debating William Tucker about John Edwards

Sorry about the slow posting this week. But just so you don’t think I’m lazy: I spent the week debating William Tucker in the Legal Affairs debate club.

This entry was posted in presidential politics. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to debating William Tucker about John Edwards

  1. jc says:

    Tucker : “I think we went in there, first, because we thought it would be an easy conflict and second, because at that point there had been a war in nearly every generation and it seemed only natural there should be another.”

    Dear god, Is he really saying that part of the reason for going to war was .. what? That the nation was bored that it had been a while since the last war?

    If true, that’s absolutely horrible..

  2. Raoul says:

    We invaded Iraq because G. W,. appears to Bin Laden’s lacky who does everything that Bin Laden wants. We’re so easily duped.

  3. Max Lybbert says:

    Regarding the original point of the debate (that is trial lawyers as politicians), its really a question of phrasing. Ask anybody about frivolous lawsuits and you’ll get a very heated response. Nobody remembers her name, but Stella Liebeck (the lady who sued McDonalds over her coffee burn) still upsets people. There are reasons to believe Liebeck had quite a few good points to her case, but the public never listened long enough to hear them. Bush recognizes this negative response, so he’s trying to say that trial lawyers == frivolous lawsuits (“constantly calling [him] a trial lawyer may not … change a lot of votes; indeed, … in some places … it’ll probably help the Dems. But here’s what [they’re] missing: John Trial Lawyer Edwards is going to re-energize key segments of the GOP base who might otherwise have wavered. Doctors. Small business owners. The US Chamber of Commerce. The Business Roundtable and the National Association of Manufacturers.”).

    Regarding Edwards’s past, it must be noted that the man hasn’t always had the facts on his side (“John Edwards [once claimed] that maternity-ward missteps caused newborns to develop cerebral palsy. The theory that doctor error is a common cause of CP was dubious when Mr. Edwards used it to win his cases, from the 1980s to the mid-1990s, and is universally rejected by experts today.”). My personal experience has been limited to writing him (as one of my state’s senators) about the attempt to extend copyright-like protection to databases. Unfortunately he responded with a common politician’s letter stating that it was important to find the balance. His letter didn’t say where he thought that balance was, and I was left to wonder if he really cares. I doubt it was important enough to him to actually show up for a vote on the issue, and that bothers me (I should note that North Carolina is demanding of its lawmakers, we pay state legislators less than $15,000/year, plus $100 per day the legislature actually meets to cover hotel bills and expenses). Yes, I know that he guest-blogged here; I also know that guest-blogging doesn’t change the law.

    Aside from his book about two Americas, I really have no clue what Edwards believes (“there came a time in Edwards’s life when he looked in the mirror and saw a U.S. President smiling shyly back at him. The only mystery is what Edwards knew about himself that we haven’t yet seen. What hidden qualities of leadership and wisdom? … We’ve seen none of these things, since … his opinions seem to be suspiciously close to what an election strategist might have told him it would be useful for him to believe. “).

    Yes, I know he energizes Democrats when he preaches to the choir, and I know that several Democrats think he’s got what it takes to spread the word. I haven’t seen enough to convinve me.

Leave a Reply