[typoon]

http://www.cnsnews.com/Politics/Arch...20040120a.html

Edwards became one of America's wealthiest trial lawyers by winning record jury verdicts and settlements in cases alleging that the botched treatment of women in labor and their deliveries caused infants to develop cerebral palsy, a brain disorder that causes motor function impairment and lifelong disability.


The Dems Want this man as Vice President?

[CD Hanks]

Originally posted by typoon:
The Dems Want this man as Vice President?

This comes to you as a surprise?

[itai195]

Yeehaw, let the smear compaign begin!

I'd rather have Edwards than a crony who lies, cheats, and swears. Right back at ya

[typoon]

Originally posted by CD Hanks:
This comes to you as a surprise?

no acutally it doesn't

[typoon]

Originally posted by itai195:
Yeehaw, let the smear compaign begin!

I'd rather have Edwards than a crony who lies, cheats, and swears. Right back at ya

And Kerry didn't do the same? Right back at ya.

[itai195]

Originally posted by typoon:
And Kerry didn't do the same? Right back at ya.

Perhaps you missed the sarcasm, but I have no interest in engaging in a smear campaign. Just wanted to demonstrate how fun and easy it can be.

[typoon]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by itai195:
Perhaps you missed the sarcasm, but I have no interest in engaging in a smear campaign. Just wanted to demonstrate how fun and easy it can be. [/QUOTE

Yes I know it can be easy. It's a little hard sometimes online to tell sarcasm. I wasn't trying to smear. I was just asking a question based on this article.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by typoon:
Edwards became one of America's wealthiest trial lawyers by winning record jury verdicts and settlements in cases alleging that the botched treatment of women in labor and their deliveries caused infants to develop cerebral palsy, a brain disorder that causes motor function impairment and lifelong disability.

Apparently there are lots of different possible causes, so perhaps birth complications could be one. With any given case it's hard to know, but it at least looks plausible.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by itai195:
I'd rather have Edwards than a crony who lies, cheats, and swears.

At least Cheney said "F--- off" directly to he who pissed him off, unlike Kerry's behind-the-back cussing in magazine interviews.

As for Edwards, perhaps you should do a little research on him.

During the buildup and aftermath of the Iraq war, Edwards bought and sold stock in several defense contractors, including Lockheed Martin, United Technologies, General Electric, British Petroleum, and General Dynamics.

Edwards, who owns multiple homes in North Carolina, sold his Washington home last year for $3 million, $800,000 more than he paid for it in 1999.

Before the sale to the government of Hungary, Edwards entertained an offer that could get him in some campaign trouble. The $3.52 million offer was from a public relations specialist hired by Saudi Arabia to influence Congress and the public after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

[slow moe]

Originally posted by typoon:
The Dems Want this man as Vice President?

The Association of Trial Lawyers of America (ATLA) are the Democratic party's #1 PAC donors. Donating 2.5 million dollars to them between 2001 - 2002.




As you can see by both charts, nearly all of ATLA's donations are to Democrats.



So hell yeah they want this guy as Veep.

EDIT:

http://www.hillnews.com/news/050703/edwards.aspx

In the three-month financial reporting period ended March 31, the Edwards campaign reported raising more than $7.4 million, the vast majority from individual contributors. Records show that nearly two-thirds of these contributions came from persons connected with law firms.

The large amount of donations to Edwards, a first-term senator with no prior political experience, is noteworthy because he bested his more seasoned Democratic presidential hopefuls in the race for early money — itself an important indicator of political viability.

Edwards’s FEC filings show much of the presidential contender’s impressive fundraising came from well-heeled attorneys at successful trial law firms.

Nevertheless, the seeming pattern of contributions by many low-level employees has raised concerns among several campaign finance watchdogs.

“It seems on the surface very suspicious,” said Bill Allison of the non-partisan Center for Public Integrity. “I think it is somewhat questionable that people who have never donated before would suddenly donate $2,000,” he said.

Larry Noble, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, also said the pattern of donations is surprising. “When you see groupings of contributions being given by office workers who are not among the highest-paid, and you see them maxed-out and their spouses maxed-out, then questions get raised,” he said.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by slow moe:
The Association of Trial Lawyers of America (ATLA) are the Democratic party's #1 PAC donors. Donating 2.5 million dollars to them between 2001 - 2002.

Not only that, but the FEC may be looking further into Edwards' collected donations. Apparently, his campaign was flooded with suspicious donations - like $100,000 checks included with a list of one "big dog" plus 49 names secretaries, wives, children, babysitters, etc. who had no idea of their $2,000 contributions, nor did they even have the financial resources to contribute.

[Atomic Rooster]

[zigzag]

No one is more cynical about plaintiff's lawyers than I am - I spent 15 years opposing them. But I fail to see how Edwards is any less ethically qualified to run for national office than the alternatives. By all accounts, he came from nothing and worked extremely hard, and well within the law, to get where he did. He was very good at his job, which was to advocate for his clients, just as his opponents advocated for theirs. That's the nature of our system. I dare say that if any of you were injured and needed a lawyer, you'd hire him in a heartbeat, as I would.

Is he capable of being a double-talking politician? Absolutely. Can you point me to one who isn't? No.

I suppose he could have made his fortune the old-fashioned way: by borrowing money from his rich friends, then using the power of eminent domain to force people out of their homes in order to build a publicly-financed baseball stadium.

[itai195]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Is he capable of being a double-talking politician? Absolutely. Can you point me to one who isn't? No.

Agreed. And yet these are the same folks who would defend Bush from any claims that he's motivated by oil interests.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by itai195:
And yet these are the same folks who would defend Bush from any claims that he's motivated by oil interests.

The US as a nation (and all other developed nations) are motivated by oil interests. I am amazed that you can't seem to grasp and accept this.

[Spliffdaddy]

well, I wouldn't say "amazed".

[BRussell]

One of America's greatest presidents, and the founder of the Republican party, was a trial lawyer.

[itai195]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
The US as a nation (and all other developed nations) are motivated by oil interests. I am amazed that you can't seem to grasp and accept this.

Non-sequitur alert.

[slow moe]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Not only that, but the FEC may be looking further into Edwards' collected donations. Apparently, his campaign was flooded with suspicious donations - like $100,000 checks included with a list of one "big dog" plus 49 names secretaries, wives, children, babysitters, etc. who had no idea of their $2,000 contributions, nor did they even have the financial resources to contribute.

Here's some more Edwards/ATLA dirt.

http://www.ntu.org/main/press_commen...p;org_name=NTU

In the Senate, Edwards has worked hard for the trial bar’s interests. When the Senate was debating the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act, Edwards was instrumental in defeating an amendment that would have established modest limits on personal injury lawyers’ ability to sue.

That amendment, I believe, was Amendment No. 3836 to the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act.

After 9/11, a huge fear in the business community was if there was another terrorist attack, the economic damage could be far worse this time around, and they could be faced with major bankruptcies, layoffs, loan defaults, etc., while at the same time, be held liable for punitive damages even if they were never found to be criminally negligent. The same fear was shared by the insurance industry, and made for a bad economic growth environment. The Terrorism Risk Insurance Act was a gov't backstop, and through the use of taxpayer dollars, was designed to ensure that insurers had the continued financial capacity to provide coverage for risks from terrorism. It was a risk in and of itself, but it would help get the economy moving in the right direction again.

At it's heart, Amendment No. 3836 banned punitive damages in the event of another terrorist attack, unless the defendant has been convicted of a criminal offense that is related to the plaintiff's injury. In other words, say you're at Disney World, and a bomb goes off. Under this amendment, if it hadn't been killed, personal injury lawyers couldn't go after Disney World, unless Disney World was first found guilty of a criminal offense that lead to the bomb being able to go off in the first place. The amendment would have protected American businesses from being attacked twice. Once by the terrorists, and again by trial lawyers. It would also, and more importantly, have saved the taxpayers millions by establishing "modest limits on personal injury lawyers' ability to sue."

The vote on the Motion to Table (or in layman's terms, kill) Amendment No. 3836 was split right down party lines, with not a single democrat voting to oppose killing the Republican sponsored amendment. It died by a vote of 50 to 46. Link.

In my opinion, John Edwards' role in shooting down such 'tort reform' inside a bill that was/is so important to American businesses after 9/11, helps explain why the Chamber of Commerce publicly stated that if John Edwards was chosen as Kerry's running mate, they would break their long standing tradition of neutrality in presidential elections, and work to defeat the democratic ticket. Link.

People can read the Senate transcripts for the day they voted on the Motion to Table Amendment 3836 by visiting http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/...DATE+20020613) , then click on the link to the right of "11. TERRORISM RISK INSURANCE ACT OF 2002", and then click on the printer friendly link at the top of the following page. In all, it's almost 300k of plain text, so it's a long, yet interesting read. A hard link isn't possible due to the way thomas.loc.gov is set up.

[Spliffdaddy]

Ya know, I was thinking...

There's enough dirt on these two Democrats that it might be fun if they won the election.

[BRussell]

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by BRussell:

Good one!

BG

[zigzag]

LOL - that's a good one.

I don't like Edwards' relationship with the plaintiff's bar, and I hope the opposition can keep him honest about it. The problem is that, when considering special interests and politicians, it's six of one and half a dozen of the other. He's in the pocket of the trial lawyers, and his opponents are in the pockets of the insurance industry, so what're you gonna do.

By the way, the amendment he voted against would've limited the power of the states to administer their own legal systems. How come Republicans get all warm and fuzzy about federal power when it suits them?

[MindFad]

Originally posted by itai195:
Non-sequitur alert.