Who to Vote for in 2008? Part III

John Edwards

Honestly, I didn't know a lot about him, so I had to do some digging.

For starters, a good article from Kathleen Parker of the Orlando Sentinel on the unfortunate timing of Edwards' announcement. A perfect summation of his press conference towards the end of the piece:

"Passionate, but not overwrought, he conveyed the persona of a deeply caring man who wants to make the world a better place. Either that, or the persona of a deeply cunning litigator adept at pulling a jury's heartstrings, which usually precedes the pulling of someone else's purse strings."

Whose purse strings were pulled? From his website, a description of his life before politics:

"For the next 20 years, John dedicated his career to representing families and children just like the families he grew up with in Robbins (North Carolina). Standing up against the powerful insurance industry and their armies of lawyers, John helped these families through the darkest moments of their lives to overcome tremendous challenges. His passionate advocacy for people like the folks who worked in the mill with his father earned him respect and recognition across the country."

What exactly does this mean? Kirsten Powers has argued on John Gibson's "The Big Story" that Republicans have little basis to criticize Edwards' abundant wealth - after all, wasn't he living the "American Dream" through hard work? He didn't grow up with a lot of money, being the son of a mill worker (Did you get that part yet?), and received a public education. He studied hard in law school and won big settlements for the "little guy" in heart-wrenching cases involving cerebral palsy and brain damage. Now it seems every time you turn around he's helping the downtrodden of New Orleans - isn't that be something President Bush should be doing, Dems argue?

On the face of it, not a bad argument. But let's look into how exactly Edwards achieved his wealth.

Via CNSNews, a "Heart-Wrenching Plea":

"But some of Edwards' critics say that as a trial lawyer, he relied more on his verbal skills than the latest scientific evidence to persuade juries that the doctors' mistakes had been instrumental in causing the cerebral palsy in the infants.

"Edwards' trial summaries 'routinely went beyond a recitation of his case to a heart-wrenching plea to jurors to listen to the unspoken voices of injured children,' according to a comprehensive analysis of Edwards' legal career by The Boston Globe in 2003.

"The Globe cited an example of Edwards' oratorical skills from a medical malpractice trial in 1985. Edwards had alleged that a doctor and a hospital had been responsible for the cerebral palsy afflicting then-five-year-old Jennifer Campbell.

"'I have to tell you right now -- I didn't plan to talk about this -- right now I feel her (Jennifer), I feel her presence,' Edwards told the jury according to court records. '[Jennifer's] inside me and she's talking to you ... And this is what she says to you. She says, 'I don't ask for your pity. What I ask for is your strength. And I don't ask for your sympathy, but I do ask for your courage.''

"Edwards' emotional plea worked. Jennifer Campbell's family won a record jury verdict of $6.5 million against the hospital where the girl was born -- a judgment reduced later to $2.75 million on appeal. Edwards also settled with Jennifer's obstetrician for $1.5 million.

"Legal expert Walter Olson, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and author of the book, The Rule of Lawyers, said Edwards' success in court was due in large part to his mastery of one important trait.

"'Edwards was clearly very good at managing the emotional tenor of a trial and that turns out to be at least as important as any particular skill in the sense of researching the fine points of law,' Olson told CNSNews.com .

"'These are the skills that you find in successful trial lawyers. They can tell a story that produces a certain emotional response. It's a gift,' Olson added.

"However, Olson believes trial lawyers 'have been getting away with an awful lot in cerebral palsy litigation,' by excluding certain scientific evidence.

"'[Trial lawyers] have been cashing in on cases where the doctor's conduct probably did not make any difference at all -- cases where the child was doomed to this condition based on things that happened before they ever got to the delivery room,' Olson said."

Read the rest of the "scientifically unfounded" article.

Here's a report from Trial Lawyers Inc., detailing the truth about our lawsuit culture (from 2003). You can see why someone would want to get into the trial lawyer business after reading this - seems like an easy way to make a quick buck - or, a quick million bucks, as the case may be.

More from National Review, from when Edwards was named Kerry's running mate in 2004:

"... 19 of Edwards's top 20 donors were plaintiffs' lawyers, 86 percent of his Senate campaign contributions came from personal-injury lawyers, and almost two-thirds of his field-leading presidential-campaign contributions last spring came from trial lawyers, their families, and their staffs. The Edwards campaign has even enjoyed the use of four private jets owned by his trial-lawyer buddies.

"The trial lawyers know their compatriot well. Since his election to the Senate, Edwards has voted consistently with their interests — against class-action reforms, against medical-malpractice reforms, against solutions to the asbestos bankruptcy crisis, even against proposed limitations on personal-injury lawsuits in the event of a terrorist attack."

Fantastic.

But there are more issues besides how Edwards achieved financial success and subsequently financed his political campaigns. Like, for instance, the Iraq War.

This is his Washington Post Op-ed piece in November 2005, where he famously declared "I was wrong." Here's the opening:

"Almost three years ago we went into Iraq to remove what we were told -- and what many of us believed and argued -- was a threat to America. But in fact we now know that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction when our forces invaded Iraq in 2003. The intelligence was deeply flawed and, in some cases, manipulated to fit a political agenda."

"What we were told"??? David Limbaugh's Bankrupt:

"Senator John Edwards said, 'Serving on the Intelligence Committee and seeing day after day, week after week, briefings on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and his plans on using those weapons, he cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons. It's just that simple. The whole world changes if Saddam ever has nuclear weapons.' Later Edwards said he had made a mistake in supporting the Iraq war resolution and sharply criticized President Bush, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld - a clear attempt, which was successful - to get himself back in the good graces of his party's leftist antiwar base."

Who has a political agenda NOW? As for whether or not Iraq had WMD before the war, Limbaugh cites evidence that WMD that Saddam Hussein bought from the Russians were moved to Syria and Lebanon before the war started. It also appears that WMD were even found IN IRAQ. (see pages 23 - 28 of Bankrupt).

The AP likened Edwards to Martin Luther King when he called out Hillary Clinton, saying "Silence is betrayal, and I believe it is a betrayal not to speak out against the escalation of the war in Iraq." Of course, at the time, Hillary was in Iraq and Afghanistan and unable to respond...interesting...not sure if Edwards has ever visited the troops? If he does, hopefully his opponents on the left won't use the opportunity to attack him without ability to responds, as he did to Hillary.

On other issues:

Abortion: He believes it is a constitutionally protected right, he voted no on banning even partial-birth abortions, he has a 100% favorability rating with NARAL, and he wants expanded embryonic stem cell research.

Minimum Wage: an increase, naturally. More reason not to support a minimum wage hike coming in a later post.

Civil Rights: Can this guy spin or what? An excerpt from a New York Times 2004 bio (there's that "mill town" reference again in the title - registration may be necessary):

"At times he can be blunt. Two young lesbians at the University of New Hampshire challenged him on why he does not support marriage for gay couples, a stance that might seem at odds with his support for affirmative action and civil rights generally. 'I don't think America's ready for that,' the senator replied. 'It's very simple.'

"He paused, seeing the crestfallen looks on their faces. 'It is heartbreaking,' he said. 'There is no question about that.'"

He doesn't say that it's heartbreaking that he doesn't support gay marriage - it's heart-breaking that "America isn't ready for it."

WOW.

Well, that concludes part III. Part IV - Mitt Romney...