Kerry Picks Edwards to Be Running Mate

por

No a bad choice

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20040706/ap_on_el_pr/kerry_vice_president_33

Borzoi

He should be a good one - well able to take Cheney on in the VP debates

mike65

Not a bad choice

The only choice really, the rest were non-runners- either to old or too dull/obscure. Except Hillary - now that would be fun!

Mike.

Sand

It really ought to have been the other way round - Edwards has a pulse - the face for the brand as it were, Kerry can add the "gravitas". I wonder what sort of deal Edwards had to sign up to keep him from outshining Kerry. Still, the best choice he could make.

mike65

Just heard in a radio feature that Kerry can't stand Kennedy but he knows he cant win without him.

Mike.

Meh

Originally posted by mike65
The only choice really, the rest were non-runners- either to old or too dull/obscure.

I dunno, John McCain would have been an excellent choice -- he would have drawn a lot of Republican votes away from Bush. Pity he wasn't interested.

dahamsta

Originally posted by Sand
It really ought to have been the other way round

Very true. I was a little disappointed when Kerry won, but I thought sure what the hell, ABB right? But he doesn't even register, the only coverage I bump into is negative; mostly people saying how he doesn't register in fact. Total disappointment.

adam

Sand

I dunno, John McCain would have been an excellent choice -- he would have drawn a lot of Republican votes away from Bush. Pity he wasn't interested.

From the article......

"He has not wavered, he has not flinched from the hard choices, he was determined and remains determined to make this world a better, safer, freer place," McCain says in the ad, referring to Bush.

McCain probably would have - hed undoubtedly make a far better President than any of Bush, Gore or Kerry - but with with him willing to make that sort of ringing endorsement of Bush Im not sure how the Kerry-McCain ticket got such credence.

Meh

Originally posted by Sand
McCain probably would have - hed undoubtedly make a far better President than any of Bush, Gore or Kerry - but with with him willing to make that sort of ringing endorsement of Bush Im not sure how the Kerry-McCain ticket got such credence.

McCain defended Kerry against criticism from the Bush campaign earlier this year, and the primaries between Bush and McCain in 2000 were exceptionally bitterly fought. That's probably where the rumours came from.

http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2004/03/15/daily52.html
"John Kerry is a friend of mine therefore I don't wish to criticize him," McCain told reporters

TomF

I think cheering the selection of a lawyer as possible nominee for the vice-presidency of the U.S. is about as sensible as it would be to select one of the many lawyers raking money out of the national treasury for all the tribunals as the next Tanaiste.

"How to sum up John Edwards' selection as John Kerry's vice presidential running mate? It's good news for trial lawyers, bad news for blue collar workers -- and oh yes, bad for Hillary Clinton.
...
"Aside from the outright favoritism of many reporters -- so watch out, Dick Cheney -- one other factor that helps Edwards secure his good press is his image as a scrappy populist. Indeed, Edwards is no limousine liberal, a la Kerry. He's something much different -- and much more dangerous to American institutions.
...
"... trial lawyers represent a whole different strain of activism, which people haven't really figured out yet. Unlike public-policy-preneurs, the new breed of legal sharks are private-sector entrepreneurs operating within the government, although with few checks and balances. These lawsharks learned their profit-maximizing craft not in a legislature, but in a law school. Nobody votes for them, except for juries, and yet most people instinctively cheer for them, because these attorneys pose as champions of the 'little guy,' and people haven't yet figured out that a) other little guys end up paying the bills for such lawsuiting; and b) the legal tycoons typically keep a third of what they rake in. In other words, we are all poorer so that a few trial lawyers can get really rich.

"But until that weird process of upward-redistribution is better understood, Edwards can pose as Mr. Underdog. And he can take pride in his 'accomplishments' -- not legislating in the Senate, but litigating in the South, most notably against doctors and auto companies. According to The New York Times, from 1985 to 1997 he racked up $175 million for his plaintiff-clients; his personal fortune is estimated by North Carolina Lawyers Weekly to be at least $38 million.

"To be fair to Edwards, he's not just in it for himself; he's in it for other trial lawyers, too."

http://www.techcentralstation.com/070704B.html

mike65

Yeah I did note the irony and indeed the state of the US political environment when a rapacious lawyer is greeted
as a saviour by those nice Democrats.

Mike.

bonkey

Originally posted by TomF
I think cheering the selection of a lawyer as possible nominee for the vice-presidency of the U.S. is about as sensible as it would be to select one of the many lawyers raking money out of the national treasury for all the tribunals as the next Tanaiste.

No matter who you elect, Tom, you're putting someone who has a vested interest in something.

Bush has a vested interest in big business, particularly oil concerns....which isn't in the best interest of anyone except big business and the oil concerns.

Cuts both ways, although I'm sure that portraying a lawyer as a "dirty" qualfication (as opposed to an honest one like...hang on...what *did* Bush do other than fail to make money with businesses) makes it easier to avoid having to see that.

jc

TomF

It is unusual that you read such public criticism from businessmen of (potentially) high political figures, but it seems that JF'nK has really put his foot in it with his choice of Edwards as the man he would like to see nominated as his running mate for the November election of the U.S. national executive (now only 4 months away).

"Business contributors provoked by the choice of Edwards are likely to turn to the Republican National Committee. Both national party committees can help their presidential candidates during the general election.

"Greg Casey, president and chief executive of the Business Industry Political Action Committee, said the formation of a Kerry-Edwards ticket 'allows us to make a stark contrast. . . . This is a statement to the business community that <you don't count.> '

"Dirk Van Dongen, president of the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors, said, 'There aren't many things today that cause an immediate emotional reaction, but the nerves of the business community really ping when you hear the phrase <trial lawyer.> Trial lawyers are really viewed as just being predators.'

"Before Edwards was picked, Thomas J. Donohue, president of the Chamber of Commerce, unsuccessfully sought to nip the choice of Edwards in the bud by threatening in an interview with Alan Murray of the Wall Street Journal to end his group's neutrality in the presidential contest to work against Kerry.

"The chamber's fight with the trial law bar 'is so fundamental to what we do . . . that we can't walk away from it,' Donohue said."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35403-2004Jul7.html

TomF

Ann Coulter has a column on John Edwards that is worth reading for those with stars in their eyes for the U.S. Democratic Party. I believe the Irish rate of Caesarean section births is also on a steep rising curve, probably in great part because of the medical profession here looking over its collective shoulder at what happened to obstetricians in the U.S. at the hands of self-seeking legal-eagles.

"What is so amazing about Edwards' father being a millworker? That's at least an honorable occupation -- as opposed to being a trial lawyer. True, Edwards made more money than his father did.
...

"Edwards specialized in babies with cerebral palsy whom he claimed would have been spared the affliction if only the doctors had immediately performed Caesarean sections.

As a result of such lawsuits, there are now more than four times as many Caesarean sections as there were in 1970. But curiously, there has been no change in the rate of babies born with cerebral palsy. As The New York Times reported: 'Studies indicate that in most cases, the disorder is caused by fetal brain injury long before labor begins.' All those Caesareans have, however, increased the mother's risk of death, hemorrhage, infection, pulmonary embolism and Mendelson's syndrome.

In addition, the 'little guys' Edwards claims to represent are having a lot more trouble finding doctors to deliver their babies these days as obstetricians leave the practice rather than pay malpractice insurance in excess of $100,000 a year."
...

"Despite the now-disproved junk science theory about C-sections preventing cerebral palsy that Edwards peddled in the channeling case, the jury awarded Edwards' client a record-breaking $6.5 million. This is the essence of the modern Democratic Party, polished to perfection by Bill Clinton: They are willing to insult the intelligence of 49 percent of the people if they think they can fool 51 percent of the people."

http://www.anncoulter.org/

Capt'n Midnight

Originally posted by TomF
They are willing to insult the intelligence of 49 percent of the people if they think they can fool 51 percent of the people."

eh actually since less than half of registered voters vote you only need to fool about 20% of the population to win so pampering to 51% is extremely democratic.

bonkey

Originally posted by TomF
They are willing to insult the intelligence of 49 percent of the people if they think they can fool 51 percent of the people.

As opposed to the Republicans who will apparently simply insult 49 percent of the people if they think it will help fool 51 percent.

Ann Coulter is apparently incapable of discussing the Democratic party without descending into insults, often including mischaracterisation, and general foaming at the mouth as she fires one piece of invective after another. To classify this as "something worth reading" only strengthens the point I just made in the first paragraph.

jc