Bush's cheap shot at Edwards Edwards’ time in Senate same as Bush's in Austin COMMENTARY By Joe Scarborough Updated: 1:00 p.m. ET July 08, 2004 Today, President Bush took a shot at John Edwards, suggesting the U.S. senator was ill-prepared to be vice president of the United States. The attack was a cheap shot: John Edwards has served the same amount of time in the Senate as George W. Bush served as governor of Texas when he was elected president. The Texas legislature only meets every other year and the governorship of the Lone Star State has long been considered one of the weakest positions of its kind in America. Add to it that Edwards has sat on the intelligence committee through the days before and after September 11th. You could argue that Edwards has more experience in key areas than George W. Bush did when he ran in 2000. Other vice presidents, like Harry Truman, were dismissed as political hacks and lightweights, too, because of their relative lack of experience. But when the Senator from Missouri replaced one of the greatest presidents of the 20th century, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Truman exceeded all expectations and ended up being one of our country's strongest leaders. The White House will score no political points attacking John Edwards. This campaign is a referendum on their performance and they have a great story to tell. It’s the strongest economic recovery in 20 years, there has been no follow up to the 9/11 attacks on America and the war in Iraq will reshape the Middle East every bit as much as Ronald Reagan’s war with the Soviets liberated Eastern Europe. Presidents need to avoid pettiness — especially when leading America through its most important war since a former haberdasher from Independence, Missouri led America through the final days of World War II. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5389875
Yeah, I was thinking the same thing yesterday when I read what they said about Edwards. Hilarious. Also, another thing that annoys me is how they try to use the "there have been no attacks on us since 9/11" card. That too is hilarious. There have been, what, 2 terrorist attacks on our soil beofre that? The first World Trade incident and Oklahoma. Most probably don't consider Oklahoma a terrorist attack. But nowadays you can be labeled a terrorists depending on what your reading habits are.
I believe Joe S is a trial attorney and what's really going on here is that he is defending one of his own, albeit a Democratic one.
if the best attacks they have are "he's too inexperienced" and "he's Kerry's second choice," I would be very concerned as a Bush supporter. better go back to "kerry is a buttered waffle" because that had more of an effect and actually helps instead of hurts the bush side.
Not that i am defending Bush or criticisizing Edwards/Kerry, but in all fairness the KErry campaign has spent much of their time bashing President Bush, some of it warranted but not all, so i guess what goes around comes around.
I see you still are holding on to your wild generalizations about trial attorneys. It's funny when conservatives accuse liberals of believing in conspiracy theories. Now we have gwayneco championing the idea that the sacred brotherhood of trial lawyers is stronger than blood and one's career serving the nation. And of course this tight-nit band of greedy animals are all bad. gwayneco ignored the examples of lawsuits which went after corrupt greedy corporations that put their greed above the health of the general public, and appears to hold on to that fantasy here.
Sir gwaynie started a thread about Lochner, which I don't think the dorkiest law student in the world would do. He is hereafter prohibited from making fun of attorneys.
You're right and I was wrong. The plaintiffs bar is making the world safe for breast implants and McDonald's coffee. Sainthood awaits them all.
Of course I mentioned in the other thread when you started the whole 'the only good trial lawyer is a dead trial lawyer' talk, that there were too many frivilous law suits. I am certainly against those. But at the same time there are people who need recourse when corporation greed, incompetance and lack of concern for safety rear it's head. They are not all good or all bad. Unfortunately it appears that you are unable to make such distinctions. And neither the good nor bad of trial lawyers would offer a rationale for Joe scarborough defending Edwards against Bush's attack unless it was something that he felt was unfair. But if you want to hold on to your crazy conspiracy theories of a trial lawyers brotherhood that trumps all other ties, go ahead.
Or they might fight against corporations that use PCBs, asbestos, or Thalidamyde and in doing so, cause health problems in the neighboring community. Trial lawyers (like the CEOs of major corporations) are certainly greedballs, but at least they don't do things like weigh the cost of a recall against the cost of defending against lawsuits like some corporations do.
As I pointed out before, gwayneco either can't or won't see the good things done by trial lawyers. He refuses to see a balanced look, in which they are both respsonsible for greed, and needless lawsuits as well as lawsuits which help to correct the greed and wrong doing of large corporations. There were examples in the original article of corporations who knowingly allowed defective and unsafe equipment to be distributed. The victims of this won the case, but gwayneco seems to have little regard for the victims, and only sees the parts that he wants to see. Other conservatives on the board even pointed out the generalizations, to gwayneco. You can put forth well reasoned factual examples all day long, but sadly they will be ignored.
The difference is that gwayneco is talking about all trial lawyers. Kerry never made those kind of generalizations even against Edwards.
My problem with this lawyer is that he cannot fathom why I need to own an AK47...I have one, and I want to get a second one...I cannot fathom why he reserves judgement by being a Vice-Presidential candidate on what Americans "need"...This is dangerous waters, because the rationale of what one "needs" can be addressed to any topic by the government which excludes stark basics of survival...This is not America, and the "need" for arms is inherent with the extraordinary rights, freedoms, and choice we enjoy as compared to the rest of the world...
