trespassers, I noted in your profile that you are an earth man.
Edwards participated in a large number of high-profile, high-dollar litigations. He appears to have leapt to the defense primarily of underdogs with relatively wealthy opponents. Draw your own conclusions.
timber
timberlandko wrote:Edwards participated in a large number of high-profile, high-dollar litigations. He appears to have leapt to the defense primarily of underdogs with relatively wealthy opponents. Draw your own conclusions.
Assuming this is true, you could easily draw two mutually exclusive conclusions:
1) He chose to side with David against Goliath, because he believed in the cause.
2) He chose to take on lawsuits against wealthy opponents because they had deeper pockets to loot.
Again, neither of these is proved or disproved by what has so far been offered here.
Mamajuana,
Even my affection has its limits.
I am not so enthusiastic for George Bush as I am relieved to finally see his predecessor fade from view. It is too early to pass judgement on the effectiveness of Bush's leadership, good or bad. However it is refreshing to have once again a President who will exert some of that rare and needed quality. Nearly all of the dangerous and contentious issues on the international scene today are matters that Clinton let drift or merely sat on without action in any direction. This was true of both Kyoto and the ICC, and it is true of Iraq and particularly North Korea.
Clinton permitted the Europeans to snooker us in the Kyoto deal and allowed a treaty that exempted every other nation from any action whatever to be signed. Worse this occurred after the U.S. Senate voted 97 to nothing for a resolution rejecting such a deal. He sat on this without taking any action whatever throughout the last 15 months of his administration.
A similar story could be told about the very lengthy ICC negotiations. After failing to get resolution of long-standing and serious U.S. objections, he just signed the treaty in the last months of his presidency, but again lacked the courage to submit it to the Senate.
The Iraq matter was allowed to drift for eight years without resolution. Why? The very serious dispute we are now dealing with in North Korea had its origins in the flabby 1993 response to an earlier very similar gambit by North Korea. Then they had no nuclear weapons or medium range ballistic missiles with which to deliver them. Now they do.
The test of leadership is what it accomplishes. Clinton failed and Bush has inherited the consequences.
I'm not sure how one measures the respect (or lack of it in the world's eyes), however, I believe an important element of it lies in the degree to which others adapt to one's agenda and viewpoint. By that standard the Bush administration is doing very well indeed.
I'm not aware of any of Bush's judicial appointments that have as yet been renewed. Moreover, none of them - none - were rejected by a majority of the Senate: they just died in a committee ruled by a Democrat cabal. If there are any ethical questions here they belong to Senator Leahy and his fellow character assassins.
Am I missing something...or are we off topic ?
I think that's just a Democrat thing, Mapleleaf. To paraphrase a well known Dem, "It all depends on how you define 'on topic' "
It's a matter of perspective, I suspect.
timber
Mapleleaf:
Very good, we are off-topic, tragically. I'm glad I wasn't the only one to notice we had glided off to never, never land. Thanks for noticing and bringing it to our attention.
Maybe we can return to the topic!
Lieberman to me is nothing but a Republican using a democratic seat. We're happy to use him, but he is basically hovering at the heels of Bush, licking and slopping as needed.
He would never get my support in any form except to send him to Iraq to get in the line of fire!
Anon
Here are a couple of "hold your nose" choices...
Joe Lieberman...or Al Sharpton?
Al Sharpton...or Dick Gephardt?
Dick Gephardt...or Joe Lieberman?
PDiddie:
Those aren't hold your nose choices, those are open projectile vomiting over a 230 degree area choices.
I'm with Dys, gag me with a spoon!!
Anon
Presenting Bush The Younger with Sharpton as a competitor for The Big Airplane and the fully staffed Living Quarters would be the realization of all possible Republican hopes in the matter. Sharpton aspires vainly to achieve the stature he wrongly perceives J. Jackson to have. Jackson was calculating and subtle, almost Machiavellian, generally picking his fights and his afilliations with great care. Sharpton is merely a buffoon.
timber
timber, I disagree with your assessment that Jackson picked his issues carefully. He picked on anything that looked like "discrimination against blacks." He won some battles, but lost the war, because he was perceived to be the spokeman only for himself. He wanted the exposure, the media coverage, and $$$$. He really didn't care for the supposed people he was trying to 'represent.' He's the fake that everybody saw him to be. His own life was no better, and fathered a child outside of his marriage. He's a man without ethics, and people finally caught on to his fake battles. I'm glad to see that he's gone from the public scene; I'm tired of seeing him. c.i.
Sharpton may be an opportunistic, egomaniacal windbag, and I myself would (and do) think very carefully before agreeing with him, because his motives are suspect to me. But...
The tendency to use him as a throwaway line "Farrakhan and Sharpton", "Jackson and Sharpton", "Tawana Brawley and Sharpton", is ill-advised, in my opinion. If you listen to the man, he is far from a buffoon. It is popular for us Democrats to characterize him as such right now, because we don't want Republicans to catch us actually including him in a serious thought. But to be intellectually honest, the man is more than just a poster child for race-baiting. He is damn smart. And I hate to say it (don't want those republicans to catch me), but Sharpton has been the only one on a couple of occasions to give voice to some things that still need to be said in the ongoing American dialogue about race, and the disenfranchised, and injustice.
So, yes, he sits there on a dozen talk shows with that ridiculous hairdo looking as if he's taking himself way too seriously; and yes, I am aware that to speak his name is now more than ever to invite ridicule. But I have taken the time to listen to the man answer questions about what he thinks (Don't be alarmed, I still try to give equal time to idiots like Bill O'Reilly), and he does homework. I can't take him seriously as a candidate either (at least with Jackson, there was the consideration that he was mobilizing alot of voters who had been slumbering), but I can't honestly say that he is ignorant, or insignificant.
he is not a valid candidate but he does offer valid questions that should be answered
I also can't sit idly by and see anyone casually dump on Jackson unchallenged. Not because I don't think he too is a bit of an ambulance chaser, but the public flaying he's been getting is a little much for me to stomach. It seems that when he was unfaithful to his wife and got caught, it opened the floodgates. Books, columns, talking heads seemed as if they were coming out of the woodwork. It has been almost orgasmic, the intensity of the vitriol - as if it had been held at bay for ages, waiting for a break.
He's done some bad things. We are very aware of them now. (I feel like all those republicans defending Trent Lott) But he has done some good things, too. And I don't see that balance being acknowledged. I don't guess it would bother me much if you just said 'I don't like Jackson". But when the damning descriptions of him take on very personal proportions, and start to ramble, it makes me wonder.
snood, Jackson was instrumental in much which was of general benefit. He found, however, just how quickly clay feet can be washed right out from under a noble monument by the tide of public opinion. He called the waters upon himself.
timber
Well yes, dyslexia, I have to agree.
And yes, I did go off topic. We democrats will do that, as noted. But George brings out the best of disagreement in me - one of the few on the opposite side from me I truly believe and trust - and learn from. Even though I almost never agree with him.
Thank you, snood. I think somebody has to stand up for some stuff about Sharpton and Jackson. It's easy to target them - but they're still standing up. And Sharpton, while never a viable candidate for me, has never shied away from what he has said, and there's something to be said for that.
It's interesting that so many are entering the democratic race. It indicates a growing sense of strength, and a growing loss of belief in Bush's invincibility. Somewhere in there lies a strong candidate, and I expect more will pop up. Dark horse is still Dean. Has anybody heard him speak?
Good for Snood! It bothers me when reasoned individuals begin to use strong opinion words without documentation. The fact that the individuals we talk about are known in the public means someone believes in them for some reason. This makes them part of the equation.
I have thought about starting an interaction on just Dean. Maybe we can cover it here. I want to know what makes the man tick. Any insightful links other than the ones mentioned on previous pages would be appreciated.
