I was so happy this morning whe I heard the news I was dancing around in front of the TV. John Edwars is what this country needs.

He's too inexperienced. We need Presidents w/ the experience of men like Dick Cheney. Experience that rightly predicts we would be greated as liberators, flowers and candy would await our soldiers, and the insurgency has been in its last throes for over one year. That's the kind of experience America needs.

So the Breck shampoo girl is taking another swing at the White House? He's even less qualified to be president than Barack Obama. An ambulence chaser who was a do-nothing senator who only ran for the presidency because he knew he would have lost re-election in 2004 as senator.

The Breck Girl has entered.

Obama and Edwards you got to wonder if that going to be the Democratic ticket

"I'm announcing here because no place better demonstrates the two Americas I've talked about for a long time,''

Great. Class Warfare is alive and well with a trial lawyer at the controls.

Get ready to be treated like a jury and learn how eeeevil sucessful people are.

This country certainly does not need a second one-term senator vying for the top job. Moreover, when Bush was at his most vunerable, the dems sent Kerry and Edwards to challenge him, which proved to be a bad choice. Let's not make the same mistake twice.

I am pleased to see you are running for president again. I am not able to support you finically or campaigning for you but want to wish you the best. I am also impressed with Senator Barak Obama and would like to see the combination of the two of you in the Pres./Vp. positions. I would prefer to see you in the Pres. position and a follow up at the end of your terms to be Mr. Obama.

John Edwards on YouTube
http://youtube.com/watch?v=2AE847UXu3Q

I agree with Donna. John Edwards is just what our country needs.

This also may be the way for Obama to get in. He could be Edwards running mate and quite possibly get elected as VP that way. I don't see Barack getting elected on his own though. There is still too much racism in this country. While sad but true, America seems to just want to elect good looking white men from the south. John Edwards fills that bill.

Although I like Edwards, doesn't he have the same problem of inexperience as Obama? Edwards was the junior senator in 2004 when he was picked, and he is no longer in the Senate.

I think the best ticket is Gore/Obama. Let Obama be vice-president for a while just as Gore was for so long. Then Obama can take a shot at the presidency.

He is a good man.His priorities are correct as far as what this country needs.

What about steven Henderson,hero or coward?

Steven Henderson served his country during two tours of duty as an Army sergeant in Afghanistan -- repeatedly coming under enemy fire and seeing fellow soldiers maimed and U.S. helicopters gunned down.

The Chicago native is back home now after being honorably discharged 20 months ago. He's married and working toward a college degree -- but the Army has called upon him again.

A letter he received two weeks before Christmas orders him to report to Fort Benning, Ga., by Jan. 14. Under the order, he is required to fight in Iraq for a period "not to exceed 545 days."

But this time, Henderson says he will not serve his country.

Wow, individual responsibility, local control. He's beginning to sound like a Republican.

A trial lawyer advocates "taking responsibility"? How can a Democrat advocate "strenghtening the middle class", when we know all they'll do is raise taxes? "Guaranteeing Health Care" = Socialization, just look how well that's gone in the realm of education.

Well Edwards got of to a poor start when his
candidacy was announced via the web on the day of Pres.Gerald's Ford's death.
Our country cries for real leadership not
more empty promises that cannot be kept.

Edwards/Obama ticket...

2 religious men, 2 family men, 2 well spoken men.
I like it.

John Edwards is another one of the fine Democratic Presidential candidates for 08.

Our next Prez is going to come from the group of Obama,Hillary,Edwards,or former President Gore.

All of them will be an improvement over the clown that the Republicans have in office now.

Edwards sounds like a dreamy eyed bleeding heart liberal. What we really need is a president who has a definite philosophy and plan. Also one who travels close to the center of the road and can work with people of both parties to deal with emergencies and other important issues. We don't need someone who obviously has a strong afinity for Disneyland.

Edwards probably just dropped himself about 20 points in the polls. A rich trial lawyer who was raised in comfort playing the Robin Hood card doesn't play well in most of the country. He's basing his entire campaign on "ending the two America's" while conveniently leaving out the fact that it's lawyers like him who created the two Americas in the first place.

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB116725461738460888-DKBN5q33LHyc29eGAxKupKab_YE_20070126.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top

I'm just not into him.

Well we've heard from the JohnD/JD guy and he doesn't like Edwards,no big surprise since he backs the W. and Cheney disaster that's currently in the Whitehouse.

Now the big qustion:

Will that NoName guy agree with JohnD/JD ???

A rich trial lawyer who was raised in comfort playing the Robin Hood card doesn't play well in most of the country.

Posted by: Bill | Dec 28, 2006 12:54:01 PM

Bill,you know that statement is not true.John Edwards was not raised in comfort.He earned his wealth as a trial lawyer.How did your President W Bush make his money?

As a Democrat, I pray that we don't end up with a ticket of Obama/ Edwards or vice versa. Senators don't get elected President, its only happened 3 times. So the combination of two senators on the ticket (AGAIN, mind you) is in my book a losing combination.

I do think Mr. Obama has a legitimate chance, though, as he is such a breath of fresh air that he has the potential to overcome the many hurdles he faces (youth, campaigning from the Senate, and unfortunately: being part black and having the middle name Hussein- cheers to you, Paulo, you were all over this one, though if it plays a factor in the voting I think that speaks volumes about where Americans are as a people and our chance for success in the future).

Al Gore is the wild card here. He ran such a lackluster campaign in 2000 but seems to have found his mojo around global warming (too bad he didn't work harder to arrest the onset while in office). Now that even the GOP seems to be accepting man-made global warming, we might finally be in a position to move forward progressively.

My final hope is this: Obama/Gore or Gore/Obama. The former is preferable at least IMHO, as Obama is the fresh and magnetic face and Gore the "elder statesman" type. This could be a dynamic combination, but I don't think Mr. Gore would consider being VP again. I'm not convinced he has it in him to run for President again, but if he does, he had better run like he means it this time.

Well John D your name calling started showing you are a lowlife swiftboater . Remember your Rove swiftboated every Republican who ran against Bush. Those days will come back on every Republican running if the swiftboating keeps up. It will be a seek and destroy mission

It might be a good idea to elect a former trial lawyer like Edwards as Prez.

He can oversee the investigations into the former do nothing,corrupt,Republican led Congress.

Leave it to the Democrats to have a trial lawyer in the running. It's a good fit.

What I dislike the most is Edwards' talk of "two Americas." He forgets about the "third" America...those of us who work hard to succeed, without expecting the government or anyone else to take care of us. The Democrats desperately need people like us so they can tax the crap out of us to support their programs, all designed to keep people dependent on the government so they'll continue to vote for Democrats.

John E, - you mean "vice-president" Gore, right? No chance he'll win. I often use him as an example when people ask me to explain what a left wing nutjob is.

I'm happy that John Edwards has thrown his hat into the ring. His voice, and his anti poverty message need to be heard. Personally I'm leaning towards supporting Obama but could easily support Edwards if he were to win the nomination. He is the only candidate in recent memory who talks about the problem of poverty which will ultimately prove itself to be the biggest long term challenge our nation faces. Most liberals are afraid to talk about it because it allows conservatives to bring up the dreaded "socialism". conservatives won't talk about it because they say they truly beleive that poverty is unavoidable and is a natural part of the human condition. John Edwards isn't afraid and doesn't see poverty as a natural phenomenon.

Many of the posters above deride Edwards with statements like these:

JD writes-"Great. Class Warfare is alive and well with a trial lawyer at the controls.

Get ready to be treated like a jury and learn how eeeevil sucessful people are." Well JD some "sucessful" people are evil, some are not but one thing is indispute=able the richa re getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. Read economist Paul Krugman's recent article in Rolling Stone for some examples.

Tommy Galloway writes- "How can a Democrat advocate "strenghtening the middle class", when we know all they'll do is raise taxes? "Guaranteeing Health Care" = Socialization, just look how well that's gone in the realm of education."
Well Tommy I do know for sure that tax cuts for the wealthy do NOT strengthen the middle class. The stock market hit a record high yesterday yet most middle class folks I know had a hard time paying for Christmas presents. Sounds alot like the "Two America's" Senator Edwards is talking about doesn't it? If you can't see that the millions of Americans that don't have health care is a drain on all of us then I can't help you.

Poverty is a huge problem in this country. As is the shrinking middle class. John Edwards is talking about it, rather than deride him we should all applaud.

Edwards cosponsored a massive increase in H-1b visas

he voted for the iraq war

he voted for the patriot act

he voted for mfn china

he made a fortune jacking up health care costs with malpractice suits

he's a 2 faced jerk

I guess to Dems, as long as your "well spoken" it doesn't matter what kind of socialist blather comes our of your mouth.

Ahhhh, he speaks so well.

John D is right and what I have been saying all along. We've seen what inexperience at the highest level gets us. A president who lets an incident like 9/11 overturn his apple cart.

What we need is a firm leader. Someone who will not get all a fluttered when we are attacked the next time. Someone who will ask, "Okay, who did it?" Get the answer, and not rest until the responsible party is captured, killed and paraded around for our enemies to see.

What we need is a leader who will not go off on fanciful engagements to avenge an assasination attempt on his father.

What we need is a president who isn't trying to make the world free for democracy, but making the U.S. so great that the rest of the world doesn't want anything but what we have.

What we need is a president who doesn't play favorites with dictators, but who tells all dictators we'll only play with them if they are fair to their people.

America needs Sen. Chuck Hagel now more than ever.

Paid for by Chuck Hagel for President.

John E. is also right.

A good day for the Johns all around it would seem.

Another multi-millionaire socialist dem entering the race to become president....The top three dems can't "swift boat" eachother because of their lack of ever being in a swift boat or military experience,so when the dems start eating one another for lunch,don't call it swift boating,but"Quick Yachting."
Happy sailing!
Paulo

Why Loon, you read the Sun-Times!

Hey, believe me, trial lawyers will be coming back in to vogue with former Republic politicians in the not too distant future.

Maybe Edwards can score some good fees from these fellers.

In other news (which won't be reported in the Swampune) man-of-the-people Edwards sold his Georgetown (DC) house for $5.2 million. He will reportedly return to living on his swanky 100-acre North Carolina estate, finding out what ordinary people are thinking by sendng his butler out to talk to them.

"who was raised in comfort" -- he is the son of a millworker, didn't you know? He sure drilled it home in the Iowa campaign.

He doesn't seem honest; too slick for my tastes. He may have the right message, but it seems like he crafted that message solely for political gain, not because those are actually the things he cares about.

I agree with Roger, Gore/Obama woo!

... He may have the right message, but it seems like he crafted that message solely for political gain, not because those are actually the things he cares about.

Posted by: jar kin

This is the exact description of every presidential candidate since Nixon.

Paulo,
Glad you're back.
We missed your blind NeoCon comments.
Did you ever catch the guy who Punk'd you??

Ya gotta love all the right wing hate mongers out there. His father was a mill worker and he
worked for a good education and because he became a successful trial lawyer, you putzes want to start demonizing him. Maybe he should be out doing coke with his daddy's money like other politicians did at his age. Can you think of any?
You guys would be the first to demonize Christ if you thought he was a democrat.

Bruce...First rich person in politics Huh?
Paulo...More drive-by BS?
no-name..His daddy didn't make the money..In your shallow opinion I guess law school was a breeze for you huh? Sour apples because maybe you make chairs or something just as mundane?
JohnD....Your just clueless and one bitter thug!

Bruce,

"In other news (which won't be reported in the Swampune) man-of-the-people Edwards sold his Georgetown (DC) house for $5.2 million. He will reportedly return to living on his swanky 100-acre North Carolina estate, finding out what ordinary people are thinking by sendng his butler out to talk to them."

Any comments on the wealth and privilege bestowed upon our current president, from his wealthy New England upbringing to his legacy admission to Yale to his unending bailouts from wealthy and well-connected friends-of-family in both business and politics? Does that not incense you and make you feel that he is not one of us regular joes? Why is it that you are blathering about John Edwards, a long shot presidential candidate instead of working to bring forth a man of modest means to head the GOP ticket?

A poor man has no chance of being president anymore (for better or for worse) so which would you rather have:

A man raised with an enormous silver spoon in his mouth who has never had to work to survive and clearly is isolated from the masses of humanity with his utterly narcissic lack of empathy, or

A man born to modest means who worked hard to reach the pinnacle of his field and empathizes with the reality that our growing income disparities and shrinking of the middle class threaten our very way of life as the most powerful and greatest nation in the world?

I don't care who delivers the message or what their upbringing is as long as the message is this: We are all in this together. Entrepeneurship must be encouraged and valued, but the tax code should NEVER value wealth over work as it currently does. Those at the very top owe a special burden to the government for the bounty that the strength of our government and military allows them to accumulate. The environment is our most precious asset, and must be preserved so that our grandchildren can grow up in a world with polar bears and rainforests. Lack of national health care is an unnecessary burden on our businesses that have to compete against businesses based elsewhere who do not need to worry about health care, as the cost is spread out over the whole of the society.

If the candidate whom the GOP nominates in '08 supports this package, or comes closer to it than the Democrat, I would be glad to vote for a Republican. Won't hold my breath, though.

"no name,"

First off, grow some cajones and start using a real name. Put your money where your mouth is.

"The Democrats desperately need people like us so they can tax the crap out of us to support their programs, all designed to keep people dependent on the government so they'll continue to vote for Democrats.":

Just wondering why it is that the states with the highest incomes, highest literacy rates, lowest divorce rates, highest IQ's and net OUTFLOW of tax dollars are those awful blue states and the ones that are net receivers of federal tax dollars are those red states (in 2004)? Shouldn't they tighten their belts and start to take care of themselves instead of living off "the government" that is overwhelmingly paid for with blues state tax dollars?!?

And how about those red states? All the GOP has left is the block from Virginia to Indiana and southwest to Texas. What is it that all those places have in common? Oh yeah, its that they are all net recipients of tax dollars from the blue states and also have, among other things, the lowest IQ's, lowest incomes, highest divorce rates and worst schools. Long live progressive taxation!

My bad, I meant to say Barack Obama (the son of diplomats) was raised in comfort. Not Edwards who recently sold his $5.2 million, 100-acre home. He may be the son of a steelworker but he's now most certainly one of the richest Americans in this country.

Tell me, when Edwards talks about the other America (the one he doesn't live or golf in) does he even recognize that the reason most of these people don't have health insurance is because of the lawsuits he filed as a trial lawyer? You know, the nuisance suits that are easier to settle than spend the time and money for a hospital or doctor to defend and that accomplish nothing except an increase in the cost of malpractice insurance coverage so good doctors have to leave states like Illinois because they can't afford to do business there and companies can't afford to pay the inflated rates.

John Edwards has met the enemy alright.

Dale Peters....JohnD said far less than "your rants" against Bush,Cheney,Rove or anything Republican.And JohnD is right,Edwards is less qualified than Osama,infact Edwards didn't even carry his OWN STATE in the 2004 election,just like Al Gore didn't carry his OWN STATE in 2000.If the people in N.C. didn't vote for him,why should the rest of the Two America's???
Paulo

Dale, the Democrats have been "swiftboating" Republicans for years -- from Ronald Reagan to Robert Bork to George HW Bush to Newt Gingrich to George W Bush to Dick Cheney to Mark Kirk to on and on and on.

I'm tired of soft-socialist rhetoric being dressed up as "anti-poverty messages" and "universal health care" simply because it sells. Not to be diminutive of the problems many people face, but poverty should be viewed relative to a broader perspective of the human condition. In the whole of recorded history, no nation has been better at eradicating poverty from the lives of its citizens than the U.S.

Whether you're liberal or conservative, I'm sure you can come up with a couple of examples where government blew it for John Q. Public. (Katrina, anyone?) Do we really believe that some government initiative or influence-whore of a politician is going to be more effective than individual, localized action and free-enterprise?

Thank God we have Robin Hood Ambulance Chaser to save us.

I believe that when former President Al Gore gets in the race he will choose between Obama and Edwards as his runningmate,and they will easily win the top job in 08.

The Democrats will win the Presidents job because of the misinformation,and deceit that has been permeating from the Republican party since 1994.
Karl Rove has left a stink on the GOP that won't go away for a long time.

The Republicans had their chance,and they blew it.

Oh no, it looks like there's a chink in Robin Hood's armor!

"During his career of allegedly championing the helpless, he took no pro bono cases." This failure is especially noteworthy given that the North Carolina bar's rules of professional responsibility state that "The provision of free legal services to those unable to pay reasonable fees continues to be an obligation of each lawyer ...."

"Great Class Warfare is alive and well with a trial lawyer at the controls."
"Get ready to be treated like a jury and learn how to eeeevil sucessful people are."
Posted by: JD Dec 28,2006 9:49:30 AM

JD,
You mean evil successful people like Dick Cheney and George Jr.???

Some of these Republicans might want to hire John Edwards to keep their corrupt butts out of prison.

John Edwards will make a fine candidate,and he's used to the "swiftboating" tactics like the one's from JD,he knows how to sink the GOP battleship,he's been on the wrong side of Karl Rove before.

Goodluck Mr.Edwards,America wants HONEST people like you to run for the President's job,don't listen to the GOP hacks,you've been there before,you know what to do when they start "swiftboating".EXPOSE THEM!

I support Obama. However if Edwards wants to run that is cool. Good luck.
However, Obama willnot run for vp. never ever.
he has stated this. why do people keep trying to throw those two together?
I am glad the supporters of Edwards are happy, alittle on the fanzine side, but, happy. Good luck.

bill r... Did you even read my comment? I made no mention of Edwards' upbringing or his daddy. If you care to read my comment and respond just let me know.

Bryan...wow, using "Bryan" as a name in this blog sure is a portrait of courage. You gotta be kidding me. I was going to read the rest of your comment but since you decided to start of with a personal attack, I didn't bother.

What I dislike the most is Edwards' talk of "two Americas." He forgets about the "third" America...those of us who work hard to succeed,
Posted by: no name | Dec 28, 2006 3:21:13 PM

no-name....Isn't this your post...by reading it I get the feeling you are implying that Edwards
isn't one of those "who work hard to succeed". I was pointing out that his daddy didn't give him the money to work hard through Law school...and
work hard at building one successful career like a lot of other politicians. I have seen so many impotent post about politicians and their money. I think it is more important "where" they got their money than the fact they have money. What fairyland do you guys live in?

Ty states: " In the whole of recorded history, no nation has been better at eradicating poverty from the lives of its citizens than the U.S."

This statement is completely ignorant and false. Most of the nations of western Europe, particularly in Scandinavia, have societies with virtually no poverty. Almost everyone owns a car, often a home and the quality of life ranks far higher than the US. The foundation for this prosperity is health care. Having citizens without it is a drain on everyone else. The more poor uninsured citizens the more of a burden it becomes on teh rest of a society. According to recent statistics it is harder for a person born in poverty to achieve a position of wealth than the notoriously class stagnant United Kingdom. The disparity between rich and poor in this country is larger than in any time since the era of the robber barons of the late 19th century. Take off your rose colored glasses Ty, the facts simply do not match your opinions.

Another poster, Bill, blames the lack of health care for the poor on trial lawyers. While I agree that some monetary awards have gotten out of hand in recent years, one cannot ignore the fact that insurance companies are bringing in record profits. Add to this the near criminal profit taking by both the health care industry and the pahrmaceutical industry and you have far greater villains than trial lawyers.

In our supposedly enlightened age there is no excuse for every man, woman and child not to have health care. It is morally reprehensible that a working person in this country can actually go broke becuase of illness. There is enough wealth in our nation that this should never happen. John Edwards understands this which is why he is a necessary voice in our national debate.

Bryan, HEAR, HEAR !

Your analysis is right on the mark !

Blue states forever !

Here are some facts about one of John Edwards cases.Obviously,the right sides with the big corporation.Just as they side with Exxon,Enron,tobacco co's,drug mfg.etc.John MCCain,if he were a trial lawyer,would have defended the corporation.

Here are the basic facts: On June 24, 1993, Valerie Lakey was playing in a wading pool at the Medfield Area Recreation Club in Wake County, NC (a few miles down the road from where I live in Raleigh). The drain cover on the only suction outlet in the pool had been removed sometime previously, probably by other children earlier that day. When Valerie approached the uncovered outlet, the suction was strong enough to pull her down and suck 80% of her small intestine and 50-70% of her large intestine out through her anus. Four adults could not free her until the pool's pumps had been turned off. It sounds like some kind of urban legend but it's not. It's happened multiple times, actually.

Valerie survived, but has to spend 12 -14 hours (often 7pm to 7am) being fed by a tube in her chest dripping nutrients into her body. The expensive procedure will probably be required for the rest of her life, among other medical treatment. Her parents sued the club, the county, the maker of the pool's circulation pump and Sta-Rite, the manufacturer of the missing drain cover, with the help of John Edwards and his partner David Kirby. The first three defendants settled before trial for a total of $5.9 million. Sta-Rite, a subsidiary of the Wisconsin Energy Corporation, offered $100,000. The Lakeys declined and the case went to a jury. Here's how the Washington Monthly described what happened next:

http://www.monkeytime.org/lakey.html

"Read economist Paul Krugman's recent article in Rolling Stone for some examples."

Yeah, I'm sure an honest objective point of view from Mr. Krugman (as always).

Here is a quote from John Edwards that sums him up pretty well. You can't make this stuff up.

"This President should be made to explain why a multi-millionaire sitting beside his swimming pool should be paying a lower tax rate than a teacher, than a police officer, than a secretary,"

Yeah, all those eeevil rich people with swimming pools, and those "good, honest" people like teachers. Hoorrayyy teachers! BOooooooo rich guy with a swimming pool. (probably old white guys with SUV's harming the planet too)

It's called propaghanda guys. The old "in group/out group" tactic. A similar tactic was used in the 30's against Jews in Europe.

Class warfare at its finest.

I'm sure its worked for him to win large awards from juries, so why not try it with voters?

...oh and he speaks so well.

no name,
What was personal about Bryans opening comment? Do you not have cajones?

Thank God we have Robin Hood the Ambulance Chaser to save us.

Posted by: Bill Dec 29,2006 1:05:24 AM

Gee Bill,you must be talking about that Robin Hood John McCain guy who's running for the Prez job under the corrupt Republican banner.

You know,Johhny McCain,the best friend a wealthy banker ever had.

I know that's who you meant,not Edwards.

no name,

Shame you didn't read on, you may learn something.

I think former President Ford said it best:
The Neocons were stupid to invade Iraq,it weakens America and it has rightly destroyed the Republican party for the time being.

America doesn't want another Republican President to try an figure out the Iraq disaster that they created.

John Edwards would be a good pick,as would former President Gore,or that young goodlooking brilliant,well spoken Barack Obama,maybe Hillary Clinton could bring back some of the wealth,prestige and good relationships with other countries that Bill Clinton gave us,she did advise him.

There are still good well meaning people out there who would make a fine President,
Anyone of the above mentioned candidates will be better than what the GOP has given us for the last 6 yrs.
Don't give up hope!

In a related story on the Edwards perpetual campaign (courtesy Scott Ott at Scrappleface.com):

(2006-12-28) — With just 23 months before the next presidential election, former Sen. John Edwards, D-NC, announced today that he would seek the Democrat nomination for president in 2008, 2012 and 2016, but refused to comment on his plans for 2020.

“Americans are looking for a candidate with experience running for president,” said an unnamed campaign spokesman. “In 2018, when John Edwards is 65, he’ll have spent 16 years seeking the office and have four campaigns under his belt. We think that will position him well for victory in 2020.”

While the candidate sought to deflect questions about his longterm plans, the anonymous source said Mr. Edwards would file papers with the Federal Election Commission next week forming a 2020 presidential exploratory committee.

The Edwards ‘08-12-16 campaign timed today’s announcement to coincide with this week’s death of former President Gerald Ford, “another great, and handsome, man who was never elected to the White House.”

In launching his campaign in front of a federally-funded trailer of a hurricane Katrina victim in New Orleans, Mr. Edwards recalled his 2004 stump speech in which he frequently said there are “two Americas.”

“Since 2004, I have learned a lot,” said Mr. Edwards. “I think history and geography have proved me right. If you look at the map, there are in fact two Americas — North America and South America.”

The former vice presidential candidate quoted the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, saying America must overcome racial and socioeconomic prejudices to unite as “one nation, underprivileged, indivisible, with subsidy and justice for all.”

Yes name, we're in complete agreement that Hillary Clinton would bring wealth to countries other than the United States. I'm sure she's lining up fugitive campaign contributors like Marc Rich right now.

I like the looks of a McCain-Hillary faceoff.

John E., I don't know who you're speaking of but the John McCain that grew up on military bases and served his country honorably could not in any way be considered a rich man. He's certainly not selling 100-acre, $5 million estates like John Edwards.

Sad story Loon, but I fail to see how that makes John E. different from any other lawyer who would take that case in a hearbeat.

Sounds like a no brainer victory....just a question of how much money can be had.

Now, if he did it Pro Bono, maybe that would say something.

Did he?

"Yeah, all those eeevil rich people with swimming pools, "

Hey, it sounds to me like JD has a nice pool.
Can we all come over for a cannon ball contest next summer, buddy?

Saw Senator Edwards on TV yesterday, he has already said he is going to raise taxes. Grab you wallets.

Swamp pool party at JD's house as soon as the weather breaks, who's with C.Morris?

Swamp pool party at JD's house as soon as the weather breaks, who's with C.Morris?

Posted by: Bill | Dec 30, 2006 10:35:59 AM

Sad thing Bill.......If it wasn't for politics,
we would probably have a good time!

JD,how would you compare John Edwards and the money he made vs the Goldman Sachs CEO who just pocketed 56 mil in bonus money?

You righties have no comments about 56 mil being handed to someone, but a trial lawyer fights for the average guy,and he's the bad guy.

Suppose you were pulling for the tobacco companies after they got caught lying about the amount of nicotine put in smokes,or targeting young kids.

Saw Senator Edwards on TV yesterday, he has already said he is going to raise taxes. Grab you wallets.

Posted by: Terry | Dec 30, 2006 10:35:42 AM

Terry,at least he's telling you up front,better than being blind sided by Reagan twice!!

And be lied to by Bush 1,read my lips!!!!

Let's be realistic,someone's going to have to raise taxes,you "Conservatives" have the country in a 9 trillion dollar hole!!

Crazy Duck

The deficit/debt that you speak of is miniscule as compared to the economy as a whole. Running deficits ibn wartime makes perfect economic sense since it is short term spending. What kills the economy is the long-term entitilements. The taxes increase Senator Edwards is talking about would hurt the economy. It probably wouldn't more money in the treasury either.

As far as the Goldman Sachs CEO - Go ask the democratic governor from New Jersey what the CEO bonuses of an investment house feel like.

Terry,

'A trillion dollars here, a trillion dollars there, pretty soon you're talking real money'

You talk about percentage of the 'total economy', but the tax cuts already in place have reduced the ability of the 'total economy' to pay down that debt.

The people in power seem to want to ruin the confidence in our fiscal condition.

I am beginning to think the neo-cons want the US to default.

Crazy Terry,

George Jr and Cheney are running this war on a credit card,it's why his phony,balony economy is still looking good for the rich people like you.
I think you know this big guy.

So much for the "fiscal" conservatives.

20 yrs from now tell your grandkids about the "great" economic days under your hero W.
They'll be laughing at you,and telling you that their history books show W. as the worst Prez. ever,worse than your whipping boy Carter.
Tell them you voted for W. twice Terry.

We are going to have raise taxes no matter who the next Prez is.
It'll be the only way to pay off the 9 trillion in debt. ran up by the "fiscally" Conservative Republican Congress,and the "Uniter" George Jr.

America is tired of the Angry Old White Guy Party,aka the GOP.
The stink that George Jr,Darth Cheney,and Crooked Karl Rove have left on the "Consevative" Party isn't going away anytime soon.A "stay the course" NeoCon like McCain will stand NO Chance in 08, homey.

See ya in 2012 GOP!(Terry,Bill)you guys are the best...

"Hey, it sounds to me like JD has a nice pool.
Can we all come over for a cannon ball contest next summer, buddy?"

Sure, but I don't have a pool. The funny thing is that I know a few teachers and policmen that do!

"56 mil being handed to someone"

Handed? I think you've bought into the propaghanda. Is he counting it by his swimming pool too?

I bet he "handed" quite a bit of that to the govt. in taxes.

I've never had a problem with anyone making $ as a lawyer or a CEO. Not sure where you got that from.

The only thing I see in common between the two is that they were paid hansomly for being talented professionals in their craft.

....and thank god we can do that here in the U.S.

C. Morris

Remeber when you took out your first 30 year mortgage, you were in by far worse financial shape than this country is in. Borrowing is not bad either. Some of the gov't spending is for things that last longer than the current year - such as infrastructure. Even though the spending takes place in the first year, the use of the asset goes on for many years. By borrowing, you are in effect matching the expenditure stream to the life of the asset.

John E.

If I am fortunate enough to be around in 20 years, I will tell my grandkids about the economy of the early 21st century and how I voted for President Bush twice. My grandkids will probably be astounded by the vast wisdom thier grandfather has.

Terry,

But one difference between the Feds and my 30 year conventional; It had specific terms to be met, and I couldn't print my own money to meet the obligation.

Nine Tb public debt is a problem. But our private debt is, I believe, even higher.

Loon, the Goldman Sachs guy isn't going around and pretending he's Robin Hood with his $56 million. He's being honest and saying he deserves his compensation because of the money he's made for his company, it's employees and its shareholders.

Edwards is the absolute worst hypocrite, and class envy-tinged praise such as yours (trial lawyers are "helping people") only exacerbates Edwards' hubris.

During his career of allegedly championing the helpless, Edwards took exactly ZERO pro bono cases. Not one. He didn't take a single case out of its merits and the goodness of his heart because he felt a victim had been exploited. Every case Edwards argued came with the understanding that his fees came first, win or lose.

This failure is especially noteworthy given that the North Carolina bar's rules of professional responsibility state that "The provision of free legal services to those unable to pay reasonable fees continues to be an obligation of each lawyer ...."

Another difference CMorris is that you, like I, have a finite lifetime and therefore we have restrictions put on our loans. The gov't however is an on-going entity so if they want to borrow over 100 year period, they can if they find a market.

I have no problem reducing the debt and deficit, but I would do it on the spending side of gov't while you want to do it on the increased tax rate side which you mistakenly believe will increase revenues proportionately.

I'll leave you with an economic riddle: Which two tax rates (that percentages for those you with limited math skills) will generate equal tax revenues?

Happy New Year, too, John E.! Looking forward to more spirited debate.

Terry,

I'm sleepy and I'm hungover.
I need to take a nap.

Will you read me the bedtime fairytale story about W.'s "great" economy again ??

Keep putting the lipstick on that pig Repubs !

Happy New Year Everyone !!

John E.,

I don't blame you for drinking a lot, if I thought like you did, I would probably drink a lot also.

I know non-fiction can bore the heck out of imaginative libs, but I give you a couple of tidbits that should put you in lala land:

4.5% nationwide Unemployement, Real average wage growth for non-supervisory employees (that's average worker that you always talk about) of 2.8%, and 62 consectutive months of economic growth.

Sweet Dreams

From the WSJ 12-28-06

"His 'Working Society' agenda would mean a higher feederal minimum wage, reduced taxes for low-income workers, universal health care, and one million new housing vouchers for working families, to help them find homes in neighborhoods with better schools."

A few questions: How does canidate Edwards plan on funding this without running up the deficit? Also, what happens to all the "below average" schools when the students leave?

Terry,

What would pay for universal health coverage? All of us, business included, though probably a smaller burden than they share today.

Just for me, we pay $2,400 per year, my wife another 2,400, plus, if we get sick, another 2k each in deductibles plus limitless co-pays. So, there is our share.

This is what Newt (The Hoot) Gingrich meant when he said Americans need to be involved in the actual cost of health care and thus make their medical care decisions based on the free market.

Translation:' I can't afford that bypass surgery, so I am checking out. Bye Bye.'

Terry,

Great quote;

'Never trust a man that never needs a drink. He's just not paying attention.'

CMorris,

If you truely believe that a gov't run program will do the job cheaper and better than a privately run program. Compare the USPS with FedEx or UPS. Compare public education vs private education. Gov't programs, 9 times out of 10 are more expensive AND do not provide as good of quality of service as private providers.

Terry,
Compare Medicare admin cost to private health insureance admin costs.

Hey Beanie Boy,you forgot one.The privatized airport security.You know,the people that forgot to screen the hi-jackers on 9/11.

Spoken like a true Repub,privatize schools,police,firemen,everything.Pay the workers less,reduce benefits,elimnate vacation time,so much better for workers.

"Hey Beanie Boy,you forgot one.The privatized airport security.You know,the people that forgot to screen the hi-jackers on 9/11."

That was govt. mandated security, meaning every airline had the same amount of security no matter what. Since airlines gained no competitive advantage by beefing up security (based on govt. rules) they went to the bottom of the barrel because everyone was stuck to a "level playing feild"

See what can happen when the govt. plays with capitalism?

So now the people who messed up in the first place have turned around and gotten TSA jobs. I feel SO much safer. The same screeners seem to be working at my preferred airport (Midway) as were working there prior to 9/11. Now they're just getting federal benefits and higher wages. I'm sure they're doing a MUCH better job.

"beanie boy"?

Is that like macacca?

Loon, are you using an insensitive remark towards Terry?

What if he is Jewish? I bet the Swamp could get at least 10 stories out of it.

So now the people who messed up in the first place have turned around and gotten TSA jobs. I feel SO much safer. The same screeners seem to be working at my preferred airport (Midway) as were working there prior to 9/11. Now they're just getting federal benefits and higher wages. I'm sure they're doing a MUCH better job.

Posted by: Bill | Jan 2, 2007 11:32:04 AM

Well,to use one of the right wing analogies,no planes have been hi-jacked under TSA supervision.

But,the real question to you wingers,why don't you like the fact that the TSA offers a little better wage and some benefits?

Always pulling for the little guy huh!

Loon,
The TSA didn't offer better wages and some benefits to the (what was then) current security screeners. They had to do so, so better qualified/educated people would actually consider taking the job. It wasn't just a handout in order to get the (then) current screeners to work harder/smarter, like left wingers love claim happens.

It was to attract an entire new level of worker.

The power of the market speaks again.

Loon, I have NOTHING against TSA. I have to say they've done a great job of keeping our airports safe over the last five years, but we're still vulnerable and always have been. It's the process that's hurting security, not the people

Whether TSA workers get a better wage and benefits is immaterial to the discussion. They're still the same people who had the security jobs at Midway in the first place! I'd love for them to make whatever the market bears for that kind of work. Does that make us any safer? Just because the government's overseeing the security doesn't mean it's necessarily better, no matter what the average security agent at an airport is making.

Most of the problems with airport security before 9/11 were a matter of process and not personnel. It's good that they've stopped wasting travelers and security agents' time with the Three Questions (did you pack your bags yourself, have your bags been in your possession the whole time, has anyone else handled your baggage?) and other changes like that. But do you REALLY think the place is any safer because the federal government is running the show?

The answer isn't creating another bureaucracy, it's getting the right security professionals into managing the program like they did at Boston's Logan Airport.

This guy from Logan, who is an undisputed leader in the field of security, believes that taking people's nail clippers away from their carry-ons doesn't make any of us safer. Bravo!
http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2005/12/08/logan_chief_raps_plan_to_loosen_bans/

If experts in the field agree that this isn't a bad idea why is policy still hampering the work of our airport security workers? Why are we shooting ourselves in the foot? Could it be that a complex government bureaucracy isn't the best way to deal with the rapid change of airport security threats?

End of rant. I'm done here, anyway.

JD,actually,it was Bill who was complaining about the screeners getting higher wages and benefits.But he has quit the Swamp,so there's no way to debate it with him.

And you contradict yourself when trying to defend capitalism.The screeners were given a better deal by the govt.run TSA vs the private run enterprise.And as you say "it was to attract an entire new level of worker.Why didn't they do that when it was private? Because they were more interested in the bottom line than the safety of passengers.I have no problem with capitalism,I have a problem with greed.

I call Terry Beanie Boy because he sounds like a bean counter,nothing personal.

"John E., I don't know who you're speaking of but the John McCain that grew up on military bases and served his country honorably could not in any way be considered a rich man. He's certainly not selling 100-acre, $5 million estates like John Edwards"

Umm, check again Bill. John McCain is the 7th richest member of the US Senate worth over $25 million dollars. That's a rich man in my book.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/overview.asp?type=W&cycle=2005&filter=S

Crazy Duck,

You are pretty perceptive. As far your concept of capitalism, you state "And you contradict yourself when trying to defend capitalism. The screeners were given a better deal by the govt.run TSA vs the private run enterprise" It wasn't capitalism that gave them this deal, it was the gov't.

Jethro,

Compare the total costs and quality and of service. Private industry every time.

Tony,

There is no such thing as a poor second term senator.

who ever said the govt. can't and doesn't get involved with capitallsm?

Loon,
you are right about Bill complaining, not you. my mistake.

I too fly Midway quite a bit and have since 1999. Trust me, the screeners now are NOT the same as pre 9/11.