Edwards it is

[ThaSaltCracka]

Kerry picked Edwards as his VP, I like this pick. During the primaries I liked his positive attitude, I also like the fact that he is young and full of energy, plus his lack of "Washington experience" is a plus IMO, especially after what we have seen of this admins "experience".

Thoughts?

[daryn]

i think edwards is a bad choice for kerry. basically edwards adds nothing to the kerry ticket. i can't see edwards garnering votes that kerry would not have. i think mccain would have been much better of course.

[ThaSaltCracka]

McCain would have been the best choice, and unfortunately that wasn't going to happen, but I like Edwards. The debates will be interesting to say the least. I like the way the ticket is shapping up though. Metaphorically speaking it looks almost like out with the old and in with the new.

[ericd]

Has it ever really mattered? I seem to recall Agnew and Quayle. I don't believe Truman was the reason FDR was elected to a 4th term. It seems to me that it is a fun argument only.

[daryn]

i think it matters. it's possible for a vice presidential nominee to bring in votes that the presidential nominee might have trouble with. i also agree with saltcracka, if kerry had chosen an older vp candidate it would have been two old guys, but edwards adds an energetic youthful feel to the ticket.

[Utah]

How do you bash a guy as an incapable leader for a year and then back his nomination by joining his ticket as VP?

[ThaSaltCracka]

I have no idea, but remember during the primaries a lot of political commentators said the the democrats seemed unorganized and a mess, however now that they have a candidate they have all unified. I read an article today that had Kerry saying half way through the primaries he warmed up to Edwards because of his positive campaign. I think some of that has rubbed off on Kerry, because Kerry's campaign has been much more positive than Bush's. I still think it was a good pick. McCain would have been a monster pick though.

[ericd]

As I recall, in 1980 in New Hampshire, George I refered to Reagan's economic policy as Voodoo economics. They had no trouble serving 2 terms together. It's politics as usual, that's all.

[paland]

[ QUOTE ]
How do you bash a guy as an incapable leader for a year and then back his nomination by joining his ticket as VP?

[/ QUOTE ]
George Bush Sr. called Reagan's economic plan "Voodoo Economics", and then soon after, was chosen as Reagan's running mate.

[ericd]

Just for fun let's eliminate people. Throw out the diehard Bush and Kerry people. Also, all those from either solid red or blue states in addition to those that don't care one way or the other. Net the difference of those Kerry gains from those he loses (swing states only). What are the odds these people will determine the final outcome of the election? My guess is very small.

[Toro]

It hardly ever matters who is 2nd on the ticket. The best that you can hope for is for the VP candidate to help carry one key swing State.

It almost worked for Gore last time with Lieberman who gave them a fighting chance in Florida with the big Jewish vote. But alas Bush trumped that by having his brother as Governor and the Supreme Court stacked with enough Conservatives.

[Garbonzo]

Edwards has a few things going for him.

1. He is Southern, not a real stronghold for massholes.
2. He is a litigation attorney, this will appeal to more than a few people.
3. He is young
4. He is goodlooking...so the ladies tell me...
5. He is not a complete and utter tool.

Mcain said "no", sadly.

I think this was the best choice.

[Cyrus]

. . . he is cute. He will balance nicely the Droopy, hang-dog mug of Kerry.

And Bush is stuck with Cheney, a man who is decidely agoraphobic and ill at ease with crowds.

We will be back for more serious political analysis after these messages.

[Boris]

Personally speaking I can't think of a worse choice. I havn't voted in the presidential election since my early twenties. I was planning to vote this year, especially since California has this handy little service where you can register to vote at the same time as you renew your drivers license. There is absolutely no way I can vote for Bush. I also have a very difficult time voting into office a plastic man for pres and a blood sucker for VP. Looks I'll be voting for the spoiler boy.

[andyfox]

Won't make much difference here in California. I voted for spoiler boy last time, this time I'm holding my nose and voting for Kerry. I can't imagine John Edwards being worse than Dick Cheney. i'd much rather have the proverbial do-nothing VP than the do-wrong kind.

[nolanfan34]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How do you bash a guy as an incapable leader for a year and then back his nomination by joining his ticket as VP?

[/ QUOTE ]
George Bush Sr. called Reagan's economic plan "Voodoo Economics", and then soon after, was chosen as Reagan's running mate.

[/ QUOTE ]

While this is true, I think in today's media climate, it's far easier to make a point of this if you're the Bush campaign. Heck, there's a whole network pretty much talking about this fact (FOX News /images/graemlins/grin.gif).

I also don't think that Edwards brings a lot to the ticket. Not anything of substance. His only tangible qualities seem to be that he's young and good-looking. A big negative against him is his occupation. Get ready to see a LOT of negative ads about trial lawyers and their donations to the Kerry/Edwards ticket.

I think Kerry's only shot at winning would have been if he got Oprah as his running mate.

[ThaSaltCracka]

what is wrong with trial lawyers? Are they worse than defense attorneys who routinely defend the wealthy who make a mockery of our judicial system? His occupation is meaningless.

[nolanfan34]

[ QUOTE ]
what is wrong with trial lawyers? Are they worse than defense attorneys who routinely defend the wealthy who make a mockery of our judicial system? His occupation is meaningless.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's my point, a lot of people, right or wrong, don't exactly have a positive view of lawyers. It'll make for an easy negative commercial, if the Bush campaign drags up some votes that Edwards made that helped drive up the cost of medical malpractice insurance, etc.

I'm speculating on the last part, but from what I understand Edwards is a personal injury attorney, and I think people have a negative connotation about that profession.

Not that it will matter much, they'll still concentrate on Kerry's flip-flop voting mostly.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
but from what I understand Edwards is a personal injury attorney, and I think people have a negative connotation about that profession

[/ QUOTE ] You may be right, but still seems like it won't matter. Like I said earlier I think Edwards brings a lot of excitement and energy to the ticket which could very easily get people interested in them. I don't really buy the notion that the VP doesn't matter much. Many people have looked at the current president as a co-presidency. Bush and Cheney are both scrutnized like no other before them. Bush could have a excellent week, but if Cheney is under fire it affects him, especially with all the "scandals" around Cheney.

[Utah]

How do defense attornys make a mockery of the judical system defending the wealthy? An attorney should do everything in their power to defend their client. Would you not want that of an attorny defending you? If there are problems with how they defend their clients then it needs to be addressed in the "rulebook" not by bashing attorneys doing their job.

The problem with trial lawyers is that they defend no one. They hold corporations hostage and line their pockets. Basically, the corporations agree to pay off the attornies and the planiffs get nothing.

I have a big problem with the republican remedy to the situation - i.e., eliminate the ability to sue. I think a much better solution is that you can sue, but the money won on punitive damages goes to non-profit. This forces businesses to operate appropriately while at the same time protecting them from frivolous lawsuits. The problem is that the Dems. defend the lawyers and the Rep. defend the corporations and no one is really looking out for the average citizen.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
How do defense attornys make a mockery of the judical system defending the wealthy?

[/ QUOTE ] see: O.J. Simpson.

I don't really want to argue with you about lawyers though, because I think being a lawyer is an honest profession(for the most part). The issue though is that Republicans will make it a big deal. They seem to hate trial lawyers because they hold corporations accountable, and the Republicans certainly don't like that /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Utah]

O.J. - if you were OJ you wouldnt want your lawyers to do everything you could to make sure you won? The problem was with the court and the system if anything - not the lawyers.

They seem to hate trial lawyers because they hold corporations accountable

I love those who hold corporationa accountable (e.g, Spitz in New York) . However, that is not what most trial lawyers do. They raid corporations to line their own pockets at little to no benefit to the people that are supposedly representing.

Like I said, I dont like the republican solution. However, the republicans are right in that there is a very real cost to every one of us for from frivolous class action suits. Its not only the corporations that pay, its also the citizens. If I recall my economics, its called dead weight loss. We all lose (except of course for the lawyers).

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
I love those who hold corporationa accountable (e.g, Spitz in New York) . However, that is not what most trial lawyers do. They raid corporations to line their own pockets at little to no benefit to the people that are supposedly representing.


[/ QUOTE ]

Right, that's exactly what most lawyers do.



Regarding the class action lawsuits ---- how should the legal system address a problem like the following: Assume that there is an oatmeal company called Mormon Oats. Mormon oats has been short changing their customers for the past three years (their boxes read Net Weight of 24 ounces but they are only 23 ounces). Every person who has purchased Mormon Oats in the past two years have been wronged and are legally entitled to restitution. Of course, I'm not going to sue Mormon Oats myself. I only spent $2.40 on my oats and, thus, am only out of pocket $.10. Absent a class action lawsuit, the wrong would not be redressed. Would this be a frivolous lawsuit?

[Utah]

I love your example, which illustrates the problem with the republican approach - There is a real need for class actions. The problem today is that a class action would be filed, the laywers would make $50 million and we would all get a 10 cent coupon for a further box of mormom oats.

This is really tricky and to be honest, I dont have the answer. You could put rules in place limiting the lawyer fees and attempt to limit the lawyers ovbious conflict of interest - namely they get paid a fat fee to settle at the detriment of the mormon oats consumers. This would be better than what we have now, although it is not a great solution and I am not a big fan of heavy handed legislation.

Also, it might limit the laywers that would take the case. I want a top lawyer to sue mormom oats on my behalf.

What are your thoughts?

[Boris]

Im curious which of Spitzer's suites you think is so noble? I have a very different opinion of his actions. I think its fairly obvious that he is pandering to the electorate in preparation for a run to gov of new york or mayor of new york.

[elwoodblues]

To a large extent, I think the criticism of trial lawyers assumes that just because the lawyers benefit in a significant way that somehow society doesn't benefit. A class action lawsuit against Mormon Oats tells that company (and others similarly situated) that they can't cheat consumers --- even if it is just for $.10.

I personally don't like the idea of legislatively capping the amount a lawyer can charge. I think the market should determine rates. One thing I don't understand in your response is this line: namely they get paid a fat fee to settle at the detriment of the mormon oats consumers. I don't see where there is a detriment to the consumers. The consumers involved in the lawsuit are better off because they have been compensated for the wrong. Future consumers are better off because they will be purchasing a product that they can probably trust more than they have in the past or they have decided to switch brands to Amish Oats because they don't like supporting crooked corporations or paying the extra money for a box of oats that Mormon oats has to charge in order to pay for the lawsuit.

Plaintiffs lawyers takes significant risks when bringing lawsuits. They should be rewarded handsomely when they succeed because of the risks that they take (i.e. the costs of litigating the case).



I guess I need to understand what the "problem" really is more, because I don't see a problem with class action lawsuits (in general); I don't see a problem with contingency fees; I don't see a problem with a company having to pay a significant settlement when they have done a wrong; I don't have a problem with subsequent consumers either choosing to support that company or going to their competition as a result of the higher prices they are charging; our system already has checks in place to dissuade uncolorable claims (through court sanctions). Maybe courts should be more inclined to issue sanctions for frivolous claims --- e.g. issue sanctions against, for example, Fox news for its claim against Al Franken. However, even that has it's limits. In order for the law to change there have to be new suits on new horizons that break new ground. I don't know how much we want to discourage that.

[Boris]

The problem with class action lawsuits is with product liability cases. It is simply way too easy to find a jury that will find causation where none exists. Examples number one and two of course would have to be the silicon breast implant case and the entire tobacco litigation (which has to go down as the biggest rip-off of corporations in history).

[Utah]

That might be true. However, a bee doesnt make honey to do good. A bee makes honey to make honey. What talented and strong person is not angling for a higher lot in life? I have listened to Spitzer many times and every time I agreed with him.

He caught the bad guys with their hands in the cookie jar and he stuck it to them hard. Do you see it otherwise? The only one I saw criticizing Spitzer was Larry Kudlow (who I like a lot), and I found his arguments unconvincing.

[Utah]

Ah.

Let me explain. Here is what happens. The Blue Chip firm of Johny Utah, Bodhizattva, and Taylor sue Mormom Oats. They tell Mormon Oats, "we are going to get a billion dollars from your company - however, we are willing to settle if you pay our legal fees and throw a little bone to the consumers."

This means that the JU B & T and Mormon Oats conspire to end the lawsuit and they both make out just fine - the lawyers get their fees and Mormon Oats end the litigation channel. See, the Mormon oats eaters have no one advocating their interests in the fight. The lawyers certainly are not.

I wish I could remember the case, but their was even a class action where the planiffs ended up owing money when it was all through, while the lawyers got a fat check.

[Boris]

[ QUOTE ]
What talented and strong person is not angling for a higher lot in life?

[/ QUOTE ]

Eliot Spitzer is a public servant. He should not use his office to harrass people or corporations simply to curry favor with the masses. Some other prosecutors who took this route include Janet Reno and Scott Harshbarger (built the fictional child molestation case against the Amirault family in Mass.). I think both of us would agree that these two fall into the scum bag category.

Two cases really stick out in my mind. The first is Spitzer meddling in the Sam Grasso pay package and the second is his recently filed fraud charges against Glaxo, the maker of Paxil. In the Grasso case, those people who run the NYSE are big boys and can take care of themeselves. It was particlulary telling that Spitzer chose only pursue action against the Republican members of the NYSE compensation committee and not the Democrats. LOL! As far as the fraud case against Paxil I think it is very telling that no private sector law firm had pursued civil action Glaxo. This is a classic case of whether or not Glaxo properly disseminated study data. Exactly the kind of case where the product liability lawyers go jury hunting.

[elwoodblues]

What is a better alternative -- Do away with the jury system? It sounds to me like your complaint is with the jury system, not with class actions lawsuits.

I don't want to divert this into an argument about the merits of the tobacco case, but there was some very damning documentation suggesting that the tobacco companies purposefully increased the addictive nature of their product while denying this fact to the public (and actually lying to congress about it).

To quote counsel for the tobacco industry: "I'm told, that the entire matter of addiction is the most potent weapon a prosecuting attorney can have in a lung cancer/cigarette case. We can't defend smoking as 'free choice' if the person was addicted."

Brown and Williamson memo: "Very few consumers are aware of the effects of nicotine, i.e., its addictive nature and that nicotine is a poison."

A memo by a reasearch scientist for one tobacco company regarding the destruction of evidence: "Ship all documents to Cologne. We will monitor in person every two to three months. If important letters or documents have to be sent, please send to home. I will act on them and destroy."

RJ Reynolds market research: "First, let's look at the growing importance of this young adult in the cigarette market. In 1960, this young adult market, the 14-24 age group, represented 21 percent of the population."

Market Research by RJ Reynolds lamenting the loss of market share for the 14- to 17-year-old smokers to Marlboro: "Hopefully, our various planned activities that will be implemented this fall will aid in some way in reducing or correcting these trends."

[elwoodblues]

Johnny Utah and Bodhi sound like a couple of bank robbers...


I think I understand where you see the problem and I still don't know if there's a good solution.

[ThaSaltCracka]

anyways everyone........ Edwards was a good pick /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[elwoodblues]

How dare you try to keep me on topic.

[adios]

As far as Spitzer is concerned, I wonder if entities such as Merrill, Citi, and JPM got off too easy. It's hard for me to believe that in Enron meltdown that Citi and JPM made a ton of money when IMO they helped facilitate the scam on investors. The amounts of the settlements seemed low to me and the subsequent "reforms" that were agreed on didn't give me a warm fuzzy. I also think that the roles that these three played as investment bankers and as sell side analysts during the "internet craze" was deplorable and designed to bilk investors. IMO they more or less got a slap on the wrist from Spitzer but could be convinced otherwise. I still think Grasso is going to win big over Spitzer.

[adios]

I haven't researched it myself but my understanding is that Edwards was successful in suing doctors, hospitals, and insurance companies. If this is the case, FWIW this would indicate to me that he's a highly skilled lawyer. From my limited, layman's experience the defendends have a substantial inherent advantage in these cases. The defendends generally speaking have a much higher quality pool of expert witnesses available to them and jurors are generally sympathetic towards doctors as the word malpractice is a label they're reluctant to place on doctors that tend to have good track records for the most part.

[El Barto]

[ QUOTE ]
I haven't researched it myself but my understanding is that Edwards was successful in suing doctors, hospitals, and insurance companies.

[/ QUOTE ]

I remember reading during the primaries that several hospitals closed due to suits by Edwards and a bunch of people probably died due to the absense of these hospitals. I imagine we will hear about this from the Bush campaign at some point.

[elwoodblues]

I don't know the nature of the lawsuits, but the implicit suggestion that Edwards is responsible for deaths because of hospital closings is ridiculous.

Hospital does some wrong for which they are sued.
Suit results in large money judgment against hospital.
Hospital closes doors as a result of money judgment.
Closed doors leads to deaths (I doubt it, but I'll assume it's true).
Attorney filing lawsuit is responsible the deaths??? If anything, the hospital is responsible because of the original wrong.


The alternative is - Hospitals should be able to commit civil wrongs without consequence because if they had to close their doors people would suffer. They should also be able to not pay any of their bills because if people attempted to collect, they might have to close their doors.

[ThaSaltCracka]

haha /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
I remember reading during the primaries that several hospitals closed due to suits by Edwards and a bunch of people probably died due to the absense of these hospitals. I imagine we will hear about this from the Bush campaign at some point.

[/ QUOTE ] I think you need to rethink your logic as well.

[Utah]

They were. But Johnny was setup.

Bodhi's dead because he didnt want to live life in a cage. Johnny is surfing everyday.