Kerry picked Edwards.....

phatmonky

Sorry Democrats, but I think that has just about made up my mind for this election year. No 'dark side' ticket for this poster.

Is there any third parties, besided nader, that I can vote for in disgust of my election options?

russ_watters

How about a write-in for Howard Stern? Seriously.

wasteofo2

Or a write in for Howard Dean

Ivan Seeking

That was predictable. I was hoping for a surprise.

Ivan Seeking

Okay, I'm writing in Jesse Ventura and Jesse Jackson.

Gokul43201

The folks over at the New York Post were surprised to hear that it was Edwards. The Post had just named Gephardt as the running mate in a front page exclusive.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/...?oneclick=true

loseyourname

You can always write in Gray Davis. He's got nothing better to do.

check

Well, of the realistic choices I think Edwards was the best... But I'm still disappointed that it's not a Kerry/McCain ticket. Oh well.

GENIERE

Yeah! A McCain-Kerry duo is a strong ticket. It would be much stronger if Kerry weren’t on it. Strange people these liberals who have no qualms about casting a vote for a lifelong conservative such as McCain. He’s not a moderate Republican; he’s not a liberal in disguise. He’s a real-life, walking, talking, conservative. On the key liberal issues, he has a 0% voting record. The ACLU despises him. I can certainly see why a conservative might vote for McCain, but a Democrat would violate his most basic values. Oh, I get it. There are no values to violate.

Perhaps we all should take McCain’s advice and vote for Bush.

revelator

Isn't that similar to Michael Moore saying that you can't argue with conservatives on moral grounds as they have none, you must appeal to their greed.

In your case and Moore's case, it's a pretty ignorant thing to say.

phatmonky

I would sooner vote that pair over almost anything with Edwards on it.

revelator

I don't know very much about Edwards. What's wrong with him?

phatmonky

My main problem is that he made his millions suing OBGYN's for problems with babies that weren't the doctors' fault. In one case an award of ~$20million was issued. He went through several dozen 'expert witnesses' before he could find one to corraborate his case.
He's against tort reform and is in bed with the trial lawyer unions.
This is not even mentioning his lack of experience.

This is the epitome of what I DON'T want in a leader.

Njorl

Edwards is significantly more experienced than Bush was 4 years ago.

Arguing against Edwards for being a successful lawyer is nonsense. Would you be happier if those injured by doctors had no recourse? Would you be happier if he was bad at his job? John Edwards never decided a single court case. He never established a single monetary settlement. If you don't like the jury awards, or the judgements, your problem should be with them. If he won a case that was not meritorious, your problem should be with the other lawyer. If you don't believe in the adversarial justice system, your problem is with the United States of America.

Medical malpractice kills almost 100,000 Americans a year. It injures many times that number. Injuries at birth require a lifetime of care, often costing tens of thousands of dollars per year. There is no punishment for medical incompetence other than private lawsuits. For that reason, punitive damages are the only means to stop insurance companies from insuring (and so stop hospitals from hiring) incompetent doctors. Tort reform is a sham designed to make it economical to employ incompetent doctors.

If the AMA does not want juries incorrectly finding against competent doctors, they should reverse their policy of protecting incompetent doctors at all costs.

Njorl

phatmonky

blah blah blah... the other lawyer didn't go through his dozens of expert witnesses trying to find one to support this claim. This is a great character story IMO. It shows Edwards true colors.
The system IS screwed up, and Edwards is against tort reform, and for protectionism. ATLA is his best friend.

Protecting incompetent doctors? Perhaps I am more sensitive to this all since I am in Texas, but in 2001, 52% of Texas physicians were sued for malpractice. You're telling me that is right? that is what is supposed to be happening?? That is a lawyer problem, not a doctor problem.


EDIT - and let's not forget that he is also against tort safety for doctors who donate their time to do free procedures. A doctor goes to help for a day at an inner city area, short of doctors from huge tort, and in exchange he gets sued for his FREE assistance.

phatmonky

And I guess with the idea that it's the jury's fault, not edward's case, then this won't matter:

Yes yes, I can see that it's a conservative domain name.....
http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewPolitics...20040120a.html

Wallstreet journal story on edward's favorite, 'baby brain damage' cases:
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/h...ng_justice.htm

Tons more where this comes from www.google.com
Edwards cases were built on sifting through tons of witnesses and flaky science. Despite this, he still supports no tort reform.

selfAdjoint

Sounds like a Texas problem.


So incompetent doctors who practice on poor people for free should not be attacked? What about the poor victims of the incompetence, should they be told "Tough luck, but remember you got damaged for FREE!".