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
Edwards to Drop Out...
...today in New Orleans, CNN reports. Even with two Americas, he couldn't find even half a country's worth of support.
Jeff Taylor parsed Edwards' "two Americas" idea back in 2006. Steve Chapman followed him around in July.
|1.30.08 @ 9:29AM|#
Good. The last thing we need is to have taxpayers footing the bill for his haircuts.
T|1.30.08 @ 9:34AM|#
sage,
The rumor I hear is that in exchange for a valuable prize to be
named later, like Attorney General, he'll throw his support to
Obama. As much as I didn't want that smarmy bastard in the White
House, I'm not sure the AG is any improvement.
|1.30.08 @ 9:37AM|#
Let's remember one of the lessons of Iowa: Hillary Clinton is NOBODY'S second choice.
D.A. Ridgely|1.30.08 @ 9:41AM|#
You have to figure he cut a deal with somebody.
An out-of-court settlement? But who was he harming the most? And,
once out of the race, does he really have anything to bargain
with?
Oh, and where's the obligatory thread on Giuliani's imminent
withdrawal? (And who's going to break it to Dondero?)
|1.30.08 @ 9:45AM|#
The libertarian intelligentsia is killing it with the good lines
this week. First Will's "national greatness," and now your "two
americas".
Nice job, libertarians.
|1.30.08 @ 9:48AM|#
D.A.R.,
I don't know who he was harming the most, but his endorsement could
be big.
As for bargaining, leaving now, in time to back somebody for the
Feb 5 contests, is his bargaining chip.
|1.30.08 @ 9:52AM|#
Edwards' campaign says he won't endorse anybody "right
away."
OK. I'll go to the vending machine first.
|1.30.08 @ 9:58AM|#
And people were afraid that the primaries would drag on too
long. By the end of the day Feb 5th, we'll be down to a 2 man race
in each party, which is likely to be resolved before March.
Then we can get on with the business of choosing the worst possible
choice come November.
|1.30.08 @ 9:59AM|#
Attorney General Edwards.
(shivers)
Somebody offer him a daytime judge show quick!
anon|1.30.08 @ 10:00AM|#
Even before good ole' boy Johnny was considering dropping out,
the other top liberal candidates were schmoozing, cuddling,
coddling, sucking up, sucking on, the Democrats' favorite source of
revenue:
trial lawyers.
Where? Puerto Rico of course. In a seaside resort. Edwards was
right with his "other America". There are lawyers, then there are
those who work.
Nutter|1.30.08 @ 10:00AM|#
(And who's going to break it to Dondero?)
Dondie's already abandoned Rudy like he was a Mexican hooker on her
18th birthday.
Lost_In_Translation|1.30.08 @ 10:04AM|#
Hey, stop bashing lawyers, they perform valuable services for
the country.....
...much like coyotes prevent rotting meat from becoming too
prevelant and spreading disease...
...of course we still shoot the bastards.
|1.30.08 @ 10:04AM|#
Poor Edwards; he'll have to go back to feasting on the flesh of bereaved parents.
dhex|1.30.08 @ 10:08AM|#
Attorney General Edwards.
as much as that may be icky, it sounds better than Attorney General
Giuliani.
|1.30.08 @ 10:18AM|#
dhex,
You have a point. Listening to Rudy concede the Florida primary and
his kind words for McCain left me with the same, sickening thought.
Where would Rudy fit in a McCain administration? AG has got to be
top of the list.
T|1.30.08 @ 10:33AM|#
Oh, goddamn, dhex. You don't need to ruin my morning with the thought of Giuliani as AG. That wasn't nice. He'd make Reno look like a poster child for restraint.
|1.30.08 @ 10:43AM|#
"The rumor I hear is that in exchange for a valuable prize to be
named later, like Attorney General, he'll throw his support to
Obama. As much as I didn't want that smarmy bastard in the White
House, I'm not sure the AG is any improvement."
Robert Novak reported yesterday that the Obama campaign has been
hinting around behind the scenes that Edwards may be given the AG
position in an Obama administration.
nebby|1.30.08 @ 10:46AM|#
Poor Edwards; he'll have to go back to feasting on the flesh of
bereaved parents.
Now this I do not get. People go to lawyers because they have been
screwed by someone. The hospital with the drunk doctor gets a pass,
but the only person willing to help the parents with no money up
front is the ghoul?
Haved fun licking the boots of the powerful.
|1.30.08 @ 10:49AM|#
Attorney General Giuliani.
(shivers)
Somebody offer him a...
Ah fuck it. We're screwed.
|1.30.08 @ 10:56AM|#
The hospital with the drunk doctor gets a pass, but the only
person willing to help the parents with no money up front is the
ghoul?
It's the percentage of their cut that makes them a ghoul.
|1.30.08 @ 10:58AM|#
Matt J,
Edwards is just a product of his environment, an evolutionary
adaptation to various pressures. Something in the ecosystem must
sup on the flesh of the dead, why shouldn't it be trial
lawyers?
Gilbert Martin|1.30.08 @ 11:05AM|#
Good riddance to Edwards.
His "two americas" routine was never anything more than socialist
drivel.
Of course almost everything the other two leading Democrap twits
say is also socialist drivel.
nebby|1.30.08 @ 11:08AM|#
"It's the percentage of their cut that makes them a
ghoul."
It's a big cut because they spend their own money developing the
case and take all the risks. Again, plaintiff lawyers are the only
professionals that as a class help those with no money. Try to get
your doctor to accept a deal where he only gets paid if you are
cured of your cancer. Plaintiff lawyers make this deal every
day.
I never understand how libertarians justify not supporting
plaintiff lawyers. You are against government regulation, how are
people who are victims of those who act negligently supposed to
seek redress? Does your version of libertarianism include no method
of dealing with people who harm others?
Lord Jubjub|1.30.08 @ 11:08AM|#
One thing that has occurred to me is that if the nominations are
settled by sometime in March, that will give third and fourth party
candidates plenty of time to gather attention before the
conventions.
Normally, at this time, there are enough major party candidates
still in the race to keep the MSM from looking at other parties.
With all of April, May, June and July with no 'horse race' news to
present, they may try to generate some by looking far afield.
lunchstealer|1.30.08 @ 11:12AM|#
Whew! That's one unacceptable D candidate gone, one to go.
Now to sort out the mess that is the GOP primary. I haven't been
this underwhelmed by my options in decades.
|1.30.08 @ 11:26AM|#
It's the percentage of their cut that makes them a
ghoul.
You mean the percentage the clients agrees to upo front? Do I
actually have to explain how the profit motive works, and is
essential to getting the best person for the job, to a bunch of
libertarians?
|1.30.08 @ 11:28AM|#
I think bakers' make too much profit as a %, those ghouls!
No no, CEOs! No, drug companies. No, oil companies.
|1.30.08 @ 11:29AM|#
Whew! That's one unacceptable D candidate gone, one
five* to go.
Fixed it for you.
*Clinton, Obama, McCain, Romney, Huckabee.
Globey|1.30.08 @ 11:31AM|#
I thought there were three Americas. Or do people still lump Central America in with North America?
|1.30.08 @ 11:31AM|#
how are people who are victims of those who act negligently
supposed to seek redress?
Do a little research on Nataline Sarkisyan and then defend
Edwards.
|1.30.08 @ 11:32AM|#
It's a big cut because they spend their own money developing
the case and take all the risks.
If you feel the same way about executive pay packages then I will
bow to you intellectual honesty.
Gilbert Martin|1.30.08 @ 11:34AM|#
"Now this I do not get. People go to lawyers because they have
been screwed by someone."
Some do - and some don't. What they do instead is try to
manufacture some greivance and/or blow some small greivance into a
huge one hoping to hit the lawsuit lottery and get a big payoff -
or get some deep pockets corporate defendent to settle out of court
since it would be cheaper to litigate.
This could be fixed with a loser pays legal fees system the way it
is in other countries.
|1.30.08 @ 11:35AM|#
You have to figure he cut a deal with somebody.
He's a one term senator and a losing VP candidate. A promotion to
any cabinet position is more than he deserves. He'll get
one if he fellates/performs cunnilingus* to the eventual
nominee.
I couldn't find a verb form of the word. Is there one? Is this a
job for a Wellesley scholar?
|1.30.08 @ 11:55AM|#
"People go to lawyers because they have been screwed by
someone."
OR because they WANT to screw someone. the partisan bias is amazing
here. do you honestly think that everybody who sues and.or goes to
a lawyer with a grievance has a LEGITIMATE, or even a truthful
claim?
of course not.
edwards completely lost me (not that he ever had me) when he
claimed with a straight face that while he did get a lot of money
and support from trial lawyers, that they were NOT a special
interest - unlike the evil corporations, etc that contributed to
his opponents, that lawyers were only interested in fighting for
people's rights and the constitution
lawyers are like ANY other interest group - teachers unions, cop
unions, firefighter unions, machinist unions, proctor and gamble,
phillip morris, the NRA, etc.
they want to fight for THEIR POV, their constituents, and increase
THEIR power.
they are ALL special interests. that doesn't make them bad or good,
it just is what it is. for edwards to claim that trial lawyers are
unique among special interest groups in that they are only trying
to fight the good fight is so absurd, only a leftwing ambulance
chaser like edwards could make that claim
T|1.30.08 @ 12:40PM|#
OR because they WANT to screw someone.
I married a lawyer, so yeah, that fits.
Rhywun|1.30.08 @ 1:13PM|#
Which half are the middle class in?
Depends where you live. NYC (and California), or anywhere else.
|1.30.08 @ 1:22PM|#
joe,
Uncle. I'll admit my own distaste for ambulance chasers clouded my
libertarian sensibilities in this case.
|1.30.08 @ 1:29PM|#
@ whit | January 30, 2008, 11:55am |
I agree with you almost 100%. The little tiny bit I disagree with
is lumping the NRA with the rest in your examples of special
interests. The NRA was originally a regulating body for shooting
sports similar to the Amateur Trapshooting Association (ATA) or
National Skeet Shooting Association (NSSA). The NRA only became a
polictical lobbying group as its primary purpose once shooters
became grist for the gun control lobby's mill. Most NRA members
just want to be left alone not gain power. If I was sure that the
2nd admendment would not be subject to death by a thousand cuts I'd
drop my NRA membership. However, for as long as my gun ownership is
blamed for the failure of the "war on drugs" and other unrelated
social ills I'll have to keep on renewing my membership.
|1.30.08 @ 1:36PM|#
mayor,
look, i am in agreement with the NRA on nearly everything. my point
was just a general one about interest groups. any group naturally
lobbies for what it wants. those things it wants are naturally
going to be the things that benefits its members, and not
necessarily society at large. since i tend to agree with t he NRA,
i *do* think what they lobby for will benefit society, but it's not
an effect argument so much as an intent argument.
plenty would argue that what the NRA argues for hurts society.
while i would strongly disagree, i accept that ANY special interest
group needs to be viewed with the understanding that it is their
job to advocate for a POV, not to help the entire society (not that
such a thing is even possible).
i'd also say the same about the ACLU fwiw.
fwiw, i once spoke to an aclu attorney who candidly admitted that
plenty of ACLU d00ds often disagree with the very argument they are
making and don't necessarily even want to win, it's just that they
want to put THEIR argument out there as part of the process.
Gilbert Martin|1.30.08 @ 1:56PM|#
"my point was just a general one about interest groups. any
group naturally lobbies for what it wants."
Indeed they do but there is a signigicant distinction between
groups who are lobbying against government expansions of power that
encroaches on their freedom or property rights and groups that are
lobbying for government to either make other people do something or
prevent other people from doing something or to get some taxpayer
subsidy or handout.
There are "defensive" lobbyists and "offesenive" lobbyists.
|1.30.08 @ 2:03PM|#
"Indeed they do but there is a signigicant distinction between
groups who are lobbying against government expansions of power that
encroaches on their freedom or property rights and groups "
yes, but again it's largely in the eye of the beholder.
for example. one could argue (if you were pro-choice) that
pro-choice groups are arguing to expand the right of women and get
govt. out of women's private body parts.
OR one could see pro-life groups as arguing to expand the
right/protections of the unborn and the minimize govt. funds and
authority to protect those doing the killing.
see? depending on your POV it is still a matter of
perspective.
which is why i am pragmatic and accept that in general - interest
groups are all fighting for their POV and their constituencies and
any claim that some are all pure and holy is utter rubbish. they
aren't nor SHOULD they be.
it's like an adversarial justice system. when you get arguments
from more sides and more POV's you generally get better
decisions
Gilbert Martin|1.30.08 @ 2:13PM|#
"yes, but again it's largely in the eye of the beholder."
No, I don't think so.
In most cases, it's readily determinable whether what a group is
lobbying for involves a government expansion of power into
something that it previously had not been involved in.
|1.30.08 @ 2:40PM|#
Indeed they do but there is a signigicant distinction
between groups who are lobbying against government expansions of
power that encroaches on their freedom or property rights and
groups that are lobbying for government to either make other people
do something or prevent other people from doing something or to get
some taxpayer subsidy or handout.
Other than Gilbert Martin likes groups he characterizes as the
former, and doesn't like groups he characterizes as the latter,
what might that difference be?
Gilbert Martin|1.30.08 @ 3:01PM|#
It's the same as the difference between keeping your own money and getting a handout os somebody else's money.
nebby|1.30.08 @ 5:34PM|#
"It's a big cut because they spend their own money developing
the case and take all the risks.
If you feel the same way about executive pay packages then I will
bow to you intellectual honesty."
If it is an executive pay package and not owner profits the
executive usually has $O invested in the company. If the CEO of GM
puts up his personal funds to develop the new car, he should get a
huge stake. Why is this OK for venture capitalists, but not for
lawyers?
To all who jump on the insurance company propaganda bandwagon about
"lawsuit lottery" ask any defense attorney what percent of the
cases he has faced at trial were frivolous and even the most die
hard defense attorney will tell you it is 1% or so. Plaintiff
attorneys put up their own money behind a case. They have no motive
for pursuing a frivolous case. Frivolous cases getting anywhere are
so rare that each one becomes a news event propped up by the
insurance company PR machine.
The incentives are against frivolous lawsuits by individuals. (of
course, like in any system there are outliers). Ironically, the
contingency fee system greatly discourages them. You want to see
frivolous check out the cases where one company sues another. In
those cases the lawyers on both sides are making big hourly money
no matter who wins or loses. The incentives are totally different
there.
Funny, no one ever talks about those.
|1.30.08 @ 10:17PM|#
I'm glad that he's out. Now he can dedicate more time to talking to dead people.
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