Nope - my world is not so black and white, rimrocker. I would have voted for the following, regardless of political party affiliation: Wesley Clark John McCain John Edwards I am just bemoaning the fact that, like always, the 2 major parties run out to us a pair of duds to choose from just like with Clinton and Dole in '96 (didn't vote in that one ) and Gore and Bush in '00 (voted for Gore in that one). Yes, it is true that I lean more conservative than liberal but that doesn't mean I am a Dubya puppet that is going to shake its head up and down every time the man speaks.
Yeah, the only difference is both of them have WORKED in their life. John Edwards wasnt born in rich, he earned it on his own. Even though John Kerry may have been well off and didnt have to go, he VOLUNTEERED for Vietnam ( he didnt avoid it like Cheney and Bush did) . John Kerry hasnt had the privilege of running failed businesses and owning baseball teams either. He's been in public service for almost all of his adult life. So don't try to lump Kerry and Edwards with the likes of Bush or Cheney.
Dude, McCain has REPEATEDLY and FORCEFULLY stated that he would not run as VP for EITHER party, believing he can do far more good in the Senate.
Thanks. That made for a very interesting read. It sounds like Edwards was an excellent advocate for his clients and has done extremely well. He appears to be admired by many of the attorneys who were on the opposing side and lost. I didn't see anything that would not make him a good choice for VP. There are no surprises in the column.
The Trouble With Kerry Your one-stop center for doubts about JFK2. Updated Monday, March 1, 2004, at 3:20 PM PT As a Democrat, I have two big fears about John Kerry. The first is that he'll lose. The second is that he'll win. Let's take the second possibility first. One reason Kerry might lose, after all, is an inchoate public intuition that he would not be a successful president. It isn't easy to be a successful president in the best of times. The Constitution intentionally establishes a stalemate machine, in which two houses of Congress and the White House have to agree in order for anything to get done. Even when one party controls all three power centers, it's hard to achieve dramatic reforms. In 1992, Clinton became president with Democrats in control of both the House and Senate. His top legislative priority was passage of a health care plan. He didn't get it. When one party controls Congress and another the White House--the likely situation in Kerry's first two years, at least--it's even harder to do big things. Failed presidencies were almost considered the norm before Reagan and Clinton came along. Nothing in the system has really changed since then, except a) general partisan bitterness has gotten much, much worse; b) gerrymandering has made incumbent legislators harder to defeat and, therefore, more ideological and unpersuadable; and c) the easier national problems have, almost by definition, been addressed, leaving us with the most intractable dilemmas: paying for health care and the boomers' retirement, dealing with global environmental effects and immigration along with trade and the consequential disappearance of high-paying, low-skilled jobs, etc. Even the welfare mess, which had resisted solution for five decades, seems in retrospect a relatively simple problem--there, at least, the voters had made up their minds. (They wanted recipients to work!) With an unexceptional politician in office, the familiar Nixon-Ford-Carter pattern could well reassert itself: The president gets a handful of months after his or her inauguration to accomplish reforms of significance. Then he gets bogged down, turns to foreign policy, and eventually retires unceremoniously. Kerry does bring several advantages to the job. Most obviously, if elected he should come into office owing less to the Democratic special interests groups than any postwar Democratic president--certainly less than some of his primary rivals. Unions? They endorsed Dean or Gephardt, and did so little for them one wonders when the press will stop depicting labor as a major player. Civil rights groups? Kerry once expressed some qualms about affirmative action--more on those later--which didn't endear him to the civil rights establishment. And it's not the black vote that has put him way out in front for the nomination. The senior lobby? Kerry once also made approving noises about "means-testing"--shaving the benefits of the affluent elderly, a notion that's anathema to AARP. Kerry is certainly unencumbered enough to embrace what Bruce Reed calls the "only ... winning formula in today's politics," namely being "better, and bigger, than his party." Continue Article -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'll also concede the Conventional Wisdom that Kerry is a good hand in the seconds and minutes of a crisis--when bullets are actually flying, or bombers are on the way. It's only after the crisis subsides that he turns into a play-it-safe straddler! But I'm getting ahead of myself. There are at least four factors that suggest Kerry is more likely to be a failed president than a successful one: Unwillingness to take political risks is only #2. 1. Does he work well with others? The worry here isn't so much that Kerry is an untested executive--he's never run anything larger than his Senate office--but that the presidency requires more than mere executive competence. A CEO can give orders, but to make the Founding Fathers' balky triple-veto system work, a president has to cajole congressmen and construct complicated alliances. Is that something Kerry is likely to be good at--or is he more likely to be a Jimmy Carter-style president, aloof and resented even within his own party? The hints in Kerry's senatorial résumé aren't encouraging. Legislating is an almost pathologically collaborative effort, and Kerry has been a conspicuous non-performer in the legislation department. Time magazine found exactly "three substantive bills passed with Kerry's name on them." Two of these "had to do with marine research and protecting fisheries." (The other was "designed to provide grants for women starting small businesses.") Kerry's record as a senator for two decades would be embarrassing were it not for his investigations into drug commerce and his initial digging into illegal aid for the Nicaraguan Contras. Investigating, of course, is less of a collaborative effort than legislating. But being president seems more like legislating. It doesn't help that Kerry is not well-liked in Massachusetts ("We're all trying to put our arms around him," said one beefy Irish pol from Massachusetts at the Kerry victory party in Manchester, N.H.) or that he has broken his word when it's in his interest to do so--as when he broke a heralded spending-cap agreement with his GOP rival, William Weld, in the closing days of his 1996 race. 2. No visible political courage: The great question for Kerry biographers is how a man who showed bravery on the battlefield could demonstrate so little of it in his political life. Bill Clinton wasn't the boldest politician in the world, but he risked something by embracing teacher testing in Arkansas and an end to "welfare as we know it." And he stuck with those stands, trying to persuade the unpersuaded, until something came of them. Al Gore had the guts to break with his party and vote in favor of the first Gulf War--showing foresight and sound judgment that Kerry (and Clinton, for that matter) did not match. Name an issue on which Kerry has taken this sort of career-threatening risk. True, he was an early supporter of the Reagan-era Gramm-Rudman-Hollings budget-balancing law. But since even Edward Kennedy supported Gramm-Rudman, there are limits to how many heresy points Kerry gets for it. Kerry's supporters occasionally offer his vote for welfare reform as evidence of courage--but supporting welfare reform wasn't a risky vote for a politician with national aspirations. It was the only safe vote. Nor was Kerry a significant presence in the welfare reform debate. A more telling and troubling episode is Kerry's speech expressing doubts on affirmative action. The year was 1992, a time when Democrats could expect lots of favorable press for doing heretical things like expressing doubts about affirmative action. (Those were the days!) Kerry had announced a grand initiative on race, including "a promised series" of speeches, the first of which was delivered at Yale. Kerry's heresy was carefully cushioned, however. He felt the pain of whites resentful of reverse discrimination. He noted that "affirmative action has kept American thinking in racial terms." But for him these thoughts had no policy consequences--Kerry didn't call for an eventual phase-out of affirmative action, for example, or a shift to affirmative action based on class rather than race. He didn't want to end it, and he didn't want to mend it either. Instead, within a few paragraphs he safely reaffirmed his support. Then he backed off even his theoretical doubts after the first critical reaction (and after Bill Clinton had passed over him in choosing his running mate). The race initiative was shelved. (See also this site--search for "Yale.") This is one reason the oft-told story of Kerry protesting the Vietnam War by throwing someone else's medals away resonates uncomfortably. Kerry wasn't willing to take the risk of parting with his own medals. They might come in handy some day! Even in his moment of maximum political bravado he was cautious. 3. Yep. No vision: Clinton developed his "Third Way" views over the course of decades. You could find them mushy or disagree with them but they were his own. What's Kerry's inspiring philosophy? If he had such a thing, one suspects, he wouldn't have campaigned by copying a CD-ROM of consultant Bob Shrum's old speeches into his hard drive. Even Shrum's shopworn memes--"I'll ... take on the powerful interests that stand in your way" etc.--don't really amount to a vision, as opposed to an attitude. Perhaps Kerry can obtain a vision on the political black market in the months between now and the Democratic convention. But even if he does, will he be able to sell it? This brings us to ... 4. No fallback salesmanship: Successful modern presidents have one thing in common: a good pitch-man's basic rapport with mainstream voters. Reagan had it. Clinton had it. By this I mean that if Clinton or Reagan called the networks to cover an Oval Office speech, or if they addressed the Congress, the voters would at least give them a hearing--not necessarily buy what they were selling, but come to it with minds that were persuadable in a way that they had been persuaded before. That meant that when Reagan and Clinton got into trouble, as all presidents do--Reagan with Iran-Contra and Clinton with Monica--they were able to reboot, give some big speeches, and start to get out of trouble. Sometimes a president's initial rapport with the public disappears--as Jimmy Carter's arguably had by the time of his "malaise" speech, or certainly by the end of his term. But Kerry would, I think, be in the uniquely precarious position of starting his term with no particular rapport. (Contrast with John Edwards--now there's a guy who could talk his way back from a 40 percent approval rating.) I admit, I'm allergic to Kerry. Something in the vibration of that deep, pompous tone he adopts--the lugubrious, narcissistic fake gravity--grates on me. Others, bizarrely, say they don't have this problem. But few would argue that Kerry has formed a special bond with any large group of voters other than veterans. If he wins it's likely to be because voters see him as an acceptable alternative to an unacceptable incumbent, not because he's inspired them. It doesn't help that Kerry has a tendency to play the voters for fools--letting them think he's Irish (when he's not) or letting them think he's cleaner, in the campaign contribution department, than he really is (e.g., saying he takes no PAC money but accepting unlimited "soft money" contributions to his Citizen Soldier Fund). Or letting them think he gave up his own medals. .... All this means is that when President Kerry gets into trouble--when his first big proposals stall in Congress, when malaise or scandal arrives--he won't necessarily have the ability to go to the public and dig himself out. He'll be through, over. Jimmy Carter took several years to reach that point. But Carter came into office as a highly effective salesman. It's not inconceivable, I think, that Kerry could turn into a Carter after several months. (Imagine his 1992 race initiative played out on a national stage.) In a parliamentary system, where a no-confidence vote can quickly produce a new government, this might not be such a disturbing prospect. But we have fixed presidential terms. Four years is a long time. http://slate.msn.com/id/2096408/ Which millionaire? It seems that if Edwards is to run an anti-Kerry campaign he must do it on something other than ideological grounds. Tuesday’s exit poll data may point Edwards and his strategists in the direction of a personality-driven contrast with Kerry. Edwards, the son of a textile mill supervisor, pointed in this direction in an interview with MSNBC's Chris Matthews Tuesday night. "Because of my own life experience I understand very personally the problems that most working families face," Edwards said. "I grew up in a working family and I've been representing them most of my life." For Democratic voters, the question may be: What kind of millionaire do you want? Edwards is a self-made millionaire, amassing a fortune estimated at more than $20 million through his work as a plaintiffs’ personal injury attorney. Kerry both inherited wealth and married into it. His wife Teresa Heinz Kerry is one of America’s wealthiest people, with a fortune in excess of $600 million. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4156095/
Your point is ???? Like I said , it's not how much money you have now, it's how you got it, and what youve done with your life. Kerry didnt waste money on failed oil companies and baseball teams, he's been a public servant for most of his life. John Edwards grew up below middle class, and EARNED his money. That article is pointless, and should of been used for someone else's quote. It doest fit with what I said.
The Big Decision The wisdom of picking Edwards. By William Saletan Posted Tuesday, July 6, 2004, at 9:29 AM PT Think about this for a minute: He left college, and he volunteered three different ways. First he volunteered for military service. Then he volunteered to serve in Vietnam. And then he volunteered for some of the most dangerous, hazardous duty you could possibly have in Vietnam. As a result, he was wounded multiple times. He won a whole series of medals while he was there. And now—this is an amazing thing—a vice president of the United States who avoided service four, five, six times—I've lost count—[and] a president of the United States who can't account for a year of his national guard service are attacking John Kerry for the medals he won in Vietnam? You have got to be kidding me. That's John Edwards talking about John Kerry at a Florida Democratic Party fund-raiser three weeks ago. This is why Kerry had to pick Edwards: Kerry sounds so much more attractive when Edwards is doing the talking. Five months ago, after watching Kerry strut his stuff in New Hampshire—such as it was—I warned that Democrats were on the verge of nominating a guy who had plenty of selling points but couldn't make the sale himself. How was this mediocre campaigner attracting voters? The answer, it turned out, was that he wasn't attracting them. It was Kerry's sales force—Ted Kennedy, former Georgia Sen. Max Cleland, Iowa's first lady Christie Vilsack, and others—that was doing this job so well. The problem with this arrangement, I thought, was that the candidate would eventually have to stand and fight alone. "If you nominate Kerry, you don't get the sales force," I wrote. "You just get him." Who was the better candidate? Edwards. That's how I saw it, and plenty of exit polls backed me up. Liberals were voting for Kerry because they thought he was electable. But the people whose ballots would actually determine which candidate got elected—independents, conservative Democrats, and self-identified Republicans sufficiently open-minded to participate in Democratic primaries—were voting for Edwards. My wife saw it differently. She looked at Kerry and saw a guy loaded with national security credentials. She looked at Edwards and saw a baby-faced lawyer with little governing experience who seemed unprepared for the presidency in a time of war. Kerry saw the same thing. "In the Senate four years, and that is the full extent of public life—no international experience, no military experience," Kerry said of Edwards. Lots of voters also recognized a difference. According to exit polls, people who looked for the candidate with the "right experience" for the presidency voted overwhelmingly for Kerry. So this was the dilemma: Edwards was the best salesman, but Kerry was the best product. If you had to choose one or the other, I thought it was more important to pick the salesman, since the consequences of losing the election were far more serious than the consequences of electing the less qualified Democrat. The logic made sense, but the premise was mistaken. Democrats didn't have to choose. They could get the best product along with the best salesman, if Kerry had the wisdom to pick Edwards. By wisdom, I don't mean short-term calculation or even long-term prudence. While Edwards offered the most obvious electoral boost, Kerry's associates made clear that the nominee was looking beyond the election for the running mate who would be most ready to step in as president. That train of thought led to Dick Gephardt, not to Edwards. Personal chemistry pointed in the same direction: By all accounts, Kerry feels far more comfortable with Gephardt than with Edwards. I think Kerry is uneasy around Edwards because Edwards reminds him of the young Kerry, and the old Kerry knows that the young Kerry was a showboating upstart. Gephardt was the guy Kerry wanted. That's where wisdom had to intervene. Kerry had to recognize that the decision wasn't strictly his to make. Look again at those exit polls. Most Democrats who voted for Kerry weren't in love with him. They saw him as a vehicle to get rid of Bush. Some initially preferred the candidate who vowed to stand up to Bush, or the candidate who preached optimism, or the candidate who accused Republicans of a war against working people, or the candidate who promised to take back our government from the special interests. Kerry absorbed all the votes by absorbing all the messages. He became the optimistic guy who would stand up against Bush's war on work and fight the special interests. More clearly than any Democratic presidential nominee in 20 years, Kerry was chosen not to represent himself but to represent his party. And what Democrats wanted, as polls and crowds made clear, was Edwards—because they like him, and because they want to win. That's the most important thing Kerry revealed today: He understands that the election is about more than what he wants. Sometimes the biggest thing you can do is to accept what's bigger than you. William Saletan is Slate's chief political correspondent and author of Bearing Right: How Conservatives Won the Abortion War. Article URL: http://slate.msn.com/id/2103432/
He turned 18 in 1971 . He didnt go AWOL from the National Gaurd. You cant compare him to George Bush or Dick Cheney. Totally different circumstances and you know it. But either way, the DEMOCRATIC ticket still has more decorated veterans than the Republican ticket does. It probably wouldnt be wise for the pubs' to bring this up.
Yes we need them to protect us from hot coffee at McDonald's. I can sleep better at night knowing they are making our lives better. Better living through litigation!!!
From the article: The effect of his work has reached beyond those cases, and beyond his own income. Other lawyers have filed countless similar cases; just this week, a jury on Long Island returned a $112 million award. And doctors have responded by changing the way they deliver babies, often seeing a relatively minor anomaly on a fetal heart monitor as justification for an immediate Caesarean. On the other side, insurance companies, business groups that support what they call tort reform and conservative commentators have accused Mr. Edwards of relying on questionable science in his trial work. Indeed, there is a growing medical debate over whether the changes have done more harm than good. Studies have found that the electronic fetal monitors now widely used during delivery often incorrectly signal distress, prompting many needless Caesarean deliveries, which carry the risks of major surgery. The rise in such deliveries, to about 26 percent today from 6 percent in 1970, has failed to decrease the rate of cerebral palsy, scientists say. Studies indicate that in most cases, the disorder is caused by fetal brain injury long before labor begins. Yeah, good on for you plaintiffs attorneys. The only thing you have accomplished is driving up the costs while providing no improvement in health outcomes.
gwayneco, that's all trial lawyers do. You are right. We've all seen just how trustworthy big companies, and health insurance companies our. We've also seen about the company with the faulty drain system that killed an innocent youth. That company knew there was a fault with their drain and hadn't done anything to correct it. But of course for some reason according to you trial lawyers only do things that make no difference and don't change things. And corporations will always do the right thing on their own. Continue to try and paint his past career as being all bad and for the dark side if you wish, but it isn't accurate, or balanced. To take a look at the balanced situation, I'll be more than happy to say there are too many trivial and frivilous law suits out there. There are some that aren't deserved and don't do a bit of good. At the same time there plenty of corporations and people in authority positions who put safety, well-being, and truth after profit on their priority list. For those cases I'm glad that the unsuspecting consumer as a means of recourse.
