QotD: Edwards
Posted July 10th, 2004 @ 10:45am by Erik J. Barzeski
Question: What did Edwards add to the Democratic ticket?
My Answer: Nothing but another scheisty trial lawyer who looks a little younger than 51. If we care about how a potential vice president looks as much as the news has lately led me to believe we do, I'm seriously tempted to move to Canada. Edwards has abandoned North Carolinians, missed countless votes, and served less than one term. Before that, he made millions suing for malpractice with emotions and questionable science as his basic argument. But he sure looks young an vibrant, doesn't he!!! Politics is bullshit, and I'm reminded of Reagan's quote: "Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I've come to realize there is a very close resemblance to the first."
The voting booth is not the champagne room, people!
You are encouraged to answer the Question of the Day for yourself in the comments or on your blog.
Donate Life
Posted 10 Jul 2004 at 12:28pm #
Edwards adds someone who can get people fired up in a speech to the ticket. He also adds the only 'I come from a poor southern family' angle to the election.
The American people don't vote with their heads, they vote with their heart, jaded though they be. Edwards brings the kind of politician that can win hearts to the race.
Come on Erik, if politics made logical sense there would be no politicians.
Posted 10 Jul 2004 at 12:32pm #
What does he add? He adds the most conservative (upper-right) former Democratic candidate.
"Too liberal"? Ha. I know it's a good idea for a political party to reach out to the other side, but shouldn't that be in *addition* to their own side rather than instead of it? I'm losing faith in the Democratic party to see them nominate both a presidential and vice-presidential candidate who are upper-right. Two-party systems suck.
Posted 10 Jul 2004 at 1:30pm #
Trial Lawyer is the new Liberal
Now that John Edwards is the Democratic Vice President nominee dirt will tried to be dug up about him. The biggest thing is that he...
Posted 10 Jul 2004 at 1:33pm #
Half of his cases were malpractice based on the credible science of the 80s, when he practiced these cases. If new science and studies refined or altered how is he wrong for the time?
A lot of his other cases were against corporate neglect.
You do realize that the less regulation there is the more power trial lawyers will have. It'll be the only way for common people to counter the power of corporate entities.
Posted 10 Jul 2004 at 1:57pm #
Edwards and Kerry
Erik J. Barzeski asks, “What did Edwards add to the Democratic ticket?” My initial answer is “charisma.” Kerry has none. Edwards approaches Clinton levels. Does that mean I like him? No. I can’t stand his protectionism. An...
Posted 10 Jul 2004 at 2:59pm #
Absolutly nothing. There is something to be said, I suppose, for the charisma and the looks and such and such. But as far as I'm concerned, he adds nothing of any value. I was still hoping for the off-the-wall choice of Kucinich, based on his "balls" for sticking in the race and to counter Nader *grin* oh well.
Posted 10 Jul 2004 at 4:15pm #
James, dude, that's a crock of crap. It's not "new science" nor is it "corporate neglect." He single-handedly raised the cost of health care to people in the state of North Carolina. Look some things up, eh?
Posted 10 Jul 2004 at 5:19pm #
Since the internet is my number one source of information, and as a web developer I tend to go to the blogs for/by web developers/designers I get a ton of the liberal spin. Its like I am getting the bizzarro Fox News Network. Anyways I don't think I would care for Bush another term, but he is closer to what I would want my president to be. In fact thanks for the link to that survey thing earlier, apparently I would want Cheney as my president. The Democratic party has done nothing to give me a better alternative. It seems like I am just getting an alternative to Bush. I think there is a group on the net who encourage you to vote for anyone but Bush. I've come to see that thankfully not all, but some elections are merely the choice of the lesser of two evils. Neither candidate really being who you would choose, but they are the ones who the two parties are endorsing.
Posted 10 Jul 2004 at 5:25pm #
Trial lawyers why are they so bad? The term trial lawyers is just a right-wing label to scare people. Really what is so bad?
If you would need a lawyer for any reason, I'm sure you would want a lawyer is capable of arguing your case before a jury, and I'm sure you hope your lawyer persuades the jury. In fact if you want to blame sky rocketing medical expenses don't blame the trial lawyers blame the jurors. They are the ones who hand down multi-million dollar awards.
What did George Bush do before running for President? Let's see... May or may not have finished his National Guard service requirements... part of countless failed oil companies... traded Sammy Sosa for (Harold Baines and Freddy Manrique)... as a pro-choice governor kill 151 prisoners (some mental retarded and some children)... run unsuccessfully for congress... oh and reportedly an druggie-and alcoholic in his youth (since he was young and foolish... his words... it's inappropriate to talk about).
So why is Edwards good for the Democratic ticket in `04? Simple he isn't held accountable by the large corporations that fund Bush-Cheney.... and really do you want a president (and VP) who is funded majority by the executives in the boardroom... or the janitor who cleans said boardroom. Who should the President be accountable to?
BTW for 6 years Edwards did defend corporations... his son 1996 in a tragic accident... he's self made... more national political experience than our current President (years of service as House/Senate member or VP/President).
With all that in mind, `00 election cycle Orin Hatch called GW a good VP candidates but a horrible presidential candidates... of the two I prefer Edwards any day. As for a youthful appearance can anyone say Danforth Quayle? I prefer my national leaders to be intellectual and speak in an elegant manor.
Kerry-Edwards `04 -- All the way.
Back to the original question what does John Edwards ad? Everything, he is a intellect, he is both plain spoken speaks with elegant at the same time, understands he isn't God (nor chosen by God) so he can and has made mistakes... and isn't afraid to admit to them and knows problems don't go away if you ignore them...
I personally think the VP job is basically pointless (didn't John Adam's say that too)... your job is to preside over the Senate administer NASA... oh and wait for something bad to happen to the President... I think we should go back to the olden days where the runner up becomes the VP.
Posted 10 Jul 2004 at 5:29pm #
Just in case you're serious about moving to Canada, the first step's here 🙂
Believe it or not, while on vacation in New York City, I met a woman one evening who joked that she wanted to come to Canada. We discussed it, and I thought she was just being nice and trying to strike up some conversation. I told her that if I were coming from NYC, there would only be 3 cities in Canada I'd live in: Toronto, Montréal and Vancouver. Six months later I got an e-mail from her asking if I could give her any info on Canadian immigration and the last I heard, she was moving to Quebec. That has to be the strangest thing I've talked a complete stranger into doing ever!
I remember having to fill out that survey back in HS, the teacher trying to prove that we shouldn't feel so smug and entitled, and instead should appreciate where we live because we probably wouldn't be let in the door if we were born outside Canada 🙂 Of course, now I'd score enough points, but I've noticed a correlation between the types of people living in Canada who have a stereotypically negative impression of immigrants, and that same group not being able to score a 67 on the test. It always brings a smile to my face 🙂
Posted 10 Jul 2004 at 6:27pm #
Kerry Loves Edwards
So what exactly did Edwards bring to the Democratic ticket for this year? In my not so professional opinion, I don't think he brought anything to the table. People wonder why health care is so expensive now, I'll say just...
Posted 10 Jul 2004 at 6:39pm #
Thanks for the link, Paul. I scored quite well on that test. 🙂
As for Kerry, he's a Southerner. That's exactly what he adds to the Kerry campaign. No Southerner will vote for Kerry because he's a Massachussets Yankee. (On a side, I find kind of pathetic and stupid that someone who lives below the Mason-Dixon needs a Southerner on ticket to make it more appealing.) Plus, Edwards seems like an intelligent enough fellow, much more than the current President, and has much nicer, kinder demeanor than say, the Vice President, who "feels better" when telling a collegue to go fuck himself.
Most Republicans I know don't like Bush-Cheney for two reasons; (a) Bush is a complete moron who can barely talk and (b) Cheney is a war profiteer who just looks sinister.
Posted 10 Jul 2004 at 10:35pm #
Since looks where brought up... President Bush Has Best Hair
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=109&STORY=/www/story/07-08-2004/0002207030&EDATE=
enjoy :0
Posted 10 Jul 2004 at 10:54pm #
Actually, Adam, Kerry has the #1 most liberal voting record, and Edwards has the #4 most liberal record. Hardly a right-wing democrat 🙂
Posted 10 Jul 2004 at 11:39pm #
I'm missing a reason NOT to like Edwards. He started his law practice in Tennessee working for companies and corporations where everyone involved have very high regards for him. He then turned to trial law and "fought for the little guy" in cases that I don't feel were unwarranted. He was not an ambulance chaser, but sought proper damages for those hurt by negligent practices. He's been in Washington longer than King George was before he took office, so I wouldn't talk about experience. Also, many, many votes in Congress are not attended by most legislators, so I consider that a non-issue. Move to Canada. I'll vote for Kerry/Edwards. It's a better choice than the alternative. It has to be.
Posted 11 Jul 2004 at 2:16am #
Cheney a war profiteer? Maybe. Edwards a war profiteer? Maybe.
Posted 11 Jul 2004 at 2:46am #
Most Republicans I know don't like Bush-Cheney for two reasons; (a) Bush is a complete moron who can barely talk and (b) Cheney is a war profiteer who just looks sinister.
Wha-a-a....? You must know some wacky Republicans. And the "Bush is a moron" angle is so overused it's not even funny. (Not to mention wrong, of course.) If you don't like the guy, fine. But he's no doofus, despite the what the Democrats will tell you.
Jared
Posted 11 Jul 2004 at 8:29am #
Jared,
If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and quacks like a duck; then it's a duck.
Personally I don't think moron nor a doofus anymore than Clinton was guilty of any crime that should have lead to impeachment. Would you be shocked to hear I'm no Bush fan? Didn't think so... but what I am is concerned citizen, I believe Bush has a serious medical condition, ever hear of Wernicke-Korsakoff Syndrome?