape & plastic tarps? Just to try to show we did our utmost in case of a lawsuit. How about thousands of Drs calling it quits for fear of suits and expensive insurance? What tempts businesses to leave the country? Less liability costs.
All the billions of wasted dollars, millions of wasted hours, tons of forms and inspectors making sure that phillips head screws are all line up.

Yes, this is something to be proud of. Having the most lawyers has never made a country great...having Doctors, teachers, and businessmen has.

 

[rraley]

Well Hessian, about 20% of America agrees with your anti-lawyer stance.