No McG, that's not it either. I will tell you there is one chosen at the end of every NFL draft...
Oooooooooooohhhhh.... I get it. I won't spoil it for everyone.... Let's just say that it's relevent to the conversation... :wink:
nimh wrote:As long as Edwards gets out in front of people as much as possible - and
Kerry gets out in front of people as
little as possible - we'll be fine
You guys have a distinct advantage there.
Both our guys need to remain hidden as much as possible. Did you hear the Dems offered to pay for Cheney's bus if he keeps touring?
OCCOM BILL wrote:What if culpability is greater than the available funds?
The company pays whatever it owes. If its debts exceed its assets, then it does what any company does in that situation: it goes bust.
OCCOM BILL wrote:Oh, I get it. You are trying to elicit from me an opinion about what would and wouldn't be fair compensation.
No, I'm setting forth one possible
framework for compensation. Isn't that what you were doing?
OCCOM BILL wrote:But doesn't the insurance rate vary depending on the amount and frequency of awards? I don't see how that kind of redistribution is a benefit to the company directly. I mean, sure the total may come down, but couldn't it go up just as easily?
This wouldn't be a form of insurance. It would be the establishment of a sort of sinking fund drawn from the company's profits.
OCCOM BILL wrote:He did in fact work on behalf of brain damaged children, Joe
I'm sincere.
That's a relief.
OCCOM BILL wrote:Heres another hint: this Chicago Bear became a member at the same time he became a Bear!
They're both members of the Mile-High Club?
The republicans are in full attack mode. I just recieved this from my niece. She is a Bush supporter. They say youth is wasted on the young.
Possible Future First Lady/Teresa Heinz Kerry
As time goes on, we're just getting to know the possible future First Lady President of the United States of America, and it is quite interesting!!.
You'll be hearing even more about Teresa Heinz Kerry, (We call her "Mrs. Ketchup) wife of Democratic front-runner She has quite a track record, especially when it comes to the causes she donates to. Turns out one of her favorite "charities" is the Tides Foundation. What is that you ask? This is an outfit that sends hundreds of millions of dollars to groups that protested the invasion of Iraq, demands open U.S. borders and provides legal defense for suspected terrorists. I don't think John Kerry's Vietnam service is going to make people look the other way on these issues.
Among other groups supported by Kerry's wife: Ramsey Clark's International Action Center. This is the same Ramsey Clark that offered to defend Saddam Hussein. Another group seeks to ease restrictions on immigration from terrorist nations. Another group has links to the terrorist group Hamas. And on and on.
I didn't think it was possible to make Hillary Clinton look good, but Teresa Heinz Kerry just might.
Heinz Factories Overseas
Subject: LOST JOBS
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 10:10:25 EST
Kerry does not like off shore companies: Oh Really? Just came across a bit of information regarding Kerry and his claim of the Bush administration sending jobs abroad.
Well, it seems that the Heinz Corporation, owned by Kerry's wife, has 79 plants where it manufacturers products and 57 of the 79 are located in countries outside of the U.S. How many U.S. jobs are lost here? Factories located at: Taipei, Taiwan (makes Heinz baby foods) Dublin, Ireland; Paris, France; Dovarmenez, France; Lisbon, Portugal; Madrid, Spain; Milan, Italy; Monguzzo, Italy; Athens, Greece; Warsaw, Poland; Pudliszki, Poland; Wodzislaw, Poland; Miedzychod, Poland; Moscow, Russia; Georgievisk, Russia; Cairo, Egypt; Tel Aviv, Isreal; Haifa, Isreal; Elst, The Netherlands and 6 other plants there; Brussels, Belgium; Dusseldorf, Germany; Seesen, Germany; Turnhout, Belgium; Rovereto, Italy; Chateaurenand, France; North York, Ontario, Canada; Wheatley, Ontario, Canada; Caracas, Venezuela; San Jose, Costa Rica; Johannesburg, South Africa; Gaborone, Botswana; Harare, Zimbabwe; Cheguta, Zimbabwe; Wellington, South Africa; Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Republic of Singapore; Auckland, New Zealand; Tokyo, Japan; Guangzhov, People's Republic of China (makes infant cereal); Qingdao, People's Republic of China (makes infant foods, ketchup, mayonnaise &puree); Inchon, South Korea (makes Heinz products and StarKist); Bangkok, Thailand; Mumbai, India; Jakarta, Indonesia; Surabaya, Indonesia; Manila, Philippines; Wanchai, Hong Kong. Also recently purchased from Bordens these products: Classico Pasta Sauce; Aunt Millies Pasta Sauce; Mrs. Grass Receipt Soups; Wylers Bouillons &Soups.
Think of the conflict of interest a President would have whose wife owns business interests in all of these countries and others
Pass it on!!!! We are made strong by the difficulties we face not by those we evade..
joefromchicago wrote: The company pays whatever it owes. If its debts exceed its assets, then it does what any company does in that situation: it goes bust.
That sounds worse than the system we have now with insurance. What if the company's debt exceeds it's coffers 1,000 fold? Isn't that why they came up with insurance in the first place?
joefromchicago wrote: No, I'm setting forth one possible framework for compensation. Isn't that what you were doing?
No, but that does sound interesting. We should explore that.
joefromchicago wrote: This wouldn't be a form of insurance. It would be the establishment of a sort of sinking fund drawn from the company's profits.
Still sounds worse than the current system to me (aka-not biting). Is that an honest plan, that you like, or were you trying to use you precognitive skills to lay out mine? I definitely think our current system is due for an overhaul, but your new system doesn't sound better yet. I'll be happy to post some thoughts on what I think would be an improvement, but perhaps we should start another thread... I'll even post some strong opinions this time! :wink:
joefromchicago wrote: OCCOM BILL wrote:He did in fact work on behalf of brain damaged children, Joe
I'm sincere.
That's a relief.
Great choice of words, Joe. LMAO.
joefromchicago wrote:OCCOM BILL wrote:Here's another hint: this Chicago Bear became a member at the same time he became a Bear!
They're both members of the Mile-High Club?
Couldn't say, but the last hint I posted was a blueprint for crying....
(I kind of stole my previous post from the quote below ... I'd already typed this post out.)
Well, everybody
at TNR seems to be cheerfully and unanimously happy about the VP choice - an amazing sight to see considering the habitual acrimonity of TNR reporting.
Of course, ironically, every one of these bright-mooded comments (you gotta read from the bottom up, otherwise it doesnt make sense), says as much about what they think of Kerry as presidential candidate as about Edwards for VP ...
My favourite must be Jonathan Chaits, which meanders from paying respect to Kerry to using Edwards praise to grumble about him to a far-fetched daydream ...:
Quote:Jonathan Chait
Tuesday, 11:30 a.m.
Frankie,
I actually had the opposite reaction about what the Edwards pick says about Kerry. It's obvious he's not Kerry's idea of a great pick. Reports held that Kerry was mystified and somewhat resentful that Edwards would run for president without even having completed a single Senate term. Kerry thinks like a senator, and senators respect people who have been in office a really long time and mastered an issue. If Kerry could have somehow been absolutely certain that he'd be elected, I bet he'd have chosen somebody like Joe Biden. The Edwards pick suggests Kerry is willing to accede to the judgment of the political professionals.
Which he needs to do far more often. Not having listened to Kerry speak since the primaries, I was surprised how awful and meandering his speech was. Even worse, it was politically tone-deaf. When discussing America's role in the world, he put the emphasis on restoring alliances rather than keeping America safe and strong. He's inviting the Republicans to translate his remarks into, "He won't go to war without permission from France." He also had a riff about investing in education rather than spending the money on prisons. That sounded very much like a belief that prisons come at the expense of education. (In truth, criminals prey mainly on the poor. Keeping criminals off the streets allows poor kids the safety they need to have some chance at getting ahead.) Substance aside, I think Clinton showed pretty clearly that the right political message for Democrats is to be tough on crime. What made Kerry's departure from the Clinton pattern all the more striking is that there was nothing about prisons in the prepared text. It was all ad-libbed. Talk about bad instincts.
So he really needs John Edwards, who has remarkably strong instincts both politically and substantively. Of all the primary candidates, I think Edwards most cogently identified what's wrong with George W. Bush's presidency. (Edwards's message was called "populist," but I merely think it was a realistic assessment of a plutocratic president.) And, unlike Kerry, he can communicate. This suggests a logical, if somewhat new, division of labor: Edwards could be the one who pulls the party message into a coherent theme, thickens it out with policy proposals (along with his staff), articulates it before the public, and lacerates the opponent. Kerry would continue to star in the television commercials as the Vietnam veteran/prosecutor/gun nut/fiscal hawk. Between his schedule of filming such commercials, he'd raise money and rest up for the debates. Too much campaigning would only alienate the public and make him even more gaunt.
In fact, here's my ideal plan for the Kerry campaign. At an upcoming rally, an anti-Kerry protestor starts to burn an American flag. Kerry leaps down from the podium and starts strangling the protestor with his bare hands, then hurls him to the ground and rescues the flag. In the course of putting out the fire, he suffers minor burns that, the campaign announces, will force him to be hospitalized and inaccessible to the media and the public until mid-October. In the meantime, Edwards is dispatched to present the Democratic message for the next three and half months.
Sounds good, huh? All they need is to gin up a protestor who's willing to endure some minor, non-lethal choking.
Chait and Foer's later posts make a good point about one of Edwards pluses, btw. Unlike Bush and Kerry, he knows how to do something that seems so simple but comes so hard to politicians: be open to good advice. It's about recognizing and canvassing talent and expert opinion and not feeling threatened by it - even if it
is critical. That alone would make him a good alternative to the Bush administration's distrustful, dogmatic cliques - but also to Kerry who, "a major micromanager", is just as secretive and "tends to be his own most trusted [..] policy advisor". (Of course, on the latter point one could argue like Chait does above that, by choosing Edwards, Kerry
did prove he is able to listen to outside advice even when the advice is uncomfortable.)
I kept wondering in the last few days if Kerry was going topull a coup, and give the nod to Sam Nunn. This would've worried me to no end.
He has extraordinary appeal in the South--top calibre characterpoints and foreign policy gravitas.
Edwards gives Kerry a needed boost with 'personality', but I don't think he can take the South from Bush--though it may sway small numbers. He has no gravitas (I hate that word, but you know what I mean.), and no foriegn policy knowledge--and at war--this matters.
In short-- Nunn could have bridged an important gap for Kerry. Edwards won't. Cheney will eat him alive.
I see the vitriol against Edwards has already begun! So John Edwards is a trial lawyer, big whoop! Where's the crime in that? He's a self-made millionaire who helps people get justice from negligent companies. Should we limit his compensation; is that the republican way? I don't think so; otherwise, wouldn't people be up in arms about Cheney, too? Using billions of taxpayer dollars to subsidize his company? Claiming a non-existent office in the Caymans to avoid paying taxes to the USA? (And investing in states that sponsor terrorism)? In the five years before Mr. Cheney joined the company, it got a measly $100 million in government loans. During his five years as CEO, Cheney nearly doubled the size of Halliburton's government contracts, totaling a whopping $2.3 billion. He convinced the Export-Import Bank of the U.S. to lend Halliburton and oil companies another $1.5 billion, backed by U.S.
taxpayers. And we can see for ourselves what this comapny has done in Iraq!
I'll take Edwards any day. At least he found a respectable way to get rich, and only screws the bad guys.
nimh wrote:I mean, its one brilliant piece of agitprop handwork from the RNC there, condensing pretty much everyting they can say about Edwards into just three words. "Disingenious unaccomplished liberal".
You missed three more important words in McG's post; "trial lawyer" Craven already mentioned, but "pretty", too. "Pretty" is a potent one; emasculating, disempowering, untrustworthy, unintelligent, all kindsa good stuff.
But yeah, I think that's the opening sally, and from a lot of the responses here, am again really glad he's not the prez nominee. But have hope for him as VP.
I like the word gravitas (though I may over-use it), and think that Kerry has it, and that the fact that he has it is very much in favor. Bush has this whole frat-boy, glad-handling, nick-naming, choking-on-a-pretzel thing going on. I think a lot of people are ready for someone more SERIOUS to be in charge, especially during wartime.
But yeah, he's not a glad-handler. So Edwards out there doing that...
Anyway, pleasantly surprised by this turn of events, and note that the point being made by many is that Kerry DID take advice with this decision -- he may be resistant, but he does it.
the reincarnation of suzy wrote:I see the vitriol against Edwards has already begun!
Looks like there are lot more people rushing to his defense than there are letting loose with any vitrol. Running scared already?
sozobe wrote:Anyway, pleasantly surprised by this turn of events, and note that the point being made by many is that Kerry DID take advice with this decision -- he may be resistant, but he does it.
Yep - did already note that in my post as well (between brackets). There may be hope for him still ... on that front.
Oh, so you did! Missed it, sorry.
sozobe wrote: Bush has this whole frat-boy, glad-handling, nick-naming, choking-on-a-pretzel thing going on.
That's some pretty Presidential stuff there, I don't know...
sozobe wrote:I think a lot of people are ready for someone more SERIOUS to be in charge, especially during wartime...
...Anyway, pleasantly surprised by this turn of events, and note that the point being made by many is that Kerry DID take advice with this decision -- he may be resistant, but he does it.
I'm not sure who's going to take that team as more SERIOUS... and how could anyone possibly be surprised that Kerry changed his mind?
Bill, you're a reasonable type -- that has actually gotten to you, the mind-changing thing? Like Bush hasn't?
NOTE, of all the things I hold against Bush, and there are many, changing his mind per se is not one of them. I think it's icky to make PROMISES and go back on them, I think the things he changed his mind TO tended to be bad ideas, but I'd HOPE that politicians do change their mind. I'd HOPE that politicians hold a particular position until evidence indicates that the previously held position should be amended. (Who said "WMD"? Wasn't me...)
In this situation, for example, Kerry was "thinking like a senator" and thought that Edwards didn't have enough experience to run for Prez (btw it doesn't seem entirely inconsistent that someone could be too inexperienced to run for Prez but experienced enough to run for VP, but I digress). Then, in looking for a VP, he thoroughly researched everyone, considered the angles, took expert advice, and decided to go with the best candidate, regardless of his own previous feelings on the subject.
I INFINITELY prefer that to destructive, immature, mulish adherence to previously held opinions, no matter what pesky facts may happen to get in the way.
I understand perfectly why he chose him, Soz. I don't get why that should be a surprise to anyone. Frankly I would have been shocked if chose anyone else. I wasn't bashing him for changing his mind here, just pointing out it's, eh, not unprecedented. I expected him to choose the man that the going consensus thought would give him the best shot
which he did.
Fishin, to clarify, I wasn't referring only to this thread. I've been hearing about this in various places all day, and I felt that a comparison of the two men was in order.
No, I'm not scared.
I'll only be scared in November, if Bush gets re-elected.
But I'm an optimist, and I have faith in people seeing the light by then.
He's an 8 to 5 favorite, Suz, make sure you're sitting down when you hear the news. :wink:
But it's recycling of a tired and immaterial soundbite... I dunno, seemed cheap and easy.
It's not mind-changing in the sense of "Read my lips, Edwards will never be my VP!!" It's taking various aspects into account and making a decision. Big whoop.
The surprise part is that I've been reading a lot of analysis of who he would be likely to choose and why, and it looks like his own preferences were much more towards Gephardt, or Vilsack. During the primaries, December I think, he was asked who he would support for Prez if he himself was not running and he said "Gephardt." He has said a lot about NOT wanting someone who hogs the spotlight. Etc., many such indications that he was going to go in another direction.
