I read the endorsement of the Milwaukee Sentinel, and it talks a
lot about the "message" of John Edwards and all the promises he's making,
and the "two Americas" he likes to pontificate about. Yet the endorsement
doesn't say a single word about his actions--or rather, his lack of
actions--it discusses only his words. He has charm, smooth talk, and
convincing arguments. Those are the things that got him elected to the
Senate. And now the people of North Carolina are seething with anger and
resentment at having been duped by a clever trial lawyer with decades of
experience in using words and charm to sway people's minds.

John Edwards ran as a moderate, got himself elected as a moderate, and
continues to label himself a moderate so the people of NC wouldn't know his
true colors. But his voting record in the Senate--that is, for the 28% of
the time that he's been present there--is unquestionably NOT representative
of a moderate. His voting record demonstrates his real reason for wanting to
be Senator: to cozy up to the powerbrokers in the Democratic Party in
preparation for his run for the presidency. Edwards unflinchingly crowed
about his middle-of-the road values and misled his constituents in order to
get elected. Edwards has voted right alongside the most liberal members of
the Senate. His voting record is much closer to Ted Kennedy's and Hillary
Clinton's than it is to southern Democrats.

Among Edwards's more baffling "No" votes on bills that (luckily) passed
anyway: a "No" to the bipartisan tax cut plan, a bill that was approved by
most Republicans and many Democrats, and a "No" to a ban on partial birth
abortions, a gruesome procedure most Americans oppose. By the way, this
alone is a chilling thought--who would approve of full-term babies being
killed as they exit the birth canal by a doctor sticking a needle into their
brain?? This is infanticide, pure and simple, and John Edwards thinks it's
okay.

It doesn't matter that Edwards grew up in a "modest dwelling"--many
politicians can claim a modest upbringing. What matters more is the million
dollar house he lives in today that was paid for by 20 years of suing
insurance companies on behalf of many people who just wanted to take
advantage of the system to make a buck.

Folks, this went on for quite a while and this guy cross-posted it all over the place. I believe the full text of it can be found here. I know it's censorship, but I'm paying for the bandwidth on this site, and I'm pulling the plug on this flamebait at this point. -- J.B.

Good job, prof. That guy was as much a Democrat as Pat Robertson. You know Edwards is getting close when the smears start.

Although my prediction--Dean will be President in November--has caused some reddening of the cheeks, might I remind you of this:

"I assume Dr. Howard's going to hang in there until he's hated. That's too bad. He could be a team player and make a major contribution in the general election. But I doubt that he will." (JB, Feb 3)

He's also had his cheeks reddened often since Iowa. But nothing about his performance--or his decision to pull out today--deserve anything but our admiration.

Donation sent. I happily supported Dean. Now I'll happily support Edwards. If push comes to shove, I'll vote for Kerry against Bush. Hell, I'd vote for Bonzo the Chimp if he runs against Bush.

I just want to point out that you have changed Kerry's name to Kerry/Kennedy...so when the Republican attack ads come out in the general election and do the same thing (assuming that Kerry is the nominee), I don't want to hear any complaining.

You know, considering he took some heat for basically telling the south to go to hell, aligning himself with Kennedy is about the dumbest thing he can do (not that you haven't already pointed this out) since he is about as popular there as Osama Bin Laden...It's almost like he wants Edwards to stay in the race

Flamebait it was, but there is some legitimate inquiry about Edwards using "junk science" in his plaintiffs' practice. There's no scientific proof that birth trauma can lead to cerebral palsy. And there's no Daubert in state court, so he gets to put a charming expert up there and refute the defense expert, regardless of the actual science. I'm not anti-trial lawyer, believe me, but I think it might eventually be a legitimate campaign issue. Regardless, the guy was a hell of a lawyer, for which he deserves credit.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/31/politics/campaign/31EDWA.html

If you're hired to present a case on behalf of a client, it's not your job to censor your own expert. That's what the other side is supposed to do. And I'm sure the defendants in those cases had their chance to show how "junk" the science was. And the juries told them to go to hell. The last time I checked, that was how the American civil court system was set up. What the "tort reform" folks really want to do is change our system of justice. They'd abolish all juries in civil cases if they thought they could get away with it.

Glad to see I am not completely "deluded" - okay I went out on a limb predicting JRE victory, but I gotta say it kind of hurt to have my favorite-former tax professor call me ... Nice to see you at the Edwards blog last night.

Hey, I was only quoting a famous line from the TV show "Batman" -- but then, you're too young to remember that.

Oh, okay - if it's an Adam West quote, I won't take it personally.