http://www.nypost.com/seven/08032007/news/nationalnews/edwards_in_a_biz_hate__wi tch_nationalnews_charles_hurt__bureau_chief.htm

As much as it pains me, I have to defend Edwards here, his dealings with the Murdoch group was a straight business deal, he sold something of value and the Murdoch group paid it, hoping to sell the bok at a profit.

In the clinton case, it was a case of political donations.

Completely agreed!

Everybody does this kind of thing --often. Highlighting it for partisan gain is a negative tactic that's gonna get really old, leading up to 2008.

In the case of a contribution, the money is going to services rendered, potentially in the future. This is a debt that's not really in any Democratic party candidates best interests.

Having a book published and seeing profit is a different thing completely. The book is advocacy. Having it published is a pure business thing. Sometimes, getting published is difficult, so this also is a factor. As publisher and author, both Murdock and Edwards are adding value to society in a non-partisan way.

Each has different views, each needs resources to engage in advocacy. It's a mutual win-win.

A very large segment of our traditional media outlets are owned by a few people. If one wants to see their work, as an author, do some good, it's gonna take major publishing efforts.

That means dealing with the devil, and that's just how it is.

Missing said>>>
That means dealing with the devil, and that's just how it is.

Both parties do it equally. Thinking anything else would just be plain stupid.

If President Bush had kept a small interest in one of the oil companies he once owned, everytime you bought gasoline, you could be putting money in his pocket, how many liberals would quit buying gas, to prevent that?

Or the other way, If President Clinton bought some oil stock, everytime a conservative bought gas, he would be putting money in President clintons pocket, would conservatives quit buying gas.

You have to seperate the business from the politics.

NW said>>>
You have to seperate the business from the politics.

Clearly DUHbya does not.

The one thing that would be different if it were a Republican is that the liberals on this forum would be going ballistic. But, we're accustomed to the double standard that exists.

That's right... We watched you EXTREME RIGHTIES bash the living shit out of Slick Willy for 7 1/2 years as well.

Oh, you mean the guy who was impeached?

Herb

No, we mean the guy who didn't have to resign in disgrace.

Herb said>>>
Oh, you mean the guy who was impeached?

Unlike someone that RESIGNED in DISGRACE before he was impeached.

"If President Bush had kept a small interest in one of the oil companies he once owned,"

Ahem, you mean those companies that never found oil in TEXAS and filed bankruptcy?

Deane, that's complete and utter bullshit.

Edwards had a book published. He offered his wares for sale, and let those wanting to render the book make their offers.

It's a two way street.

Again, this whole do as I say, not as I do, holier than thou bit is getting really old. It's just Yet Another Ad Homenim (YAAH) attack.

(however you spell it)

Pick anybody at random. Now do some digging and you will find this kind of crap all the time.

Really what Edwards is saying is that Democrats need to be eating their own dog food, more often than not. It's a solid statement and one that has very long term implications. Really, who wants to owe substantial political debt to those one does not agree with?

It's about being free to actually do those things Democrats stand for.

If a Republican did this --and they do now. Presented the way Edwards presented it, it would be just the same thing!

Essentially, he is calling for people to place ideas over dollars and that's only a good thing.

One cannot do this if one is tied down from dollars that come with strings attached, now can they?

There is no double standard here. It's called building support for ones ideas --solid support.

Go back through the last 40 years of the GOP and you will find this same behavior all over the place. It's a significant part of how the GOP saw the success they did.

...if only they hadn't hosed it.

Ever wonder if those strings were not attached? Perhaps real conservatives might have won the day and the GOP would not be shrinking by thirds every major cycle, we might still have most of our civil liberties intact, etc...

The focus on raw dollars pollutes the process. It's the wrong thing to do. We need ideas, debate, discourse all combined toward reasoned improvements that are in our best interests.

For what it's worth, this is part of the Lessig corruption issue that's gonna come up sooner or later.

Edwards does not want to owe those he sees as being a problem today. This is a rational choice, not some double standard.

So far, he's done a fantastic job of stating who he is, how he wants to work and what we will get out of the effort. I've liked this a lot and I think it has a lot to do with him being out of the cycle long enough to speak freely, yet not so long that he's not relevant.

I also think this is why he's getting snubbed more often than not. These are truth to power, change the establishment kinds of things.

Just exactly what we need, frankly.

From now on, we can just call "YAAH!", discuss briefly if it's a solid call and move on, right?

I posted the stuff, you all got to read it same as me. This is a YAAH bit of commentary, nothing more.

Why not cite some areas where Edwards has it wrong, has unworkable plans, might be dangerous to us, etc...

He's demonstrated excellent character overall. Compared to our current GOP leadership, along with a fair number of Dems, you all have nothing on Edwards in this regard, so stop trying.

---or eat your own dog food. Admit this jackass is the worst thing that ever happened to all of us and start looking hard for potential change ups that won't take us any farther down this shitty road ok?

"..Why not cite some areas where Edwards has it wrong..."

It appears that 'the people's candidate' Mr. Edwards made his millions relentlessly litigating against innocent OB-GYNs.

http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2007/06/post_359.html

Edwards specifically has made much of his fortune suing doctors for not performing C-sections, arguing that they help prevent cerebral palsy in children. In 1970, six percent of all births were C-sections; in 2003, that number had climbed all the way up to 28 percent. However, as John Stossel reports, there had not been a decrease in prevalence of cerebral palsy during that time. Hence, although Edwards' lawsuits have not, apparently, prevented anycases of cerebral palsy, they have, at least in part, yielded a great increase in the occurrence of C-sections. Now doctors do C-sections "just to be safe," meaning safe from lawsuits, though the procedure is not so safe for mothers. While C-sections are not overly dangerous, women are four times more likely to die during a C-section than during vaginal birth; this is not an insignificant risk.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=%5CPolitics%5Carchive%5C200401%5CPO L20040120a.html

Edwards has repeatedly told campaign audiences that he fought on behalf of the common man against the large insurance companies. But a political critic with extensive knowledge of Edwards' legal career in North Carolina told CNSNews.com a different story: "Edwards always helped the little guy as long as he got a million dollars out of it..."

http://www.fumento.com/fumento/edwards2007.html

Herb

So he's a really great attorney?

Somebody wanted those cases brought to trial didn't they?

We had judges looking those trials over, and our peers weighing the facts did we not?

I know this is a big part of why many right leaning people want specific judges appointed. It's a control issue. Being unable to craft some laws, biasing the courts is the next best thing.

People wanted those cases brought to trial. Somebody will bring them to trial.

I actually disagree with Edwards on the C-section issue --if his beliefs run that way, of course. They likely do, given he ran these cases, but some review of the case history is necessary to understand that.

That procedure is a womans choice period, end of story. So is opting for a mid-wife, pain relievers, choice of birth venue (home -vs- hospital, etc...)

The right thing to do would be to review the case files. Did the mother request the C-section? Did a medical review recommend such a choice? Was the mother informed of that review, did it actually happen, did she choose and did the doctor ignore that choice or fail to present the trade offs in terms of risk?

It's more complex than, "look! He's one of those bad ass expensive blood sucking trial attorneys!"

Here's my take on that:

If he's a successful trial attorney, he

-understands the law very well,

-has the strength of character and persona to engage in very effective advocacy,

-is rational (very important),

-is no schlub.

These things are Presidential material!

Successful people, who end up with solid financial resources at their disposal, do things we don't like. They make trade offs and they are nearly all realists.

There is some old money backing some wackos, but I'm gonna factor that out in this case.

You've supported FOX here right? Same for the GOP and their ability to get your judges into the courts right?

Well, guess what?

Trial attorneys are allowed to bring their cases to trial. It's legal. Rupert Murdock has learned it's also legal to publish lies and mis-information and label it news.

There is stuff like this on nearly everybody that is successful! So it's all cherry picking that ignores a lot of other good things! YAAH --until some case histories show some transgressions on Edwards part.

The law permits his behavior, period end of story.

Again, I'm looking at how he is running is campaign. He is demonstrating solid leadership skills and is engaging in solid advocacy for a very large number of things I support.

There are gonna be some things I don't support, but at the end of the day, we must deal with the system we have. Said system does not permit shared leadership, nor does it offer enough choices to justify cherry picking like this.

(I don't think any system can!)

And there is always your votes for the (P)resident clown! His background is not solid, his deeds in office the first time around are not solid, his cabinet is not solid, and they have bent the law to the point of damaging it.

If you can support that, I suspect there is very little you can say to sway any Edwards supporter right?

And, anyone making that comparison, could easily be in a seriously good position to convince others to become Edwards supporters. The reverse, for the current GOP field is not true.

This is one of the reasons I really like the guy. He has positives that align well with a majority of Americans, and experience in areas that contribute to expressing that in a clear and convincing way. (trial attorneys are great at this)

The only people, who really would be swayed by this kind of thing, are likely to be the same kinds of people who do the "nothing else matters" bit. That's not the majority of us at this point in time.

He has one major problem, and I don't need 27 paragraphs to explain it. He's an empty suit.

Yours is an empty criticism, Deane.

Andrew

Well, that's why he does not need 27 paragraphs to talk about it!

Yeah, let's just keep the discussion simple and mindless so bumper sticker grunts have some impact, right Deane?

"If he's a successful trial attorney, he
-understands the law very well,
-has the strength of character and persona to engage in very effective advocacy,
-is rational (very important),
-is no schlub.
These things are Presidential material!"

Talk about using every pathetic excuse in your attempt to support the unsupportable. EVERY SINGLE TRAIT you ascribe to Mr. Edwards was exhibited also by the Pharisees in their work to have Jesus Christ killed. Yeah, you're correct that he might fit in well with that group of scheming evil-doers.

The actions of John Edwards are those of a slimy crook. If you guys are going to back this guy, then you owe our esteemed 37th President an apology.

Herbert Milhous

Can you demonstrate where Edwards has broken the law?

Can you even demonstrate where he has made an ethics violation?

As an attorney, and an accomplished one, these things would have been show stoppers. Until we get through those, a Nixon comparison is not valid.

As for the Pharisees bit...

What the fuck Herb?

What traits exactly are we supposed to be looking for?

Herb writes:
Talk about using every pathetic excuse in your attempt to support the unsupportable. EVERY SINGLE TRAIT you ascribe to Mr. Edwards was exhibited also by the Pharisees in their work to have Jesus Christ killed. Yeah, you're correct that he might fit in well with that group of scheming evil-doers.

Hmm, who ELSE does this sound like?


-understands the law very well,
-has the strength of character and persona to engage in very effective advocacy,
-is rational (very important),
-is no schlub.


Other than the "strength of character," sounds like an attorney named Richard M. NIXON. Are you saying, Herb, that "strength of character" is a trait you would not want in a president, because you think people with strength of character killed Jesus? Was Nixon one of the "evil-doers?"

Andrew

It's either that or "rational" that set him off.

Please do post your traits Herb. I want to understand that difference between us.

Right now, I'm floored frankly.

You guys want to support a trial lawyer with questionable ethics, that's your deal.

But when others YOU deem unethical are mentioned, just remember that you backed this guy.

Deane's post is excellent and more than a tad less ham-fisted. But if you think my views are strong, compare let's have Cochise weigh in. In comparison, I'm using kid gloves.

In any event, Mr. Edwards is not hard to figure out. He would say and do anything. All grey with no absolutes. Just the way you guys like.

Herb

It does not work that way Herb.

You've not demonstrated he would say or do anything. His actions to date actually support the opposite.

Until we work through that, the whole "just remember" bit isn't applicable.

Where is your list of traits?

Classic. Try spinning it to make it about me and not your pathetic candidate.

It does not work that way.

"You've not demonstrated he would say or do anything. His actions to date actually support the opposite."

Wrong.

I've shown that Mr. Edwards has done and said anything to twist things so he can be a multi-millionaire with a beyond mega-huge mansion whilst getting $500 haircuts. Then he has the nerve to say he's of the people. You can't make this stuff up.

Buy into the guy's lameness all you want, but that's your deal. Besides, Mr. Edwards has already shown he's unelectable. He lost on the Kerry ticket and couldn't even re-gain his senatorship. Go ahead and select him. He'll be way easier to beat than Hillary.

Herb

I'm not trying to make it about you at all.

What I am trying to do is understand what traits you find valuable in a President. I don't understand that right now and would like to.

I like the guy. That's just not gonna change. If you want the "I told you so, teach me a lesson bit", feel free. It's not something that is a worry with Edwards.

I am interested in your traits however. Core person things. What are the ones that make good Presidents?

Fair question and a good point.

1. Honesty.
2. Faith.
3. Leadership.
4. Wisdom.

I think our model is Abraham Lincoln.

Herb

Herb writes:
You guys want to support a trial lawyer with questionable ethics, that's your deal.

But when others YOU deem unethical are mentioned, just remember that you backed this guy.

You're one to talk about backing a guy with "questionable ethics" the way you continue to boast about the greatness of the HIGHLY unethical Richard Nixon, Herb. I wouldn't back someone I see to be unethical. Why do YOU continue to love Nixon despite his lack of ethics?

Andrew

Ummm...

Abraham Lincoln was a trial lawyer.

Reading suggestion:
Team of Rivals by Doris Kearns Goodwin
http://www.amazon.com/Team-Rivals-Doris-Kearns-Goodwin/dp/0684824906

Compare the way Lincoln assembled his cabinet vs. the current Adminisration, and the orgins of the Republican Party vs. the current REPUGlican Party.

As well as the comparison between the Democratic Party of the 1860's vs. today.

I'm re-reading "Team of Rivals" - what an amazing book this is. I love Goodwin, too. I even had my picture taken with her at an author event...

You're right about the cabinet. Imagine George W. Bush picking his cabinet before assuming the presidency in 2001 picking John McCain, Pat Buchanan, and Janet Reno, and having these people be his close personal advisers, not just remote cabinet department heads. That's essentially what Lincoln did.

Andrew

Great stuff everyone!

You're right about the cabinet. Imagine George W. Bush picking his cabinet before assuming the presidency in 2001 picking John McCain, Pat Buchanan, and Janet Reno, and having these people be his close personal advisers, not just remote cabinet department heads. That's essentially what Lincoln did.

Furthermore, imagine what those three would have done with a memo in the summer of 2001. They not only would have read it, they may have actually prevented an attack. Of course, they might not have profited by it, but the respect of the American people should be worth more than a few pieces of Judas' silver.

If Murdoch is willing to take the profits from Matt Groening -- a confirmed liberal wacko genius from Portland -- then Edwards is hardly a stretch. I think Rupert cares far more about dollars than message. He acts on margin without thinking twice about consequences -- good or bad. If he were alive then, Murdoch would have chipped in with Grampa Shrub on Nazi investments. He would have made a pretty penny too.

"Why do YOU continue to love Nixon despite his lack of ethics?"

A very fair question.

The answer is simple. It's because even though he was deeply flawed, he was on the side of freedom at a time when evil was taking over.

Herb

So, if a liberal thinks a Democratic candidate is "deeply flawed" they might support him/her anyway based on some rationale they care about like you came up with, right?

Andrew

Herb said>>>
The actions of John Edwards are those of a slimy crook.

Right up there with DUHbya, GDUHbya, Ronnie and Slick Willy!
That would make him GREAT Presidential material.

"..some rationale they care about like you came up with.."

No, NOT 'some rationale."

I'm serious about my example. It has to be a huge, and I mean huge reason.

Nixon fought against evil communism that enslaved hundreds of millions.

Churchill & FDR even allied with Stalin to fight Nazism, which was in the process of enslaving not only Europe, but much of the globe.

In order to go with the flawed guy, you need a BIG and VERY GOOD reason.

This is waaay beyond politics. I back FDR, Churchill and Nixon on their decisions, even though there were other options.

Herb

Translation(s):

"The ends justify the means"

And I've a problem with this, given our founders fought for the very rights, being seriously eroded today. Lots of them died too. Both parties are being complete asses about it all as well. This is not just a GOP thing. Just thought I would make that clear as well.

To put that into proper context, what we established here, was a new idea politically that has had significant ramifications world wide ever since. Thinking about it, millions and millions were enslaved, having to live lies, deal with dictatorships, flawed due-process of law, inability to be secure in their person and papers, etc...

We really kicked some serious ass. Where did it all go?

Many of them are largely free today, watching us surrender it all.

This really sucks ass.

There is another reason being left unsaid here as well, and that's religious in nature. There is a jihad going on between Islamic people and Christian people. And, more importantly, this nation is being branded as the Christian one, with the fighting already happening as if that were so.

"congress shall make no law [establishing a religion]"

And that's exactly why law is missing from Herb's list of traits above.

Edit: To be completely fair, Herb is clearly not alone. There is a fairly large and growing number of Americans buying into this crap. Consider this post advocacy aimed at going back to what is a clearly better way to do things, not a personal attack on Herb.

I don't want to fight about it, but I do want it made damn clear this is what is being discussed however low key.

As far as I am concerned, that really sucks ass too.

If the government were actually functioning as it is supposed to, any fighting over religious crap would be deemed criminal and dealt with, leaving us FREE then to believe as we will and GET THE FUCK ALONG.

There are no sides. There are just people and they believe things, period. The law says they get to. The justification for that law was defined and proved out with the birth of this nation. Again, where did it all go?

Make no mistake! Killing, war, even physical fighting over differences in beliefs is a crime. Some fine examples are defined in our system of law as murder, genocide and assault. There are plenty of others and lots of case law to support what I write here totally and completely.

Our founders were decidedly liberal in this, progressive actually! And they were spot on right. Go read some Thomas Paine. Will do you some serious good. This is not old stuff, it's not irrelevant, it's just flat out American and we've moved away from that.

I think dollars, combined with religious differences have done it to us too. Honestly, if we could get the majority of the dollars out of our process, the other stuff would go away because the vote would then serve as the check on this crap that it is supposed to.

I'm seriously thinking we are actually gonna have to hit rock bottom, broke ass, hurt and considerably smaller in number before we re-learn this lesson again. It's depressing as hell actually.

Just remember this post when somebody says liberals are anti religion. What I just outlined is more pro-religion than any other system of government has achieved to date! It is the bar, we set it and it has not ever been raised since.

I am completely and unabashedly liberal in these things.

To put this on topic, Edwards will work with the law.

Other candidates will see the law as a tool to be used to get what they want done, and their supporters will encourage that because:

"The ends justify the means."

Carry on...

Another edit:

Fighting, or the supporting of fighting over beliefs is nothing but politics! Seriously. Go think hard about that and come back and prove me wrong. I would very much like to hear that line of discussion because it matters to me.

The body of law, we are supposed to live by, respect and treat with great care is the only thing that keeps it all from just becoming one big conflict. Want an absolute?

There it is.

Great stuff KSKD!

I think that the soft shoe from the Democrats really boils down to all parties wanting the power that has resulted from the threat of terrorism. The little wheels have turned in the heads of the money drunk for six solid years with little or no reform, and plenty of regression. Now, given a chance to begin to rebuild our country, they dilly-dally.

Either party could win with a candidate that wanted to restore accountability to the White House, restore a concrete separation of powers, and restore guarantees like free speech, the power of assembly and a true division of church and state. Read his actions, not his lips, and you might find the right candidate. He has to be into restoration work, or he will not get my vote.

Is John Edwards the smart and lucky one right now? If the Hillobama eats itself he may in be in an excellent position. By making his focus the poor and underrepresented of America, his campaign has begun on high ground. Sure, he might be a classic populist Democrat, but then, why not? History says that those guys win elections.

"Other candidates will see the law as a tool to be used to get what they want done"

One thing to add to that statement:

Where the law will not lend itself to be used to get what they want done, they will claim to answer to a "higher law".

@Little - He has to be into restoration work, or he will not get my vote."

Absolutely. That is the primary message. Interestingly, this is why I really enjoy watching Ron Paul. He's tempting --seriously tempting because he would absolutely do these things. It would come with some other nasties though. Maybe it's worth it. Our founders though dying was worth it...

@Amus - You know it.

I've written here, no GOP votes period. I wrote it because the core of the party has gone astray, buying into the crap. I remain convinced that all current candidates, save Ron Paul, will continue that movement. They might put a better face on it, toss the obligliatory bone to us, etc... but will largely continue down this Anti-American path.

Post up a solid fixer --one who knows where he came from, what we stand for and why it matters, and I'll vote quickly easily and won't look back.

A conservative fixer, liberal one, or even a wierd one (hello Ron Paul!) matters more than getting my particular beliefs somehow validated at others expense.

Put simply, I'll vote for an American first.

Do we actually have any of those running?

"Edwards will work with the law."

No.

Edwards will twist the law to favour his own pals, the trial lawyers. The guy has shown who he is: an uber-wealthy poseur who lies about who he is.

Man of the people. Right.

Herb

Herb, these folks on the left hear what they want to hear. If Edwards say something they like, it makes no difference whether it's true or not. They hear what they want to hear.

Herb said>>>
Edwards will twist the law to favour his own pals.

Kind of like DUHbya and Co.

Who's a more respectable person? The guy born into an average family that went on to earn millions due to hard work and who is 100% self made?

Or the guy that was born into a family of wealth and status, the son of an ex-President, who was given opportunity based on a last name and has a consistent record of failure in both the public and private sectors?

Vitalogy, you and I just happen to have different measures we apply. I don't happen to believe that a lawyer who is blessed with a certain southern charm to use in front of juries to extract millions from insurance companies a 100% self made hard working person. He is simply a legal con artist, IMO. Just a difference in what we think true hard work is.

So far as George Bush is concerned, I find it interesting you use him as your standard for comparisons. Is that the best you can do?

DJ said>>>
So far as George Bush is concerned, I find it interesting you use him as your standard for comparisons. Is that the best you can do?

Sad huh

"Is that the best you can do?"

This guy was elected once by the people and appointed another time by the Supreme Court. I suppose this says a lot about Americans in general.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/08/06/edwards-tries-to-distinguish-himself-fr om-clinton-over-k-street/

Coupla things about this story:

1. YearlyKos is an awesome event. One of these days, I would love to attend, do some blogging and get to know some people and elements of the process in a more in-depth way. Very cool stuff.

We've got candidates doing breakout sessions, debates and meet & greet events! Sweet -->and just the kind of politics we should be seeing a whole lot more of.

2. This differentiation is exactly the kind of leadership message I was posting about above.

In an interview with The Associated Press, Edwards said, ""The people who are registered in Washington to rig the system, which is exactly what they do, that Democratic presidential candidates, and Democratic candidates, and for that matter all candidates, should just say we're not taking these peoples' money anymore because it's the way to take their power away from them, and it's the way to bring about the change that this country needs."

He added: "This is not specifically just about Senator Clinton or anybody else, it's about restoring the power of the government back to its people."