Jackson Free Press

The Washington Post today: "Business associations in Washington were uniformly hostile yesterday to John Kerry's choice of Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) as his running mate, promising that a trial lawyer on the ticket will energize them and their members to defeat the Democrats in November."

"But beyond the Beltway, business reaction to the Edwards pick appeared to be determined by whether an executive was more concerned about domestic litigation costs or foreign competition. Edwards's tough talk on China during the Democratic primaries and his oft-expressed concern for businesses squeezed by low-cost competitors abroad made an impression on some."

"'Personally, I like John Edwards,' said James J. Zawacki, chief executive of G.R. Spring & Stamping Inc., in Grand Rapids, Mich., and a self-described political conservative. 'He's been saying the right thing about manufacturing. He has real appeal to people. I don't like trial lawyers, I've got to say that. But I go with what he was saying about manufacturing.'"

Previous Commentsshow

From New York Times today: President Bush was in Mr. Edwards's home state of North Carolina today to meet federal judicial nominees in a trip said to have been planned weeks ago. Mr. Bush easily carried North Carolina in the last presidential election, and he said today he would do so again in spite of Mr. Edwards being on the ticket for Mr. Kerry. "I am going to carry the South because the people understand that, that they share, we share values,'' he said. ``They know me well.'' "we share values"? Once again, we're painted with a broad brush. What about the 46 percent who didn't vote for Barbour in the last election -- or the other 50 percent that didn't vote at all? Read the piece

DonnaLadd

Jul 7 2004

I have a proposal for a new drinking game. How about, every time we hear Kerry described as "a Massachusetts liberal" and/or Edwards as "a trial lawyer", we take a shot of our favorite beverage. It could help pass the time between now and November.

kate

Jul 7 2004

Also, re the trial attorney part: It's been very obvious that the U.S. Chamber would come after Edwards with all guns if he was chosen to run for veep, and I've worried that that is dangerous. On the other hand, I've come to the conclusion that I'm past ready to see the "lawsuit abuse" issue aired out nationally. So far, the issue has been bloody in a handful of states, including Mississippi, and as the General Accounting Office pointed out, has gotten abysmal media coverage and analysis in many states; it's probably been the worst in this state. I'm not sure that making it a national campaign issue, as the U.S. Chamber won't be able to resist, is going to help their case any. It'll probably mean that finally the issue gets the attention it deserves, and the house of cards that the Republicans have built around it will come tumbling down. So I'm cool with it. Actually, I think an excerpt from the NY Times editorial today about Edwards shows that they don't understand quite how divisive the issue is (but they don't believe that Kerry-Edwards should bother to campaign in states like Mississippi anyway): Before being elected to the Senate, Mr. Edwards made a fortune as a trial lawyer in negligence suits. The Republicans have made it clear that they intend to attack him on that count, and swing-state voters will undoubtedly be seeing ads blaming Mr. Edwards for the high price of malpractice insurance. Politically speaking, that approach is reminiscent of the Republican war against teachers' unions, and about as likely to pay off. So far, there has been little indication that the general public regards lawyers who represent bereaved parents or disabled children as a natural enemy. On the other hand, it might indicate that not all states are as fooled as Mississippi over this issue, thanks to *pathetic* media coverage of it, especially by The Clarion-Ledger. Hopefully, the Ledge will now be shown up over just had badly they've screwed this story. Time will tell.

DonnaLadd

Jul 7 2004

Good plan, Kate. The hangovers hurt more than they used to, though, you know.

DonnaLadd

Jul 7 2004

Of course, if they would also call Bush a "radical Republican" every time they mention him, it might be fair and balanced.

DonnaLadd

Jul 7 2004

The good news about the trial lawyer/lawsuit abuse is that if the Dems are smart (which means it probably won't happen, but I'm not giving up hope), is that it could be flipped to show the extreme love that the Bush administration has for corporate interests, at the expense of the individual. I'm thinking the Edwards campaign probably has some experience on that score - and, as the NYTimes article indicates, some corporations are going to support kerry/edwards over Bush/Cheney.

kate

Jul 7 2004

I think that's exactly right. Reasoned discussion on this issue hasn't been able to break through the sound bites here, but the fact of the matter is that even Congress's investigative arm disagrees that malpractice rates are a direct cause of "lawsuit abuse." The truth is, the damage caps just rammed through by Barbour -- do the same folks who hate him for Medicaid actually think he's an angel on this issue??? -- are on damages awarded to VICTIMS, with cases that have been won. How hard is this to understand? In other words, it has nothing to do with frivolous lawsuits. I suspect that Edwards is going to be able to defend himself on this one. From what I understand -- and I haven't studied him closely, understand -- he's represented victims against serious negligence by business. Start putting a face on those victims, and this whole debate could shift. Just like with F9/11, I'm looking forward to the ensuing debate. And, God help us, let anyone but the Ledge lead the tort-reform discussion. I've never seen worse reporting anywhere on a single issue, not even in other Gannett Corp. papers. (OK, maybe with Iraq.) I feel so strongly about this that I believe the first time a disfigured child due to corporate negligence gets a pittance in damages that the editorial board there should write the family a personal apology for being the train that Barbour's damage caps rode in on.

DonnaLadd

Jul 7 2004

Arianna Huffington is one progressive who loves Edwards: Throughout his primary campaign, Edwards showed an uncanny ability to frame his positions in the language of morality and traditional American values. "I believe we can build a better life for our families," he said during a Democratic primary debate. "But it has to be based on the values of hard work and responsibility, not accounting tricks and corporate greed. I want to bring your values, the values of Main Street America, to Wall Street and then to Pennsylvania Avenue. I want to give this White House back to the American people." This is a linguistic battlefield that has been dominated by the right since the 1960s. Edwards' ability to speak to core American ideals like hard work, fairness, faith and family ñ the values that built America ñ will help Kerry reclaim key words and concepts like "morality" and "responsibility" from the recklessly irresponsible and grossly immoral GOP. [...] Edwards has made a very successful career out of eating folks like Dick Cheney for lunch in courtrooms all across America. He'll know exactly how to wield Halliburton like a stiletto. I give Cheney 30 minutes before he drops his first F-bomb. I can't wait. The Republican attacks on Edwards as "unaccomplished and inexperienced," "out there in left field" and, above all, "Kerry's second choice," sound like wishful whistling past the graveyard. Edwards' selection has not only energized the Democratic base ñ which was pretty energized anyway ñ it has, more importantly, the potential to arouse the dormant passion of the 50 percent of eligible voters who have given up on voting.

DonnaLadd

Jul 7 2004

Link to Arianna's column: http://www.alternet.org/election04/19167/

DonnaLadd

Jul 7 2004

More on Edwards, from John Nichols in The Nation: Consistency With Kerry: For better or worse, Kerry and Edwards are cut from the same ideological cloth, as their Senate records illustrate. Both men voted in 2002 to authorize Bush to invade Iraq, and then both men voted in 2003 against authorizing the expenditure of another $87 billion to pay for the occupation of that country. Both backed the Patriot Act. Edwards has a better record than Kerry on corporate issues, especially trade policy, but it is not dramatically better ñ because of a 2001 vote to give Bush "trade promotion authority" to negotiate new international trade agreements and some other missteps, unions were almost as uncomfortable with Edwards as they were with Kerry early in the campaign. The liberal Americans for Democratic Action generally ranks the two men about the same on the issues ñ in the critical year of 2001, the first of Bush's presidency, Kerry and Edwards both had 90 percent ADA ratings. In 2002, as Kerry and Edwards were preparing to seek the presidency, the American Civil Liberties Union gave each man a 60 percent rating, the deficit hawks at the Concord Coalition gave both a 65 percent rating, the big-business advocates at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce gave both a 55 rating, and the conservative National Taxpayers Union gave both an 18 rating. Edwards scores a little better with labor unions, mainly because he is a little better on the trade issues. Kerry scores a little better with environmental groups. But both men voted against impeaching Bill Clinton, against confirming John Ashcroft as attorney general, against the Bush administration's tax cuts, against allowing development of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, against limits on abortion rights, and in favor of campaign finance reform, expansion of the Patients' Bill of Rights and for most gay rights measures ñ for instance, though neither man advocates allowing same-sex marriages, they both oppose the proposed Constitutional amendment to ban such unions.[...] Some Liberal/Left Appeal: Edwards is no lefty. His votes on the war and the Patriot Act disqualified him as a first-choice presidential contender in the eyes of Democrats who wanted to nominate someone who would battle Bush on those issues. But progressive activists have, from the start of the 2004 campaign cycle, tended to find Edwards more appealing than Kerry. [...] Edwards drew strong support late in the primary season from UNITE, the textile workers union that has played a leadership role in anti-sweatshop campaigning, and has good ties to student activists on that and other labor issues. More recently, Ralph Nader made it known that he thought Edwards was the best prospect among the contenders Kerry was considering for the vice presidential slot. [...]

DonnaLadd

Jul 7 2004

MORE A Real Challenger for Dick Cheney: In 2000, Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Lieberman spent most of his time agreeing with Republican Cheney in their one debate. Lieberman's failure to distinguish himself from Cheney hurt the ticket. That won't happen with Edwards. Republican aides were already peddling the line that Cheney's experience and gravitas will trump Edwards' youth and enthusiasm. Don't bet on it. Edwards shines in debates with Republicans ñ he beat a GOP incumbent to win his Senate seat in 1998 ñ and may be more prepared to take on Cheney than Republicans expect. The North Carolina senator has been going after the vice president for months ñ he made a hit on Halliburton and war profiteering central to his stump speech during the primary season ñ and, as Kerry says, "I can't tell you... how eager I am for the day this fall when he stands up for our vision and goes toe-to-toe with Dick Cheney." Read full piece

DonnaLadd

Jul 7 2004

Read about Edward's "stellar" environment record: Conservationists are applauding John Kerry's selection of fellow Senator John Edwards of North Carolina as his vice presidential running mate. Edwards has "amassed a solid record on public health and conservation issues that stands in stark contrast to the Bush administration's corporate-driven agenda," saidLeague of Conservation Voters (LCV) President Deb Callahan. Kerry, too, is ranked highly by the League of Conservation Voters, and won an endorsement from the Sierra Club, which also endorsed Edwards on Tuesday. In announcing Edwards as his running mate, Kerry said, "In the next 120 days and in the administration that follows, John Edwards and I will be fighting for the America we love. We'll be fighting to give the middle class a voice by providing good paying jobs and affordable health care. We'll be fighting to make America energy independent." http://www.alternet.org/election04/19168/ This is really good news.

DonnaLadd

Jul 7 2004

On the Cheney vs. Edwards topic, Salon is already dubbing it the "scowl vs. the smile."

kate

Jul 8 2004

Think he'll tell "young" Edwards to go fuck himself during the debates? ;-)

DonnaLadd

Jul 8 2004

Conservative Joe Scarborough on MSNBC: Today, President Bush took a shot at John Edwards, suggesting the U.S. senator was ill-prepared to be vice president of the United States. The attack was a cheap shot: John Edwards has served the same amount of time in the Senate as George W. Bush served as governor of Texas when he was elected president. The Texas legislature only meets every other year and the governorship of the Lone Star State has long been considered one of the weakest positions of its kind in America. Add to it that Edwards has sat on the intelligence committee through the days before and after September 11th. You could argue that Edwards has more experience in key areas than George W. Bush did when he ran in 2000. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5389875 I was kind of wondering myself whether Bush should bring up the idea of qualifications for president. And when his shot that Cheney "could be president" might actually have an unintended effect on voters, if he's not careful.

DonnaLadd

Jul 8 2004

Compelling piece by Sidney Blumenthal over at Salon: Just as Edwards underscores the endurance of the Southern Democratic tradition, so does he underscore the dead end of conservatism in the person of Dick Cheney. The thread of the Southern Democratic tradition that now runs through Edwards opposes the one represented by President Bush and Vice President Cheney. These Southern politics have been in conflict since President Andrew Jackson split with his vice president, the original theoretician of Southern reaction, John Calhoun. The Jacksonian slogan was "opportunity for all, special privilege for none." But the Calhoun wing of the party triumphed, leading to the Civil War, eventually the end of Reconstruction, and the long rule of the Bourbons, or local oligarchs, who maintained their power under the rubric of states' rights against federal authority. African-Americans were disenfranchised under Jim Crow, and poor whites, sharecroppers and mill hands like Edwards' father and grandfather were manipulated by racial fears and a hatred of intruding Yankees like Kerry's ancestors. The Bourbon Democratic Party of the South came to an end with the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Republicans, no longer the party of Abraham Lincoln,absorbed the new conservatism that followed, converting the once solid Democratic South into the solid Republican South. But the Republican project was never as stable as it seemed. In 1976, Jimmy Carter carried most of the South, and twice Bill Clinton broke off important states and moved them into the Democratic column. Now this mantle, worn by Clinton and Carter, and before them Lyndon Johnson and Harry Truman, falls on the shoulders of Edwards. Bush's strategy is a supra-Southern strategy involving the exploitation of patriotism, resentment and fear. The threat, real enough, is external, and it is brandished to maintain the status quo. His compassionate conservatism is an updating of planter paternalism. But his agenda is deregulation, low taxes and hydrocarbons. His politics in the South fundamentally rests on a division between godless them and God-fearing us. Beneath that, he requires a nearly unanimous white vote to compensate for the Democrats' nearly unanimous African-American vote. If more than one-quarter to one-third of the white vote goes into the Democratic coalition, depending on the state, the Republicans lose. The solid Republican South must have a solid white vote in every Southern and border state without exception to maintain a Republican in the White House. A crack anywhere topples the entire edifice. That fragility accounts for the ferocious struggle in Florida. http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2004/07/08/john_edwards/

DonnaLadd

Jul 8 2004

Vera funny: http://gadflyer.com/articles/?ArticleID=161

DonnaLadd

Jul 9 2004

There's piece in Salon on the GOPs portrayal of Edwards as "an ambulance-chasing, playground-closing personal-injury lawyer." We may finally get a national debate on tort reforms, and whether or not all trial lawyers are scum sucking sharks. "Edwards' clients "were almost to a person these catastrophically injured or killed plaintiffs. They're certainly sympathetic in their own right, and it's hard not to feel the pain of those people and want to do right by them." Not surprisingly, the Republicans have generally steered clear of discussion about the clients Edwards represented. It's easy to make hay over million-dollar recoveries for spilled coffee at McDonald's -- especially if you ignore the fact that the woman who spilled the coffee was seriously injured, that McDonald's refused an offer to settle the case for $20,000, and that a judge later reduced the jury's award of $2.7 million in punitive damages to just $480,000. " and "And there's Tucker Carlson again, this time on a "Crossfire" episode last week: "My question is a very, very simple one. And I just want your honest answer. If [Edwards] is out to protect the weak, say, a little girl who was injured, terribly injured, in this Jacuzzi accident, why is it compassionate for him to take tens of millions of dollars of her settlement? Why doesn't he give that money back if he cares for the little girl?" Of course, Edwards didn't take "tens of millions of dollars" of Valerie Lakey's settlement. After Edwards showed that the pool-drain company knew that people had been injured before by its product, that the product could have been made safe by the use of two inexpensive screws, and that the company had thought about including a written warning with the product but didn't do so -- and after the company's insurers rejected an offer to settle for $4.1 million -- a jury ordered the company to pay Valerie Lakey $25 million, and the parties settled on that amount. Edwards' law firm received about a third -- or roughly $8 million -- plus a million or so more as its share of settlements with other defendants in the case. A total of $10 million, maybe, but certainly not "tens of millions" as Carlson alleged. " and "And then there's Carlson's larger point, that Edwards would give the money back if he really cared about the little girl. Bush could have given his buyout back to the Texas Rangers if he really cared about the team. Cheney could have given his pension back to Halliburton if he really cared about the company. The Rangers might have been able to hold onto Alex Rodriguez, and Halliburton might have been able to charge the military less for gasoline in Iraq. No one suggests that businessmen like Cheney or Bush should work for free. But to undercut Edwards' populist image, the Republicans suggest that Edwards should have done just that. "

kate

Jul 13 2004

Good piece. I, too, welcome this national debate. I still maintain that this is one of the worst-covered issues in recent history. The media just repeat rhetoric without factchecking (like when The Clarion-Ledger said in that editorial during the special session that "most" states have damage caps. "Most" certainly do not. It's absurd).

DonnaLadd

Jul 13 2004

Shame on Edwards for making money as a trial lawyer.. He should have made his money the honorable way- inheriting trust frunds from Daddy like Dubya did. That, and whoring himself out to corporate interests in exchange for their corporate campaign contributions.

buckallred

Jul 20 2004

So true, Buck. It's much more honorable to lobby for Big Tobacco and to move jobs out of the U.S. than sue a swimming-pool company for drain covers that sucked up children. Shame.

DonnaLadd

Jul 20 2004

Besides, little kids need to recognize a dangerous drainage cover when they see one and stay the heck away from them. Their parents should have taught them that.

DonnaLadd

Jul 20 2004