2
   

It's kerry and Edwards

 
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jul, 2004 02:41 pm
not with..a....
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jul, 2004 03:38 pm
Craven de Kere wrote:
Nah, they haven't really tried to evoke the lawyer hating in full force yet. Wait till that becomes his label.


On the trial lawyer thing you and Soz pointed at, I'm slightly hopeful, but mostly curious, about this bit from Fineman, who otherwise spends the article looking for something that could be used against Edwards:

Quote:

Anyone know more about this '98 race in which the attempt to take him down on the trial lawyer thing backfired?
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jul, 2004 03:58 pm
Interesting bits from MSNBC's First Read:

Quote:
We'd note that even though the Kerry camp calls North Carolina a battleground state, we never received any kind of response to the Edwards pick from Democratic Senate candidate Erskine Bowles yesterday (or even from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee when we asked about a Bowles response).

But further down west:

Quote:
Democrat Nancy Farmer, fighting an uphill battle against GOP Sen. Kit Bond in Missouri, went out of her way to liken herself to Edwards: "John Edwards and I both come from working class backgrounds, we were the first in our families to go to college and I'm the first to applaud Senator Kerry on choosing an outstanding running mate who understands the needs of working Americans."

While down in FL:

The St. Petersburg Times, [..] anticipates the Kerry-Edwards stop in Florida. Even in Bob Graham's home state, the paper says, "Democrat after Democrat cheered the choice of 51-year-old Edwards. Many suggested he can be as helpful to Kerry in Florida - which boasts 27 electoral votes - as Graham would have been."
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jul, 2004 04:07 pm
It's not about specific cases, it's about general hatred and distrust of lawyers. Surely you've seen that on A2K. Extremely reviled subspecies in America -- even (especially?) if they're good.

There was an article about this in the NYT recently, maybe today, have to go so will come back to it.
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jul, 2004 04:36 pm
sozobe wrote:
It's not about specific cases, it's about general hatred and distrust of lawyers.


I think there is a little more to it than that. There is a NYTimes profile on him somewhere (I'll dig it up later) that mentions Edwards cherry-picked specific cases. He only represented people with bullet-proof cases that could get multi-million dollar awards. One of the other people at the law firm was interviewed and they mentioned that the Partners loved him because he could pick up a phone, make a call only a few minutes long and bill for $800,000.

That isn't the "country-bumpkin" lawyer image the Democrats are trying paint. He did litle or no pro-bono work and refused cases that couldn't bring him in millions.

So, IMO, this race will be more about image than anything else and his days as a lawyer could possibly hurt him there. Kerry needs someone with a "common man" image and I'm not sure that people will see his case history as fighting for the common man. He'll be painted as an elitist lawyer so it's more a matter of which ever image sticks.

Should be an interesting race. Wink
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jul, 2004 05:02 pm
These are the two things I am eager to see. Debates between Cheney and Edwards and Kerry and Bush. Cheney had better watch out for the sling shot or he may have to make a large settlement, and Bush should, who knows what he can do his best bet will be to hide. Or maybe he can come armed with the missing WMD's Laughing Laughing
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jul, 2004 05:04 pm
sozobe wrote:
It's not about specific cases, it's about general hatred and distrust of lawyers. Surely you've seen that on A2K. Extremely reviled subspecies in America

Yeah. The thing in that quote that caught my attention wasn't about the suggested absence of aggravating individual cases, but about the apparent failure, back then, of the "trial lawyer - bad guy" shtick, period.

"The GOP tried to attack his trial lawyer career in North Carolina in 1998. It backfired."

Apparently he found a good way to deal with it, then. Would be interested to hear more about how he did it.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jul, 2004 05:05 pm
Here you go Fishin. I don't know how he'll avoid getting buried under this.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jul, 2004 05:18 pm
I was reading fast, sorry. (Have been doing a lot of that lately and will probably continue for a week or so... little tiny bursts of time between getting ready to move this week. Have I mentioned I hate moving? 'Cause I really, really do.)

I'd thought you were assuming that there was some specific thing in Edwards' background as a lawyer -- impropriety or whatever -- that would cause trouble, and I was trying to separate that (whether true or not... I haven't checked out Bill's link yet) from a generalized and significant dislike of lawyers.

Here's the generalized dislike of lawyers part:

Kerry Gains Campaign Ace, Risking Anti-Lawyer Anger

Quote:
Yet Mr. Edwards's background as a trial lawyer before he entered the Senate is already drawing fire from another group with even deeper pockets: business leaders and manufacturers. Few things are capable of uniting industry groups as much as their opposition to trial lawyers. And few politicians have been as adept at exploiting that hostility as President Bush, who, at the urging of his political adviser Karl Rove, has made attacks on trial lawyers a central part of his political strategy ever since his first run for Texas governor a decade ago.


Note, not attacks on Edwards per se, just attacks on trial lawyers as a category.
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jul, 2004 05:18 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Here you go Fishin. I don't know how he'll avoid getting buried under this.


Avoiding getting buried is what a good politician does. Wink
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jul, 2004 05:25 pm
Oh, it's just that same thing. (Bill's link.) Buried? This is why lawyer shows are such a popular genre -- it's what they DO. They combine facts and logic with highly emotional presentations. That one came in the service of getting a verdict for the family of a baby who was brain damaged due to negligence on the part of the obstetrician. It's not, like, defending a former football star against murder. It's a pretty honorable thing to be doing, all things considered.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jul, 2004 05:33 pm
sozobe wrote:
a generalized and significant dislike of lawyers.

Yeah, thats why I was pretty surprised about those Gallup/CNN/USAToday polling results today. Noting Edwards' trial lawyer career, one of its questions asked the respondents whether "his experience as a trial lawyer" would be a strength or a weakness. 67% said it would be a strength (26% said, "major strength"), and only 27% said it would be a weakness (12% said, "major weakness").

Meanwhile, the Cleveland Plain Dealer reports Michael Munger, political science chairman at Duke University, as saying:

Quote:
When Edwards talks of the two Americas, it doesn't come across the way it does for Kerry, as some rich guy who feels guilty. This is someone who's been there and thinks that other people deserve the chance that he got.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jul, 2004 05:34 pm
Mr. Edwards sure is peppy sounding. Heard a few clips on the radio tonight.






and a funny (IMNSHO) clip of Mr. Bush on the radio. In response to a question about what he thought of the selection of Mr. Edwards as running mate, "Dick Cheney can be president". Does Mr. Bush not realize that isn't necessarily a selling point? I know it scares the bejesus out of me on this side of the elephant.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jul, 2004 05:44 pm
Heh.

Lemme back up a bit... Craven said something about how the trial lawyer hatred hadn't really been mobilized yet, I said something similar, you (nimh) mentioned those comments, then we've had a little back-and-forth... To clarify, my main point is that I think it is a potential liability, more so once that button has been pushed, repeatedly, by some expert button-pushers. (Read: Rove + co.) Not so much right out of the gate.

Also the question is one of those that is a little tricky -- "experience as". I could see that a slightly different spin could yield very different results -- ranking the statement "trial lawyers are trustworthy", for example. (I bet there would be a lot who said "strongly disagree.")

But nice that the right-out-of-the-gate stuff is evidently so positive, to be sure.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jul, 2004 05:58 pm
sozobe wrote:
Also the question is one of those that is a little tricky -- "experience as". I could see that a slightly different spin could yield very different results

Yeh yeh definitely. I thought about that, too. Phrasing is everything with a question like that. Lets wait and see ...

Meanwhile, a propos of nothing (it deserves much wider play, but I'm going to bed), TNR claims a bit of a scoop: the Bush admin is pushing Pakistan to deliver Osama or another HVT (High-Value Target) - before the elections. More precisely: during the Dem convention.

Quote:
PAKISTAN FOR BUSH: July Surprise

[..] The New Republic has learned that Pakistani security officials have been told they must produce HVTs by the election. According to one source in Pakistan's powerful Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), "The Pakistani government is really desperate and wants to flush out bin Laden and his associates after the latest pressures from the U.S. administration to deliver before the [upcoming] U.S. elections." Introducing target dates for Al Qaeda captures is a new twist in U.S.-Pakistani counterterrorism relations--according to a recently departed intelligence official, "no timetable[s]" were discussed in 2002 or 2003--but the November election is apparently bringing a new deadline pressure to the hunt. Another official, this one from the Pakistani Interior Ministry, which is responsible for internal security, explains, "The Musharraf government has a history of rescuing the Bush administration. They now want Musharraf to bail them out when they are facing hard times in the coming elections." (These sources insisted on remaining anonymous. Under Pakistan's Official Secrets Act, an official leaking information to the press can be imprisoned for up to ten years.)

A third source, an official who works under ISI's director, Lieutenant General Ehsan ul-Haq, informed tnr that the Pakistanis "have been told at every level that apprehension or killing of HVTs before [the] election is [an] absolute must." What's more, this source claims that Bush administration officials have told their Pakistani counterparts they have a date in mind for announcing this achievement: "The last ten days of July deadline has been given repeatedly by visitors to Islamabad and during [ul-Haq's] meetings in Washington." Says McCormack: "I'm aware of no such comment." But according to this ISI official, a White House aide told ul-Haq last spring that "it would be best if the arrest or killing of [any] HVT were announced on twenty-six, twenty-seven, or twenty-eight July"--the first three days of the Democratic National Convention in Boston.

[..] Powell conspicuously did not commit the United States to selling F-16s to Pakistan, which it desperately wants in order to tilt the regional balance of power against India. And the Pakistanis fear that, if they don't produce an HVT, they won't get the planes. Equally, they fear that, if they don't deliver, either Bush or a prospective Kerry administration would turn its attention to the apparent role of Pakistan's security establishment in facilitating Khan's illicit proliferation network. One Pakistani general recently in Washington confided in a journalist, "If we don't find these guys by the election, they are going to stick this whole nuclear mess up our asshole."

Click the headline for more ... should go in some other thread, really.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jul, 2004 06:58 pm
(I only just noticed the quote!! Hehehhehehhee! How long's that been there?)
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jul, 2004 07:03 pm
Quite a while! Very Happy
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jul, 2004 07:09 pm
SO funny!! I'm really terribly unobservant lately, no spare brain cells.

Speaking of which, I really gotta stop procrastinating and go pack. <deep sigh>
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 10/17/2019 at 09:06:58