(k) Trial lawyers! :eek:
Kerry is responsible for trial lawyers lying to juries! Isn’t it obvious? Why, he associates with them, he hugs them, he even picked one to be his running “mate” (nudge nudge wink wink). The man is (gasp) in bed with trial lawyers (sly dig in ribs).
So, where’s the “lie” in that quote? Where’s the junk science? How much of that is direct quotes from Edwards, and how much is your hyperbole? Who’s the little girl? What happened to her? I presume that Edwards was retained by her family specifically to advocate her case, so what exactly is so objectionable about the bolded part of your quote? The whole purpose of hiring a lawyer is to have someone to speak for you in a court of law. Edwards was doing his job, which is getting money for his clients, out of which his clients pay his fee. And from what I’ve heard, he was pretty good at doing that. God forbid we have someone competent in the White House. You got anything to bring to the table except innuendo and lawyer bashing?
John Kerry turned me into a newt!
I got better…
This part was Edwards’ words:
But he was actually channeling a brain-damaged fetus, not a little girl, although in North Carolina, it’s pretty much the same thing. It raised a few eyebrows around these parts back when he said it back in '85. The New York Times reported it in early '04. Here is a contemporary mainstream source for it:
Based on a Bush campaign commercial I’ve seen several times, apparently John Kerry wants pregnant women to be the victims of violence.
:rolleyes:
Well you sure have theatrics but where is the junk science?
Some how there seem to be a lot of trouble explaining the difference between argument and evidence. In some places there is an expectation that a trial will involve some degree of oration, arm waiving and theatrics. That hardly makes it a lie. It makes it an effective argument of the evidence.
It’s not as if any comments by Senator Edwards happened in a vacuum. It’s not as if there was not a talented, skilled and experienced trial lawyer on the other side of the table who was perfectly capable of calling Mr. Edwards on it if he got out of line, if he made unfair comment on the evidence, if he started arguing stuff that was not in the record. If he was not called on it by his talented, skilled and experienced opponent I can only think that the ARGUMENT was legitimate.
I suppose the response to the above is to say that all those lawyers are in it together and the judges are in cahoots, too. It is a shame that you were not defending, Psycho. I’m sure you would have put things right in a twinkling.
If the best the people who do not want Senator Edwards to be vice-President is to take isolated passages from final arguments, present them out of context and scream that he is a trial lawyer then it is going to be a very ugly three months. This is an appeal to fear, to ignorance, and an abdication of the responsibility to become informed. It is, in short, bullshit.
Kerry came out strongly against the DH on ESPN last night, so he’s off the hook on this one. However, he still hasn’t done anything about those subscription cards that always fall out of magazines.
Edwards used a theatrical, rhetorical device to argue for his client. It was not any sort of literal representation of “channeling,” and more importantly, the jury decided that his client had been wronged.
PP still has a long way to go to support allegations of “lying” or the use of “junk science” by John Edwards.
I don’t get the right wing hate for trial lawyers. Do conservatives never file lawsuits? If conservatives are the victims of medical malpractice or get injured by faukty products, do they not sue? Do they just let it go so as not to victimize those poor corporations?
Trial lawyers are just about the best example we have of a profession which stands up for the little guy against the big guy. I’m really mystified by how well trained so may conservatives seem to be about jerking the knee at the thought that there are lawyers who represent victims of negligence, malpractice or malfeasance against the entities which cause them injury. It sounds like John Edwards did very well by his clients. I see no reason to bash him for having been good at his jiob.
Abraham Lincoln started out as a trial lawyer too, by the way.
Of course, Abraham Lincoln has precious little to do with the party of Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush. Nor does Teddy Roosevelt – the guy with the soft voice and the big stick. Bully!
Didn’t Teddy quit the GOP and run as an Independent or something at some point? Must have already sensed things were going to hell for that bunch.
The Bull Moose party, IIRC. I’d vote for a Bull Moose candidate over Bush even now. Hell, I’d vote for an actual Bull Moose over Bush.
The Bull Moosers became Rockefeller Republicans. Don’t see many of those around any more. Of course some might think that Dick Cheney might actually look like a bull moose, in rut, yet.
They do survive, in scattered enclaves.
Hey! How dare you insult the noble moose?
By the way, while Googling for the links above, I came across a speech by Teddy Roosevelt in his Bull Moose/Progressvie Party incarnation. Read it; you won’t recognize anything remotely resembling the modern Republican Party in what he says.
Nonsense. A bull moose is a majestic, stately creature. Cheney is more akin to that which the bull moose leaves behind, and which you scrape off your boots after stepping in it.
Heh. Plus ca change…