John Edwards chosen by Kerry as VP

[Bob Slydell]

Originally posted by auntpolly
Well I always thought he was an idiot -- I'm glad you said it first, though!

He's not the only one saying that Bush can't win without Ohio -- and judging on the amount of times Bush has been here, I think Bush believes it!

I should have said I agree with the analysis, that Ohio is certainly one of the swing states. I just couldn't get past the Taft reference.

 

[peachgirl]

Yes, there is not doubt that he's viewed as a very successful trial lawyer. There's not doubt that he helped some people get some money but what has it cost the rest of us? Doesn't someone have to pay for these expensive settlements? Is it likely that business pays for it? NO! No, business pass these costs to the consumers who then pay to cover the cost.

My comments were in regards to the quality of the cases he took on, not how successful he was.

 

[wvrevy]

But, didn't you get the memo, peachgirl ? A president should be a failure in business...that's why Dubya is so popular

(BTW...I am thrilled with Kerry's choice...The only potential candidate that could have brought more to the table was Hillary, but she also brings a whole lot of baggage. I think this is a safe selection, and yes, I believe it will ultimately help give Kerry the edge in a couple of the swing states (including, hopefully, my own). )

 

[crazyforgoofy]

I'm happy with the choice.

 

[bcvillastwo]

Earlier wvrevy made the following comment,

A president should be a failure in business...that's why Dubya is so popular

.

If memory serves me, one of the biggest failures in business who eventually became President was honest Abe Lincoln. As I recall he was a failure at a number of things before becoming President. Yet, it seems to me that he is nearly univerally felt to be one of our greatest presidents.

Oh, wait, wasn't Thomas Jefferson a failure at business. If memory serves me when he passed on to his reward he was extremely in debt. He may have been noted for many things but he was a sad, sad failure at business and managaing his own money.

I'm sure there are other examples of Presidents who have been failures at business.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by bcvillastwo

I'm sure there are other examples of Presidents who have been failures at business.

I'm sure there are too, but since none of them are on the ballot, that's kind of irrelevant. My point (facetious as it was) was simply that attacking Edwards for being successful while supporting a candidate that was a miserable failure is, well, stupid, for lack of a better term.

 

[bcvillastwo]

Peachgirl responded to my earlier comments as follows,

My comments were in regards to the quality of the cases he took on, not how successful he was.

First, it's unlikely that anyone would even know of Mr. Edwards had he been unsuccessful. There are plenty of lawyers who take quality cases and lose but we never hear about those lawyers. So, in my view there is a direct relationship between the cases Edwards took on and the ultimate succes for which he is noted.

Second, I can't comment on the quality of his cased because I don't know much about them. What I do know is that when a business loses a lawsuite, often times they need to pass those losses, in the form of prince increases or service decreases, on to their customers.

There still is no such thing as free lunch.

 

[wvrevy]

...and often times, businesses actually have injured their clients / customers and have then *gasp* refused to address the situation in an honorable way. Why is it that this simple fact never seems to come up when republicans get on a lawyer bashing kick ? I mean, sure there are plenty of frivolous lawsuits out there...but there are also a heck of a lot of legitimate ones.

 

[dennis99ss]

What about the business being safe in the first place, or the Dr. being safe about his practice, etc. Just think, if the doctors that get sued for screw ups would have taken a little extra time, or taken one less pill, or checked the orders one more time, etc. there would be no need for jury awards.

There are always two sides to the story, you just don't want to listen to them. Without civil redress against business, who is to make sure they act in a way that is safe to their patropns, and the community. If you say the business will by themselves, give me a break. If a business can make a buck, and not have a chance to pay for that increase, even if it could injure someone, do you really think the business would forsake the money?

 

[bcvillastwo]

wvrevy responds,

My point (facetious as it was) was simply that attacking Edwards for being successful while supporting a candidate that was a miserable failure is, well, stupid, for lack of a better term.

Please show me where I "attacked" Mr. Edwards. I was not attacking him for being successful. I was simply pointing out the while he was successful there is and was an economic cost to his success. This is hardly an attack. At best, it's simply a point of order, or providing perspective on the results of his success.

I applaud his success, he is obviously a very good trial lawyer. But, we should all recognize that often, in fact maybe more often than not, when a trial lawyer is successful and their cases involve sueing business entities------------the cost of the loss is passed on to their customers.

It's an ordinary practice of business to pass the cost of business on to the customers. If business didn't do this they would not remain in business very long.

 

[wvrevy]

So, essentially you're saying that the high cost of consumer goods is all John Edwards' fault.

Yeah, I don't know why I would think that was an attack

It's also not an attack for me to say that this president will be the first since the great depression to preside over a net loss of jobs.

Nope...no attack there...Just a "point of order"

 

[rcyannacci]

Wait...I'm still trying to process the comparison of Bush to...wait...Lincoln? My mind is exploding...trying to put the pieces back together...I wonder if school children will ever have to memorize any of W's speeches like they do the Gettysburg Address. I'm doubtful, but then again, my mind's just been blown.

In all seriousness, I'm excited by Kerry's choice. Edwards numbers where really picking up toward the end of the primaries, especially in Mid-west states. But, more importantly, he could be the president in the event that he needed to take over.

 

[bcvillastwo]

There are always two sides to the story, you just don't want to listen to them. Without civil redress against business, who is to make sure they act in a way that is safe to their patropns, and the community. If you say the business will by themselves, give me a break. If a business can make a buck, and not have a chance to pay for that increase, even if it could injure someone, do you really think the business would forsake the money?

First, you folks are reading way more into what I've said about business passing costs of lost lawsuites to their customers. I am simply stating a fact.

Second, where did I say that the there was no right on the part of agrieved parties to sue? Where did I say that there were no businesses that didn't have practices that didn't harm people and that they should not be sued? Did I ever say a single thing about doctor or any other kind of malpractice? The answer is categorically NO, I did not.

All I said, if you take the time to read it, it that there are costs to successful suites and that business routinely passes these costs on to their customers, so in effect (to add another point) it is the customers and not the business who actually pay the damage awards.

I suggest that you first read what is being said, then stop reading into what has been said, and finally stop putting words in other's mouths when there is no evidence that those thoughts were in the person's mind.

Finally, so it's completely clear...................I acknowledge that there are bad/incompetent business men and women and this extends to doctors, lawyers, CPA's etc. I also acknowledge and agree that when someone believes they have been wronged by a bad or incompetent businessman or woman they have the right to sue.

Talk about mean spirited people, Geeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.

 

[tinatark]

I think Kerry's choice is a very good strategic move for him.

(Being from the south, I can say this) He'll get votes from the southern states, just because his running mate is "from" the South.

 

[faithinkarma]

Originally posted by Bob Slydell
So what was the point of dragging it out this whole time?? Cripes, everyone was predicting Edwards as the VP candidate since back in the primaries, Edwards kept denying being interested (thus indicating he was interested ) and then after all this hype, Kerry announced the obvious choice.

I ditto someone else's comments -- *YAWN*

Yep, it was so safe and certain that the New York Post got the headline completely wrong.

http://www.apj.us/20040706NYPost.html

 

[Bob Slydell]

Originally posted by faithinkarma
Yep, it was so safe and certain that the New York Post got the headline completely wrong.

Ummmm, it's the Post -- don't they get a lot of stuff wrong??

 

[bcvillastwo]

Wait...I'm still trying to process the comparison of Bush to...wait...Lincoln?

You too did not fully read my comment about Lincoln.

My comments about the comparison of Lincoln and Bush were restricted to an earlier comment alluding to Bush being a poor businessman and thus extrapolating that that fact alone means he is a poor President. History tells me that Abe Lincoln was a terrible businessman, yet is now thought of as one of our greatest Presidents. My point? Well, my point is that the comment about Bush being a bad President because he is a poor businessman (I'm not really sure that's true anyway) or any other poor businessman being qualified to be President fails in at least two previous cases..............Lincoln and Jefferson. I'm not so sure there is a correlation at all.

My comments did not extend to any other comparison between Bush and Lincoln or Jefferson.

Now, on to the point about Bush being a poor businessman. I have to ask you, comparing Bush to Lincoln and Jefferson, which of the three actually made money at business. The answer is George Bush (43). By the way, aren't businessmen and women supposed to make money. Isn't one of the signs of success in business the fact that you've made money? Hell by that standard alone Bush (43) is a success over two of the more notable Presidents.

Perhaps you should read a little history and you should definitely spend some time reading a basic economics text.

 

[faithinkarma]

Originally posted by Bob Slydell
Ummmm, it's the Post -- don't they get a lot of stuff wrong??

I imagine they do.....they are after all owned by the same people as FOX news. Makes it rather clear where FOX got its nickname FAUX doesn't it?

 

[barbeml]

Kerry & Edwards

 

[Miss Jasmine]

Hey, did you all know Edwards interrupted his WDW vacation for a meeting with Kerry?