Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
The Third Man
Michael Crowley of the
New Republic has read Bob Shrum's memoir, and the
tear-stained reflections of the man who blew eight presidential
campaigns are chock-a-block
with dirt on John Edwards. Short version: He's a lightweight.
Long version: If you tied cement blocks to his ankles and gave him
a medicine ball to carry, then chucked him off one of the Petronas
Towers, dude would float.
Shrum went on advising Edwards for several years, including as Edwards was contemplating his vote on the fall 2002 Iraq war resolution. In the one passage of the book already widely leaked, Shrum recounts how he and other political advisers pushed Edwards into a vote for the resolution that Edwards--and, even more so, his wife, Elizabeth--didn't want to cast. The episode didn't make Shrum look great. But the real damage is to Edwards, who comes across as a cipher taking orders from his handlers. As Shrum puts it: "[H]e was the candidate and if he was really against the war it was up to him to stand his ground. He didn't."
Something that wasn't widely leaked:
Kerry had qualms about Edwards from the start, Shrum writes, but grew "even queasier about Edwards after they met. Edwards had told Kerry he was going to share a story with him that he'd never told anyone else--that after his son Wade had been killed, he climbed onto the slab at the funeral home, laid there and hugged his body, and promised that he'd do all he could to make life better for people, to live up to Wade's ideals of service. Kerry was stunned, not moved, because, as he told me later, Edwards had recounted the exact story to him, almost in the exact same words, a year or two before--and with the same preface, that he'd never shared the memory with anyone else. Kerry said he found it chilling, and he decided he couldn't pick Edwards unless he met with him again."
Edwards is leading in Iowa, as is Mitt Romney on the GOP side
(Wayne Allyn Root might be leading on the Libertarian side for all
I know), so there's a trend: the guys tipped to win the first
presidential contests are the ones best-known for their mall model
looks and calvalcade of flip-flops. If there's a difference it's in
the sanctimony Edwards brings to his changes of heart. Check out
the first passage Crowley quotes, then check out
Edwards' statement telling Democrats what to do about funding
the war.
Jeff Taylor had some fun with
Edwards' Playstation 3 crisis back in November - his
original poor-little-rich-populist scandal, before the
haircut.
|5.23.07 @ 9:43AM|#
NOTA folks, None of the Above. That's who you should vote for. We need a president like a fish needs a bicycle. ;)
|5.23.07 @ 9:45AM|#
The Petronas Towers? Why do we have to go all the way to Malaysia to toss Edwards off of a rooftop? How about the Sears Tower?
|5.23.07 @ 9:47AM|#
Bob Shrum is a professional loser.
I cannot understand why candidates listened to him.
Grotius|5.23.07 @ 9:52AM|#
joe,
Shrum has done well in non-Presidential races (or at least the
candidates that he has been involved with have done well).
SxCx|5.23.07 @ 9:54AM|#
Edwards had told Kerry he was going to share a story with
him that he'd never told anyone else--that after his son Wade had
been killed, he climbed onto the slab at the funeral home, laid
there and hugged his body, and promised that he'd do all he could
to make life better for people, to live up to Wade's ideals of
service. Kerry was stunned, not moved, because, as he told me
later, Edwards had recounted the exact story to him, almost in the
exact same words, a year or two before--and with the same preface,
that he'd never shared the memory with anyone else.
Why did I laugh at this?
|5.23.07 @ 9:55AM|#
The first anecdote is pretty rich coming from Shrum, considering that Edwards's instincts were right in the first place and Shrum is basically damning Edwards for listening to his advice. The second anecdote I don't much care about at all. So personally the man's a phony; big deal. So's every politician on the planet. What matters is what they're going to do once they're in office. As far as that goes I don't expect Edwards's lefty economic views - which he's hardly flip-flopped on over the last several years - to win him any friends at Reason. But sniping at him for being - gasp! - inauthentic merely reveals your own naivete.
|5.23.07 @ 9:56AM|#
You know, Grotius, I can believe that.
Bob Shrum can probably do a good job telling you how to sell
yourself as Senator Pothole, who will give all the children
uniforms for their school music classes.
But that's how he tries to sell potential Commanders in Chief, and
that's not what people want in president.
|5.23.07 @ 9:58AM|#
Edwards polls okay because people think he's John Edward, psychic medium and speaker to the dead.
Dave W.|5.23.07 @ 10:07AM|#
That is the first thing I heard that made me sorta wish I chose Kerry over Cobb.
|5.23.07 @ 10:13AM|#
Thank you, Grotius. I'd like to thank Urkobold, my mentor, and
all the technical support staff at Hit & Run.
Here's my thank you
gift.
|5.23.07 @ 10:14AM|#
Iron Lungfish,
For whatever reason, Reason has it in for John Edwards - and I say
this as someone who has him pretty far down on my list. I don't
know if it's because of the specificity of his health care plan, or
because he deploys language which kinda sorta reminds them of
something a union member might say, but they go after him a lot
more than Clinton or Obama - he's right up there with Gore, who can
never be forgiven for being right about global warming too early,
and effective at swinging public opinion.
The "inauthentic" bit is a just the excuse of the day. They're not
going after John Edwards because he's inauthentic; they're calling
him inauthentic because they're going after him.
|5.23.07 @ 10:20AM|#
joe,
I can't speak for Reason, but I have a similar reaction.
He's not the candidate that I dislike the most; he's just the most
Quayle-like. Low substance, lots of bull. About what you'd expect
from a sleazy plaintiffs' lawyer. For the people.
Dave W.|5.23.07 @ 10:25AM|#
For whatever reason, Reason has it in for . . . effective at
swinging public opinion.
Joe, I have a question you might have an answer to --
Sometimes I hear about the pre-Editor Gillespie, Virginia Postrel
era of Reason, but the comments about this bygone era are
always a bit cryptic to me. Did the publication act like this way
back then, or is this a recenter development?
|5.23.07 @ 10:25AM|#
"he's right up there with Gore, who can never be forgiven
for being right about global warming too early, and effective at
swinging public opinion."
Joe, I think you're getting Reason and National Review mixed up
again.
Reason's coverage of Al Gore has been quite reasonable. I used to
despise the guy, but due to some of what's been written in Reason
about him, I've come to have a smidge of respect for him.
(Though admitting the above does cause me to throw up in my mouth a
little bit.)
As for Edwards, well, look at the guy: he's laughably easy to punk
on. Whether its the fact that he's a trial lawyer, that he's a
flagrant BMW Bolshevik, or that he's such a fussy little prima
donna, you have to admit he's low hanging fruit for anonymous
snarksters on this here intarboob.
|5.23.07 @ 10:25AM|#
Considering Bob Shrum's track record, you'd think he'd have the
sense to keep his mouth shut and hope that he could find a
yak-herding position in Upper Mongolia.
The continued love the DLC has for Shrum is one of the mysteries of
the universe.
The older I get, the more I'm coming to believe that anyone
intelligent and with actual skills has the sense to go into
business instead. Politics (and the support machine surrounding it)
is a haven for the incompetent, the egotistical, the idealistic,
and those who can't make it in business.
|5.23.07 @ 10:26AM|#
Chucklehead,
Indeed, this thread has gone too long without noting that Orson
Welles--rather, Harry Lime--was the third man.
Incidentally, a new, two-DVD set of The Third Man has just
been released.
|5.23.07 @ 10:29AM|#
Pro Libertate,
I think you may be responding more to the hair and the "Aw, shucks"
act than his merits. Edwards put out the most comprehensive and
detailed policy proposals of any candidate running last time. He's
definitely more of a policy geek than Kerry, Obama, Dean, or
Hillary.
|5.23.07 @ 10:29AM|#
"The older I get, the more I'm coming to believe that anyone
intelligent and with actual skills has the sense to go into
business instead."
Indeed. Most of the people who serve in public office strike me as
the sort not fit to build a Gordito at Taco Bell.
|5.23.07 @ 10:33AM|#
joe,
My unscientific survey of my fallible memory makes me think that
the Reason staff goes after Senator Clinton pretty fiercely (I seem
to recall a recent post that started out with the sentiment, "You
won't be surprised to hear that Hillary wants to do something
idiotic..."). As for Senator Obama, I think they are just afraid of
the Obama internet support squad which will inundate the Hit and
Run comments in the blink of an eye if anybody attacks him.
|5.23.07 @ 10:34AM|#
Perhaps I am too optimistic, but the country has had 16 years of
good old boy Southerners in the Whitehouse. Yeah, I know Bush is
from a Connecticut family but he grew up in Texas and his whole
persona is Texas. I have had enough of Southern guys for a while on
both sides. I don't think the country will vote for another one
this time.
As far as Edwards goes, he is just a sleazy Southern ambulance
chaser. He is Bill Clinton without the Rhoades scholarship and
without the charm. Clinton may be a sleaze bag but he would at
least be an interesting guy to have dinner with. Anyone here want
to say the same thing about Edwards? I don't think so. I can't
believe he would get the nomination much less win the election.
|5.23.07 @ 10:43AM|#
I personally disliked John Edwards before I became a libertarian
(I.E, 2003-2004, when I first became aware of him). It was his
trial tactics. Anyone who is willing to pretend to channel the dead
in order to win an argument is no friend of mine.
I first started paying attention to politics during Clinton's
administration, so I know how little of a President's policy
program he can often put into place. I've watched all through
Bush's administration, so I know how deeply a phony can lie.
Because of that, I pay more attention now to the specious lies
candidates have made than to their specific proposals.
John Edwards has earned his bread by lying to the gullible, and
that makes him unfit in my mind for the Presidency.
thoreau|5.23.07 @ 10:45AM|#
I think they are just afraid of the Obama internet support
squad which will inundate the Hit and Run comments in the blink of
an eye if anybody attacks him.
Sort of like Ron Paul supporters and internet polls?
|5.23.07 @ 10:48AM|#
joe -
It seems pretty clear to me why Reason "has it in" for Edwards.
Edwards is the most pro-union and the most economically progressive
of the top three Dems, and has presented his anti-poverty proposals
in explicitly populist terms. That's bound to rankle Reasonoids,
even more than Clinton's cultural panders on flag-burning and video
game censorship, or her creepy love of military projection and
executive power. The American libertarian movement is still
primarily a creature of economics more than anything else, and so
an economic lefty is going to get a lot more hate than a neoliberal
who has a certain affection for invading other countries and
outsourcing torture through the CIA.
This wouldn't bother me if Reason would just go after Edwards's
positions on the merits, but instead they singly him out as a
"lightweight" and a "phony" when he's not even the outstanding
leightweight phony in the race. If you were going to single out one
of the candidates as a "lightweight," you'd pick the guy with two
years in the Senate and no detailed policy positions; if you were
going to single out one of the candidates as a phony, you'd pick
the guy who reversed himself on every major position over the last
two years just before getting into the GOP presidential race. So
stop beating around the bush and get to the point: you don't like
the guy's politics. Start talking about those and I'll be willing
to listen.
(I have a similar complaint with liberals who keep bringing up
Giuliani's various divorces and affairs. Give me a break, people,
you don't give a crap about Giuliani slutting it up with his
mistress in Gracy Mansion; you just don't like that the man is a
creepy authoritarian thug and a bit of a not-so-closeted racist. So
object to him for that. But this business about "he was
mean to his ex-wife" is utterly meaningless to how someone manages
the presidency.)
GILMORE|5.23.07 @ 10:51AM|#
Edwards is leading in Iowa, as is Mitt Romney on the GOP
side
is this possibly because they are the two, most boring, whitest-guy
candidates in the field? Fat free vanilla frozen yogurt.
Grotius|5.23.07 @ 10:52AM|#
mediageek,
The Democrats should create a "League of Democratic Heroes." Sort
of like the Justice League without a Seaman. ;)
robc|5.23.07 @ 11:01AM|#
Clinton may be a sleaze bag but he would at least be an
interesting guy to have dinner with.
I have heard this a lot. Or "hes the guy you would want to drink a
beer with". Or whatever. Newt and etc were saying the same things
about meeting with him in the White House.
I dont get it. Story time:
Setting: early 1992/late 1991, first "7 dwarves democratic
debate"
I watched it. My post-debate comment was "I dont know who will get
the nomination, but it wont be that Clinton guy, he is scum."
My total knowledge of him at the time was that debate. I was
stunned when he won the nomination and then the presidency. I still
dont get it.
I have no interest in having dinner with him either.
highnumber|5.23.07 @ 11:01AM|#
Reason is tougher on Edwards than HRC & Obama?
Maybe, because he seems like the sleaziest opportunist of the
bunch, but...
HRC gets a pass from Reason? Not at all. She gets it hard.
(No jokes, please.)
Obama gets off easiest? Maybe, but that's probably because he comes
off as the least sleazy and most well-meaning, even if his
political philosophy is very, very far from the readers here. He
seems genuine and likable. He may not be genuine, after all he
is a politician, but he strikes me as the one who,
if a libertarian college professor or some other influence had got
to him early enough, might have had a chance to do good. As it is,
he strikes a lot of people who don't agree with him as well-meaning
but misguided.
And at the very least, he can say he was always against the Iraq
War, but he's not Kucinich. That pleases a lot of people.
Ramble ramble.
|5.23.07 @ 11:02AM|#
is this possibly because they are the two, most boring,
whitest-guy candidates in the field?
Neither of them could be whiter than Hillary Clinton if
they tried.
Grotius|5.23.07 @ 11:08AM|#
It is unfortunate that Andy Kaufman is dead (?). He'd be an excellent Presidential candidate.
VM|5.23.07 @ 11:17AM|#
Iron - gak!
Here I thought that Gro's video was terrible. Then ProGLib's return
(I had expected the Riesenrad scene from the Third Man) actually
caused gastric distress.
But what you, yes you, posted was the most twisted
thing of all!
Fortunately, High#'s interesting (not rambling!) words @11:01 kept
sanity flowing until the treatment could take its course.
|5.23.07 @ 11:19AM|#
RobC,
Few people despise Clinton more than me. But, you can't deny the
guy did get a Rhodes scholarship. He is not a stupid guy no matter
what you think of him. I see Edwards as just a progressive Elmer
Gantry. Rather than using the bible to bed women, Edwards, as
pointed out above, uses the law and smooth talking to take in the
gullible and feed his seemingly insatiable greed. Edwards is every
bit as shallow as Clinton but doesn't even have the somewhat
redeeming quality of high intelligence. I look at Edwards and see
the same personality as Jimmy Swagert. Edwards just put his finger
to the wind and figured that he could get ahead by conning juries
and spouting leftist politics rather than conning the believers.
Same coin just different sides.
Grotius|5.23.07 @ 11:21AM|#
highnumber,
I wonder if Andy had really faked his death if his form of humor
would be all that well appreciated today. Imagine him doing
something like what he and Michael Richards go into on
Fridays.
highnumber|5.23.07 @ 11:22AM|#
Gro,
Boy, howdy! It would be the greatest gag ever.
As a child, I was enthralled by his appearances on SNL and Taxi,
and I was heartbroken and flabbergasted when the viewers voted him
off SNL.
There have been very few even remotely like him.
robc|5.23.07 @ 11:25AM|#
John,
Im not denying he is smart. Also, as 20th century Democratic
presidents go, he was pretty good, maybe the best?
Im just saying I wouldnt want to spend 30 seconds in the same room
with the man. I just wonder about the judgement of people who get
swayed by him. That includes all the GOP leadership of the mid
90s.
highnumber|5.23.07 @ 11:25AM|#
Gro,
Was his humor really appreciated all that much back then? It seemed
like most people paid attention because they wanted to figure out
the gag, but whenever they got close, he would move it further
away.
Dave Weigel|5.23.07 @ 11:27AM|#
If you were going to single out one of the candidates as a
"lightweight," you'd pick the guy with two years in the Senate and
no detailed policy positions.
That's not how I'd define "lightweight." It's not all that
impressive to me that over the course of five years campaigning for
president, with God knows how many advisers on every issue, Edwards
has come out with (generally crappy) plans on a lot of issues. He
didn't actually do much in the Senate, whereas Obama co-sponsored a
pork disclosure bill with Tom Coburn after, what 18 months in the
job? When the time came to make the biggest decision of his
political career, Edwards whiffed and co-sponsored Joe Lieberman's
Iraq War resolution.
Of course it might be just that I'm inclined (as with Jim Webb) to
forgive the guy who's a brilliant writer.
Grotius|5.23.07 @ 11:28AM|#
highnumber,
Wasn't that "voting" thing a gag as well?
Yeah, he had a real conundrum quality to him.
Oh, and for everyone's viewing pleasure, Mr. Andy
Kaufman.
|5.23.07 @ 11:28AM|#
VM,
Very well.
In Italy, for thirty years under the Borgias, they had warfare, terror, murder, bloodshed - they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and the Renaissance. In Switzerland, they had brotherly love, five hundred years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock.
Of course, as you know, the Germans invented the cuckoo clock. But
it's a great line, nonetheless, and it's all Welles, in all of his
Orsomeness.
|5.23.07 @ 11:30AM|#
Obama and HRC will battle each other over whether or not voting
for the war was ok. HRC will win that battle, both the two of them
will be too battered to get the nomination.
Edwards will fill the resulting vacuum.
He is your nominee folks, get used to it.
VM|5.23.07 @ 11:31AM|#
Thanks Gro, ProGLib!
High#: his work on Taxi was hilarious.
Jimmy Clifton lives!
|5.23.07 @ 11:39AM|#
Man, that might be, along with "Dr. Strangelove", my favorite movie ever, and Welles is definitely the greatest movie villain ever in that flick. He makes Hannibal Lecter look like a piker.
Grotius|5.23.07 @ 11:43AM|#
VM,
I just found a non-bleeped version of the confrontation between
Lawler and Kaufman on Letterman's show. Of course it was all a
stunt.
|5.23.07 @ 11:45AM|#
His entrance was the greatest ever, too. Just think what it was
like back then--the whole world knew that superstar Orson Welles
was in the picture, but he hadn't shown up yet. What the heck? And
this Harry Lime guy the actors kept talking about--sounds great,
too bad he's dead.
And lo, there's Welles in Carol Reed's fun shadows and strategic
lighting. Orsome.
VM|5.23.07 @ 11:49AM|#
Excellent, Gro! ("I'm sure you can say some of those
words on television!")
Will Allen - what did you think of the Manchurian Candidate? Angela
Landsbury's work in that was amazing!
|5.23.07 @ 11:49AM|#
It's not all that impressive to me that over the course of
five years campaigning for president, with God knows how many
advisers on every issue, Edwards has come out with (generally
crappy) plans on a lot of issues.
This gets back to my main point. If you think Edwards's plans are
"generally crappy," criticize him for the deficiencies of his
policy positions, not for the fact that he's a "lightweight."
Obama, on the other hand, hasn't figured out what his plans
are. Again, the term being tossed around here is
"lightweight," not "person whose policies I find
disagreeable."
Obama co-sponsored a pork disclosure bill with Tom
Coburn
Ooh, a pork disclosure bill! And given that pork takes up an
astonishing, what, fraction of a percentage of domestic spending,
we can tell that Obama's really super-serious about getting that
deficit under control. Or else he knows that most Americans don't
like the sound of "pork," don't realize that it doesn't actually
put a dent in the larger picture of the budget, and that it sounds
good for an ambitious pol to have his name on a nice bipartisan
bill against "pork" without actually doing anything difficult to
reduce spending.
Of course it might be just that I'm inclined (as with Jim Webb)
to forgive the guy who's a brilliant writer.
"Brilliant"? This is "brilliant" in the same sense that politicians
can be "good-looking" by Washington standards - i.e., show business
for ugly people? "Brilliant" is Italo Calvino; Obama has written a
better-than-average campaign book.
|5.23.07 @ 11:50AM|#
I'll be much more inclined to vote for the guy or gal who avoids
unctously sharing his painful personal moments with either the
public or someone likely to leak it to the public. Give me Reagan's
emotional remoteness any day; it may be bad for his kids, but it is
better for my gag reflex.
I despised Gore from the moment he canterwauled on national t.v.
about sissy croaking from cancer, even before the news of his
longtime relationship with tobacco farming became widely known.
Guess what, numbskull candidates? Nearly all of us has had somebody
we love take the dirtnap, and we don't need you tell us about your
experience with a catch in your throat.
|5.23.07 @ 11:55AM|#
Yeah, VM, I've got that classic on my DVR as well, and Lansbury definitely should not be overlooked. I guess why Welles wins the prize for me was because in that role he really demonstrated the sheer joy the sociopath has in being amoral. Just being evil cuz' it's fun, whereas Lansbury's evil springs from an deep, deep, unquenched thirst for power and control.
Dave Weigel|5.23.07 @ 11:56AM|#
Obama has written a better-than-average campaign
book.
Dreams From My Father is one of the better memoirs of the
past 20 years. Fields of Fire is possibly the best Vietnam
novel, and Born Fighting is fine popular history.
highnumber|5.23.07 @ 12:01PM|#
Gro,
I've heard that Kaufman agreed to abide by the results of the phone
poll, but everyone thought that he would not be voted off. I recall
there being an actual 900# to call. As far as I know, it was all
real, just not the result the producers or Kaufman expected.
|5.23.07 @ 12:01PM|#
Short version: He's a lightweight. Long version: If you tied cement blocks to his ankles and gave him a medicine ball to carry, then chucked him off one of the Petronas Towers, dude would float.
Let's just say I almost disrupted the office when I read that.
:D
Grotius|5.23.07 @ 12:06PM|#
highnumber,
I always figured that it was a gag. Of course figuring out what was
and wasn't a joke was one of the great things about Kaufman.
|5.23.07 @ 12:09PM|#
Reason is tougher on Edwards than HRC & Obama?
Well, I haven't seen anything on Obama lately, but I'm not
aware he's done or said much worth commenting on from a libertarian
POV in the last few weeks. But then, maybe I'm just blind to the
fact that the almost-all-extremely-anti-Iraq-war H&R writers
decided to give a pass to the pro-war Blues because Edwards sounds
a hair more populist than the others.
|5.23.07 @ 12:14PM|#
Kerry was stunned, not moved, because, as he told me later, Edwards had recounted the exact story to him, almost in the exact same words, a year or two before--and with the same preface, that he'd never shared the memory with anyone else.
You know, in theory, it's entirely possible that's true.
He could have only been able to divulge that to one person
in the world - John Kerry - and just forgot he'd done it
before.
Kerry was just nervous about the idea of having such an
absent-minded veep, that's all.
Chucklehead|5.23.07 @ 12:17PM|#
... because Edwards sounds a hair more populist than the
others.
$400 bucks more populist, anyway.
|5.23.07 @ 12:18PM|#
"One of the things we ought to be thinking about is some level
of mandatory service to our country, so that everybody in America _
not just the poor kids who get sent to war _ are serving this
country..."
Edwards in the Washington Post this morning. First, what has that
jackass ever done for this country besides steel for living using
gullible juries as his stick up weapon? Second, don't even get me
started on the whole "just poor people join the military" bullshit.
Third, what the fuck does Edwards think makes this country great?
In people like Edwards' mind, the only people who are doing
anything positive for the country are government bureaucrats
running other people's lives. The fact that this country is the
greatest country in the world because every day 100s of millions of
people get up and go to work in the private sector and do countless
numbers of amazing things that create wealth and freedom and make
the country the most livable in history never crosses Edwards' pea
brain. The working man makes this country. Edwards' attitude that
you can only make a difference working for the government is one of
the most corrosive ideas to arise in the last 50 years.
thoreau|5.23.07 @ 12:28PM|#
Since many of Urkobold's associates seem to be active in this
thread, perhaps somebody could be so good as to pass on to His High
Trollishness that we have a bit of a problem in a thread at
Unqualified Offerings?
http://highclearing.com/index.php/archives/2007/05/23/6464
|5.23.07 @ 12:38PM|#
Having actually read the TNR piece Wiegel links to, it should be noted that the second anecdote especially looks highly dubious, and that Crowley's conclusion appears to be that Shrum and Kerry basically teamed up to stick a shiv in Edwards. Given that Kerry was considering a presidential bid up until a few months ago, and that Shrum makes Kerry out to be the hero of the '04 race, I'm thinking Shrum wrote the book under the assumption he'd be working for a Kerry '08 campaign and took the opportunity to stab a rival.
miche|5.23.07 @ 12:38PM|#
I hate med mal lawyers. Bad outcomes aren't always because of
bad medicine and a lot of judgements are based on emotions. When
these lawyers have multi-million dollar paydays based on junk
science, they bankrupt businesses and never have to pay back their
"earnings".
I might be just a wee bit biased though.
Allen|5.23.07 @ 12:44PM|#
What gets me about Edwards is that he's quick to spend his own money on himself (mansion, cars, etc) but not on others. Yet he's quite willing to spend others money on things he deams important.
Urkobold®|5.23.07 @ 12:46PM|#
ASK, AND YE SHALL RECEIVE AN AMPLE HEAPING OF ABUSE FOR SO
ASKING. OR NOT.
URKOBOLD'S MINIONS "MASHED UP"
SANFORD AND SON AND DUNE TODAY. URKOBOLD SEES
SIMILAR POTENTIAL WITH THAT WOMAN WITH STRANGE SEX HABITS' 10,000
PAGE BOOK (URKOBOLD ONLY READS THE SPEECHES) AND MR. SANFORD'S
SHOW.
URKOBOLD IS COMING TO YOU, ELIZABETH! THIS IS THE BIG ONE!
|5.23.07 @ 12:48PM|#
Given that Kerry was considering a presidential bid up until a few months ago,
What, he thought Team Red was going to dredge up an even
weaker candidate than GWB?
|5.23.07 @ 12:49PM|#
I don't know - I'm inclined to vote for Edwards because he looks like Dennis Quaid in "Breaking Away".
highnumber|5.23.07 @ 1:03PM|#
Urkobold hit a few times there. You got a weak one, thoreau. It has been determined to be a waste of time. Small fish have to get thrown back.
|5.23.07 @ 1:06PM|#
Libertarians love the idea of using the courts, rather than
regulation, to address harms.
Right up until somebody actually uses the courts that way.
highnumber|5.23.07 @ 1:12PM|#
Fair point, joe. I, for one, don't have a problem with trial lawyers, but many people, libertarians, conservatives, moderates, and even some liberals do, until they need their services.
miche|5.23.07 @ 1:13PM|#
Libertarians love the idea of using the courts, rather than regulation, to address harms.
Right up until somebody actually uses the courts that way.
I admit my bias- hubby is a doc. But damn, when there are
class action suits over a case of diarrhea, the world has gone
batshit crazy.
Urkobold®|5.23.07 @ 1:15PM|#
THE URKOBOLD REFUSES TO APOLOGIZE FOR THE SECOND AND THIRD PARAGRAPHS OF HIS PRIOR POSTING. IF HE WERE TO NOTE THAT SUCH POSTING MIGHT HAVE BEEN BETTER MADE ELSEWHERE, HE WOULD BLAME ALL THE SHRUMS AROUND HERE, MAN.
|5.23.07 @ 1:16PM|#
Oh, there is no doubt that one either needs a regulatory system
or a tort system to capture externalities and punish fraud. That's
no reason, however, to refrain from excoriating somebody who uses
the tort system to enrich himself by making scientifically
fraudulent claims in front of ignorant juries, like Edwards has, in
regards to the causes of cerebal palsy, in particular.
I think the state needs to provide a police force, but that doesn't
mean I have to refrain from excopriating those who knowingly work
to convict innocent people.
Dave W.|5.23.07 @ 1:17PM|#
Right up until somebody actually uses the courts that
way.
That is a corporatarian thing, not a libertarian thing. Easy to
confuse the two in these days of viral spread of subsidy. True
libertarians do not have a hoard of money to give away. They cannot
pay handsome salaries. They do not entertain lavishly or bestow
costly gifts, but they overflow with the gold of sincere
friendliness, and get in return a self-satisfaction, an influence,
and a power with people that all the money in the mint could not
buy.
|5.23.07 @ 1:19PM|#
This post is filled with right-wing code implying Edwards is an "immoral homosexual"...
|5.23.07 @ 1:26PM|#
joe,
I object to that characterization. I don't oppose people using the
courts in a legitimate way to recompense actual
harm. I also don't usually blame the plaintiffs themselves. . .just
the greedy lawyers.
I have friends in the personal injury business, and they constantly
complain about the huge percentage of dishonest players in the
plaintiffs' bar (and these are plaintiffs' attorneys, not defense
guys, saying this). The insurance companies and their attorneys
aren't much better, of course. I've seen this for myself in an
earlier life, and, of course, most of us have some conception of
how bad things are in the civil arena these days.
I understand your sympathy with the little-guy-versus-the-big-guy
perception of civil actions, but, oftentimes, the "little guy"
isn't getting what he deserves (don't forget the huge chunk of
change plaintiffs give up to their attorneys or the pittance they
sometimes get in class action suits). And Edwards is particularly
evil in what he's done--review some of his cases.
Fluffy|5.23.07 @ 1:31PM|#
I'm all for using the courts to remedy harms.
I just don't like some of the things our current system finds
actionable, and I don't like the way our system assigns liability,
and I don't like the way our system calculates damages.
If the courts allowed me to sue you for a billion dollars, Joe, for
harms I suffered because it hurt my feelings when you smiled on a
sunny day, do you think you would like it? And if you complained
about it, would it be fair for me to say, "Aw, Joe, I guess you
just don't really believe in civil courts after all, my man."
Dave W.|5.23.07 @ 1:31PM|#
And Edwards is particularly evil in what he's done--review
some of his cases.
Unlike George W. Bush, acting as a businessperson, in the corporate
world?
Unlike Hilary Rodham, acting as a businessperson, in the corporate
world?
I don't think Edwards is any morally better, but I don't think he's
morally worse, and he only gets as much crap as he does for it here
(and in other corporately financed places) for being on the wrong
side of the pro vs. anti corporate divide.
Dave W.|5.23.07 @ 1:41PM|#
Since my field is patents, I can speak to those a little better.
Last week a patentee lost their patents because the patent lawyer
did not display sufficient "candor" at the patent office.
Here is how much "candor" is required of the patent lawyer:
http://fedcir.gov/opinions/06-1517.pdf
And you guys cry about SarbOx! Your ideas about big suits over hurt
feelings don't match contemporary reality in the courts at all. the
reality in the trenches, at least for patent lawyers is a lot
tougher than you would imagine.
Final thought for the thread: Just because John Edwards talks to
uneducated, and perhaps even stupid, juries in terms they can
understand does not mean his causes are not just. he would probably
speak much differently to a jury if he knew it was all Reason
commenters. Nor does the fact that juries seem stupid by our
standards, make their verdicts unjust. I remember Tim Cavanaugh
going off on a VIOXX jury in Texas, before we all figured out the
stuff was more dangerous than had been realized. We thought the OJ
was stoopid for thinking that there could ever be a massively evil
police coverup, but Kathryn Johnston has made some of us reflect on
that too (which is not to say that OJ isn't a murderer).
|5.23.07 @ 1:41PM|#
Have no doubt, I was excoriating George W. Bush for his participation in the abuse of eminent domain far prior to his becoming a Presidential candidate.
Chucklehead|5.23.07 @ 1:46PM|#
Libertarians love the idea of using the courts, rather than
regulation, to address harms.
Right up until somebody actually uses the courts that
way.
Can anyone play?
"Liberals love
the idea of using regulations to curb peoples' actions.
Right up until a liberal runs up against the regulation."
|5.23.07 @ 1:46PM|#
No, the fact that some juries are stupid does not condemn Edwards. Making false claims about the causes of cerebal palsy, and the responsibility of ob/gyns in regards to cerebal palsy, to stupid juries, does condemn Edwards.
|5.23.07 @ 1:48PM|#
Dave,
Come now, I didn't say Edwards was the worst possible being in a
world of badness. He's just in the general class of reprehensible.
I'd lob Clinton and Bush over the fence into that area as well,
albeit for different reasons.
I'm a corporate lawyer, which one might think would bias me. But I
don't think that corporations don't deserve frequent spankings.
They do. Still, the spankings need to be for legitimate reasons and
for reasonable amounts (including punitives, when warranted). And
it's worth mentioning that individuals without much money are also
the victims of frivolous suits--either because it takes forever to
get into court due to the insane caseload or as defendants
themselves.
The system is a mess. At least it's not like IP, though. Like
Holmes or someone else of that era said, "Copyright [IP] is the
metaphysics of the law."
Dave W.|5.23.07 @ 1:52PM|#
Making false claims about the causes of cerebal palsy, and
the responsibility of ob/gyns in regards to cerebal
palsy
Let me clue you in: if it were that clear he would have gotten Rule
11'd bigtime.
Instead, you have installed a pro-corporate media filter which
tells you that an arguable difference was a no-brainer. Being
ultimately wrong on a contested issue is not the same as making
false claims in court papers and statement.
You are the one who has been lied to, Will Allen, and, frankly, I
think you are a dupe for buying into it.
Bill Clinton may not have been impeached. he sure as heck was
disbarred. The courts may not be perfect at dealing with liars, but
they merely do a better job of it than anyone else.
Dave W.|5.23.07 @ 1:54PM|#
I'd lob Clinton and Bush over the fence into that area as
well, albeit for different reasons.
I was just trying to make the point that we get the argument that
Edwards duplicity in the "real world" disqualifies him for office
with a frequency and to a degree that we don't get in the case of
equally bad people who happen to be on Team Insurance Defense.
|5.23.07 @ 1:58PM|#
"Final thought for the thread: Just because John Edwards talks
to uneducated, and perhaps even stupid, juries in terms they can
understand does not mean his causes are not just. he would probably
speak much differently to a jury if he knew it was all Reason
commenters."
Bullshit. Edwards is a like sack of crap that did real harm. He
convinced juries that children having cerebal palsy was the result
of the doctors not performing c-section deliveries, which was a
complete lie and Edwards knew it.
From the American Thinker
" One of Edwards' specialties was cerebral palsy cases. He would
bring suit against physicians on the contention that their actions
while delivering the hapless children induced the condition. The
notion was that the doctors were guilty of a dereliction of duty
that caused the babies to be denied adequate oxygen during the
birthing process. If only these physicians had performed caesarian
sections, claimed the trial lawyer set, the children never would
have developed cerebral palsy. Now, these children were the perfect
clients for a young, ambitious trial lawyer seeking fame and
fortune: children born with among the worst of crosses to bear;
children who could make virtually anyone's heart bleed.
But there was a problem. You see, the scientific establishment has
determined quite definitely that cerebral palsy is rarely caused by
doctors. In point of fact, the condition is almost always induced
by a subtle infection in the womb or, perhaps, genetics. To quote
Marc Morano of CNSNews.com, whose news outlet interviewed various
experts in the field,
Dr. Murray Goldstein, a neurologist and the medical director of the
United Cerebral Palsy Research and Educational Foundation, said
'The overwhelming majority of children that are born with
developmental brain damage, the ob/gyn could not have done anything
about it, could not have, not at this stage of what we know.'
Additionally, Dr. John Freeman, a professor of neurology and
pediatrics at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, Md.,
stated,
Most cases of cerebral palsy are not due to asphyxia . . . A great
many of these cases are due to subtle infections of the child
before birth.
Freeman went on to say,
That is the cause of the premature labor and the cause of the
[brain] damage. There is little or no evidence that if you did a
[caesarean] section a short time earlier you would prevent cerebral
palsy.
Moreover, this statement is borne out by the fact that even though
births via caesarian section increased from six percent in the
1970's to twenty-six percent today, the incidence of cerebral palsy
hasn't decreased one iota.
As I mentioned before, there are also experts who believe that the
condition has a basis in genetics. In either case, however, it has
nothing to do with the actions of doctors. And studies indicating
this fact date back to at least the 1980's.
This didn't seem to matter to John Edwards, though. He forged on
ahead, plying the courtrooms of America and manipulating juries,
swaying them with magnificently articulated emotional appeals that
were tailor-made to evoke in jurors judgment-clouding responses
that would obfuscate the facts of a case. Edwards's usual spiel
would go something like his emotional appeal in the 1985 case of
Jennifer Campbell, cited by The Boston Globe in 2003. According to
court records, Edwards said to the jury,
I have to tell you right now -- I didn't plan to talk about this --
right now I feel her [Jennifer], I feel her presence. [Jennifer's]
inside me and she's talking to you . . . And this is what she says
to you. She says, 'I don't ask for your pity. What I ask for is
your strength. And I don't ask for your sympathy, but I do ask for
your courage.'
Ah, what empathy. Just what the world needs: another Southern
lawyer, with grand political aspirations and the skills of a snake
oil salesman, who feels our pain. That's twice in just over a
decade - will miracles never cease?
Now, I want to make very clear what all this implies. John Edwards,
while claiming to be standing up for the little guy, got rich
peddling lies on the backs of the most unfortunate of children. In
the process he fleeced doctors, thereby increasing their cost of
practicing medicine which, in turn, drove up the cost of health
care. So if you're grumbling about how expensive medical procedures
and insurance premiums are, know that tens of millions of our
health dollars are in the pocket of John Edwards.
From
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=%5CPolitics%5Carchive%5C200401%5CPOL20040120a.html
Peter Huber, a lawyer and author of the book, Galileo's Revenge:
Junk Science in the Courtroom, believes juries are typically
manipulated with emotional arguments to aid the plaintiff's
case.
"The jury sees the undisputed trauma first, the disputed negligence
second, the undisputed cerebral palsy third. It is a perfect set-up
for misinterpreting sequence as cause," Huber wrote.
According to Boisseau, the growing body of scientific studies
showing that obstetricians are generally blameless in cerebral
palsy cases has done nothing to alter the trend of multi-million
dollar court settlements. Those settlements are reached, Boisseau
said, even though "a lot of the plaintiff's expert science is
unsupported, essentially junk science."
Many juries never even get to hear about the medical science or the
origins of cerebral palsy because "90 percent of suits for
obstetrical malpractice are settled" out of court, noted Freeman of
Johns Hopkins Hospital.
Huber does not expect cerebral palsy cases to fade away, despite
the growing body of scientific evidence exonerating doctors.
"Despite the almost complete absence of scientific basis for these
[medical malpractice] claims, cerebral palsy cases remain
enormously attractive to lawyers," Huber wrote.
The judgments or settlements related to medical malpractice
lawsuits that focused on brain-damaged infants with cerebral palsy
helped Edwards amass a personal fortune estimated at between $12.8
and $60 million. He and his wife own three homes, each worth more
than $1 million, according to Edwards' Senate financial disclosure
forms. Edwards' old law firm reportedly kept between 25 and 40
percent of the jury awards/settlements during the time he worked
there.
According to the Center for Public Integrity, Edwards was able to
win "more than $152 million" based on his involvement in 63
lawsuits alone. The legal profession recognized Edwards'
achievements by inducting him into the prestigious legal society
called the Inner Circle of Advocates, which includes the nation's
top 100 lawyers. Lawyers Weekly also cited Edwards as one of
America's "Lawyers of the Year" in 1996.
John Edwards is a shyster and a thief who caused real harm. As
lawyer I would hope you would be repulsed by people like Edwards.
He is just scum.
|5.23.07 @ 1:59PM|#
Insurance is a pestilence on society. I personally blame that on its heavy regulation by the states (or, perhaps better stated as its bed-sharing proclivities with state government), but, either way, insurers play some nasty, nasty games. I don't want to stop all lawsuits or anything, and I think plenty of suits are perfectly legitimate. Many truly harmed people are forced to take low settlements or abandon suits altogether because of expensive delaying tactics, etc. Bad all around.
|5.23.07 @ 2:00PM|#
Pro, one of the worst aspects I've seen in the tort system is how a person with very,very, deep pockets can have something amounting to impunity with regards to violating contracts with people or entities with shallow pockets. There is a Forbes-list billionaire that has done business with a few acquiantances of mine, and they gave nearly all come to regret the decision, because it nearly always has resulted in getting to the point where the billionaire essentially says, "Pay you? No, you sue me first, and after I turn your life upside down with my army of lawyers, we'll see if you've found it worthwhile." Everybody ends up settling for pennies on the dollar. I've got to think that crowded court schedules play to the billionaire's advantage.
|5.23.07 @ 2:00PM|#
"Moreover, this statement is borne out by the fact that even
though births via caesarian section increased from six percent in
the 1970's to twenty-six percent today, the incidence of cerebral
palsy hasn't decreased one iota."
How many women are being butchered with unnecessary C-sections just
so Edwards can pay for his 28,000 square foot house? There is a
special place in hell for Edwards. He truly is scum.
|5.23.07 @ 2:01PM|#
Indeed. Judges don't help. They have the ability to cut short
procedural games, but they usually don't.
I'm feeling the urge to revolt.
|5.23.07 @ 2:02PM|#
"Many truly harmed people are forced to take low settlements or
abandon suits altogether because of expensive delaying tactics,
etc"
Very true and you know who one of the worst offenders is? State and
local governments who condem porperty under emmenint domain. Here
is your 10 cents on the dollar for your property, if you don't like
it sue for a fair settlement and in the mean time we will be
bulldozing your house for the new sports stadium.
|5.23.07 @ 2:05PM|#
Frankly, Dave W., you are the dupe for thinking that courtrooms and judges root out all deliberate lies. Edwards has made a ton of money lying to juries about the cause of cerebal palsy. Period. You are a dupe for believing otherwise.
Dave W.|5.23.07 @ 2:11PM|#
Look, John, if it were that clear then the ob/gyn's would have
gotten summary judgment and there would be no stupid jury.
If it was not the clear before the trial, but became that clear
during the trial, then the judge could have given JMOL (or whatever
the state law equivalent is).
Clear as things might be now, there is presumably a judge and an
appellate court who thought different at the time. I mean, I don't
presume to consign Ron Bailey a place in hell for being wrong about
global warming, or Tim Cavanaugh such a place for being wrong about
VIOXX. Science is hard, man.
But, like I said upthd, don't blame me: I voted Cobb / LaMarche
(because they had the important things figured out BEFORE the rest
of us paeans).
Dave W.|5.23.07 @ 2:17PM|#
Indeed. Judges don't help. They have the ability to cut
short procedural games, but they usually don't.
C'moooon, PL. You have been to law school. What percentage of civil
cases go to jury trial? What does the percentage become when you
take out the JMOL's?
|5.23.07 @ 2:24PM|#
Dave W,
You don't know crap about the law. The standard for summary
judgment is whether there is any evidence that could possibly cause
a reasonable fact finder to find for a given side. That is it. That
means all you need is one affadavit from one hack doctor or
"scientist" and you are before the jury. No matter what the
mainstream science says. Further, scum like Edwards look for weak
pro plaintiff judges like lions look for sick wildebeasts. They
file their cases in counties where they know the juries and judges
are pro plaintiff and will let crap get past summary judgement.
Once you have a finding of fact, it is virtually impossible to
overturn it.
|5.23.07 @ 2:29PM|#
"You have been to law school. What percentage of civil cases go
to jury trial?"
Why is that? Because defendents are terrifed of going before a
jury. All it takes is one BS huge judgement and the rest of the
defendents start settling regardless of the merits of the
cases.
Dave W.|5.23.07 @ 2:36PM|#
The standard for summary judgment is whether there is any
evidence that could possibly cause a reasonable fact finder to find
for a given side. That is it. That means all you need is one
affadavit from one hack doctor or "scientist" and you are before
the jury.
Reasonable fact finders do not believe hacks or the quote-quote
variety of scientists. Summary judgement is frequently awarded over
the objections of expert, technical witnesses paid by the
non-movant.
I will agree however, that whenever you are hearing out a scientist
on a controversial issue, it is a good idea to find out who is
paying or funding her or him. Who does fund D. John Freeman? Mr.
Peter Huber, Esq.? Dr. Murray Goldstein?
Dave W.|5.23.07 @ 2:37PM|#
Why do cases settle so frequently?
Sometimes in the shadow of summary judgment, sometimes in the
shadow of jury trial. Much more often in the shadow of summary
judgment, in my experience.
|5.23.07 @ 2:39PM|#
"Reasonable fact finders do not believe hacks or the quote-quote
variety of scientists. Summary judgement is frequently awarded over
the objections of expert, technical witnesses paid by the
non-movant."
Frequently but not always. That is why you have to get in front of
the right judge. People like Edwards are expert forum shoppers. All
the judge needs is something to hang his hat on to survive appeal.
Yes, in an ideal world, judges would bitch slap lawyers like
Edwards but that is not what happens. Note, Edwards wins these
cases in state court not federal court where there is no Rule 11
and judges are often elected, not confirmed.
|5.23.07 @ 2:40PM|#
Dave, the undeniable fact that c-sections have increased more that 4-fold, while the rate of cerbal palsy has not budged, tells us what we need to know regarding Edwards' honesty on the issue.
miche|5.23.07 @ 2:43PM|#
M-I-L is an ob/gyn. She practiced > 40 years and had only one
suit. She did nothing wrong medically, but her med mal co. settled
because it was cheaper than fighting it.
She moved to the Bay Area to help with her grandkids and wanted to
volunteer her medical services. She almost didn't because her med
mal tail was so expensive. She got it covered and now many people
benefit from her free services.
|5.23.07 @ 2:45PM|#
Dave W. apparently would have us believe that among the thousands of judges across this land, one could not successfully shop for an unreasonable fact finder who has the ability to craft rulings which survive appeal. What a dupe.
Dave W.|5.23.07 @ 3:06PM|#
the undeniable fact that c-sections have increased more that
4-fold, while the rate of cerbal palsy has not budged, tells us
what we need to know . . .
That c-sections are done more carefully than they otherwise would
be?
She did nothing wrong medically
Everybody in my family, especially my elders, are excellent
professionals and all above reproach, too. The problem is those
other people.
She moved to the Bay Area to help with her grandkids and wanted
to volunteer her medical services.
It is an interesting issue as to whether poor people should be
allowed to waive malpractice claims when they get free medical
services from uncompensated practitioners. I am open to the idea
that they should be able to waive such claims. However, I can also
understand why the law may say different. As a lawyer who is often
asked for, and sometimes gives, free advice, I feel this
professional tension very personally. I don't think there is an
easy answer. It is especially hard when you want to do cut-rate
work for someone who can pay, but not very much. Really discourages
sliding scale. If I take $500 for something worth $5000, then I
know I bought all that liability. I either have to do the work for
free (and secretly) or not at all. One of my "free" clients just
died unexpectedly. I know nothink! I signed nothink!
Dave W.|5.23.07 @ 3:15PM|#
whoops:
One of my "free" clients
should have been:
One of my free "clients"
Put the tone quotes in the wrong place. Misleading.
|5.23.07 @ 3:20PM|#
Will Allen | May 23, 2007, 2:40pm | #
Dave, the undeniable fact that c-sections have increased more that
4-fold, while the rate of cerbal palsy has not budged, tells us
what we need to know regarding Edwards' honesty on the issue.
I'm sorry, did you mean "Iraq has been invaded, without any WMDs
being discovered, tells us what we need to know regarding Bush's
honesty...?"
And let's not forget, Edwards was professional bound to argue one
side of the case, while Bush was supposed to be playing it
straight.
|5.23.07 @ 3:24PM|#
Joe WTF?
What does one have to do with the other? I don't care what you
think of Bush and I don't care if Bush is boiling babies in the
Whitehouse basement, that doesn't excuse Edwards for being a lying
profiteer that has helped to multilate innocent women in then name
of money.
miche|5.23.07 @ 3:52PM|#
Everybody in my family, especially my elders, are excellent professionals and all above reproach, too. The problem is those other people.
Considering she never saw the patient but was named as part of the
group, I'd say I correctly described the situation.
It is an interesting issue as to whether poor people should be allowed to waive malpractice claims when they get free medical services from uncompensated practitioners. I am open to the idea that they should be able to waive such claims. However, I can also understand why the law may say different. As a lawyer who is often asked for, and sometimes gives, free advice, I feel this professional tension very personally. I don't think there is an easy answer. It is especially hard when you want to do cut-rate work for someone who can pay, but not very much. Really discourages sliding scale. If I take $500 for something worth $5000, then I know I bought all that liability. I either have to do the work for free (and secretly) or not at all. One of my "free" clients just died unexpectedly. I know nothink! I signed nothink!
I didn't suggest that anybody thought she would want to practice
medicine and not have insurance. I was talking about her tail
coverage being damned expensive. Since you don't seem to know what
it is,
here is a link.
|5.23.07 @ 3:53PM|#
Non sequitur, thy name is Joe. I didn't know that a lawyer was
professionally bound to knowingly make factually false claims in
court on behalf of his clients.
Dave W., Edwards claimed that failure to perform c-sections caused
cerebal palsy, therefore, the odds of c-sections going
from 6% to 26% of deliveries, without any change in rates of
cerebal palsy, is exceedingly slim.
lunchstealer|5.23.07 @ 4:20PM|#
kinda off topic, but related to Edwards criticism in general
-
After poking around idly on google about the PS3 gaffe, I ran
across
this little stain from the HuffPost.
According to the article, a volunteer called a local Wal-Mart, on his own, and used Edwards' name. Wal-Mart takes this information and turns it into a national smear, right out of its corporate headquarters.
"While the rest of America's working families are waiting patiently in line, Sen. Edwards wants to cut to the front," the Wal-Mart statement said."
That is an official Wal-Mart statement! Have you ever heard anything like that from a company? Is this the business Wal-Mart is in? What right does a corporation have to issue a statement like that about any citizen?
Is this a company that ought to have its right to operate examined, or what?
Emphasis mine. Just needed to remind myself just how much power
some on the left think the government should have. Making a
statement about a public critic privately trying to use status to
curry special treatment is not just not protected speech, but a
sign that the 'right to operate' should be 'examined'.
This doesn't really reflect one way or the other on Edwards. That
could easily be the kind of stupid mistake that a staffer might
make. But the Huffpost's reaction is just so telling certain
branches of left-wing thought. Most notably that the government
should revoke the 'right to operate' for criticizing a public
figure.
|5.23.07 @ 6:17PM|#
ASK, AND YE SHALL RECEIVE AN AMPLE HEAPING OF ABUSE FOR SO
ASKING. OR NOT.
URKOBOLD'S MINIONS "MASHED UP" SANFORD AND SON AND DUNE TODAY.
URKOBOLD SEES SIMILAR POTENTIAL WITH THAT WOMAN WITH STRANGE SEX
HABITS' 10,000 PAGE BOOK (URKOBOLD ONLY READS THE SPEECHES) AND MR.
SANFORD'S SHOW.
URKOBOLD IS COMING TO YOU, ELIZABETH! THIS IS THE BIG
ONE!
What? I do not understand...and it is not funny...come on URKOBOLD
be funny!
Urkobold\'s Minion|5.23.07 @ 7:25PM|#
It is funny for the URKOBOLD. That is all that
matters.
Well, that, batin, and whithering the souls of his enemies.
Oh, and taint pecking, of course.
|5.23.07 @ 8:52PM|#
Will Allen,
"I didn't know that a lawyer was professionally bound to knowingly
make factually false claims in court on behalf of his
clients."
Nor do you know that Edwards knowingly made any factually false
claims.
And you do know, that you're bobbing and weaving, that lawyers are
professionally bound to argue their clients' case with the best
information and arguments available to them, short of knowingly
making false statements.
Which, once again, you have no evidence to suggest Edwards ever
did.
|5.23.07 @ 10:04PM|#
"Kerry was stunned, not moved, because, as he told me later,
Edwards had recounted the exact story to him, almost in the exact
same words, a year or two before--and with the same preface, that
he'd never shared the memory with anyone else. Kerry said he found
it chilling,. . . "
Apparently, he never met a successful trial lawyer before.
|5.24.07 @ 12:43AM|#
Yes, Joe, it is possible that Edwards is an idiot, but I think it rather more likely that he is a liar.
dhex|5.24.07 @ 9:11AM|#
"What right does a corporation have to issue a statement like
that about any citizen?"
ok i think i get it now.
conservatives are the way they are because of repressed
homoeroticism that translates into a naive hero worship (obviously
phallic in nature) and some kind of grand collection of head
traumas.
and liberals are the way they are because they believe politicians
are "citizens", i.e. just like you and me...
now it makes sense. now it *all* makes sense.
Guy Montag|5.25.07 @ 1:16PM|#
BTW, an 'acceptable' funding bill finally passed both houses and is on it's way to the president for his signature.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245