In Desperate Move, Kerry Adopts Puppy

[abu afak]

In Desperate Move, Kerry Adopts Puppy
July 7, 2004
anncoulter.com


I guess with John Kerry's choice of John Edwards as his running mate, he really does want to stand up for all Americans, from those worth only $60 million to those worth in excess of $800 million.

In one of the many stratagems Democrats have developed to avoid telling people what they believe, all Edwards wants to talk about is his cracker-barrel humble origins story. We're supposed to swoon over his "life story," as the flacks say, which apparently consists of the amazing fact that ... his father was a millworker!

That's right up there with "Clinton's stepdad was a drunk" and "Ted Kennedy's dad was a womanizing bootlegger" on my inspirational life-stories meter. In fact, I'm immediately renouncing my university degrees and going to work for the post office just to give my future children a shot at having a "life story," should they decide to run for president someday.


What is so amazing about Edwards' father being a millworker? That's at least an honorable occupation -- as opposed to being a trial lawyer. True, Edwards made more money than his father did. I assume strippers make more money than their alcoholic fathers who abandoned them did, too. This isn't a story of progress; it's a story of devolution.

Despite the overwrought claims of Edwards' dazzling legal skills, winning jury verdicts in personal injury cases has nothing to do with legal talent and everything to do with getting the right cases -- unless "talent" is taken to mean "having absolutely no shame." Edwards specialized in babies with cerebral palsy whom he claimed would have been spared the affliction if only the doctors had immediately performed Caesarean sections.

As a result of such lawsuits, there are now more than four times as many Caesarean sections as there were in 1970. But curiously, there has been no change in the rate of babies born with cerebral palsy. As The New York Times reported: "Studies indicate that in most cases, the disorder is caused by fetal brain injury long before labor begins." All those Caesareans have, however, increased the mother's risk of death, hemorrhage, infection, pulmonary embolism and Mendelson's syndrome.

In addition, the "little guys" Edwards claims to represent are having a lot more trouble finding doctors to deliver their babies these days as obstetricians leave the practice rather than pay malpractice insurance in excess of $100,000 a year.

In one of Edwards' silver-tongued arguments to the jury on behalf of a girl born with cerebral palsy, he claimed he was channeling the unborn baby girl, Jennifer Campbell, who was speaking to the jurors through him:

"She said at 3, 'I'm fine.' She said at 4, 'I'm having a little trouble, but I'm doing OK.' Five, she said, 'I'm having problems.' At 5:30, she said, 'I need out.'"

She's saying, "My lawyer needs a new Jaguar ... "

"She speaks to you through me and I have to tell you right now -- I didn't plan to talk about this -- right now I feel her. I feel her presence. She's inside me, and she's talking to you."

Well, tell her to pipe down, would you? I'm trying to hear the evidence in a malpractice lawsuit.

To paraphrase Oscar Wilde on the death of Little Nell, one must have a heart of stone to read this without laughing. What is this guy, a tent-show preacher? An off-the-strip Las Vegas lounge psychic couldn't get away with this routine.

Is Edwards able to channel any children right before an abortionist's fork is plunged into their tiny skulls? Why can't he hear those babies saying, "Let me live! Stop spraying this saline solution all over me!" Edwards must experience interference in channeling the voices of babies about to be aborted. Their liberal mothers' hands seem to muffle those voices.

And may we ask what the pre-born Jennifer Campbell thinks about war with Iraq? North Korea? Marginal tax rates? If Miss Cleo here is going to be a heartbeat away from the presidency, I think the voters are entitled to know that.

While making himself fabulously rich by taking a one-third cut of his multimillion-dollar verdicts coaxed out of juries with junk science and maudlin performances, Edwards has the audacity to claim, "I was more than just their lawyer; I cared about them. Their cause was my cause."

If he cared so deeply, how about keeping just 10 percent of the multimillion-dollar jury awards, rather than a third? In fact, as long as these Democrats are so eager to raise the taxes of "the rich," how about a 90 percent tax on contingency fees?

For someone who didn't care about the money, it's interesting that Edwards avoided cases in which the baby died during delivery. Evidently, jury awards average only about $500,000 when the babies die, and there is no disabled child to parade before the jury.

Edwards was one of the leading opponents of a bill in the North Carolina Legislature that would have established a fund for all babies born with cerebral palsy. So instead of all disabled babies in North Carolina being compensated equitably, only a few will win the jury lottery -- one-third of which will go to trial lawyers like Edwards, who insists he doesn't care about the money.

Despite the now-disproved junk science theory about C-sections preventing cerebral palsy that Edwards peddled in the channeling case, the jury awarded Edwards' client a record-breaking $6.5 million. This is the essence of the modern Democratic Party, polished to perfection by Bill Clinton: They are willing to insult the intelligence of 49 percent of the people if they think they can fool 51 percent of the people.

So while Michael Moore, Al Franken, George Soros, Crazy Al Gore and the rest of the characters from the climactic devil-worshipping scene in "Rosemary's Baby" provide the muscle for the Kerry campaign, Kerry picks a pretty-boy milquetoast as his running mate, narrowly edging out a puppy for the spot. Just don't ask the Democrats what they believe. Edwards' father was a millworker, and that's all you need to know.

[I am David]

Just don't ask the Democrats what they believe. Edwards' father was a millworker, and that's all you need to know.

This quote basically sums up the intellectual content of the article.

[abu afak]

This quote basically sums up the intellectual content of the article.

While Ann Coulter is clearly very Partisan and occasionally even shrill, she often also hits things on the nose .. such as above.
Not to mention her wonderful and biting wit.

Besides informing us somewhat about his career, She really nails why Edwards was picked (finally.. and perhaps after others rejected the spot); For his youthful good looks/puppy-like appeal.

Aside from the politically offended other puppy above... intelligent responses to the article are also welcome.

[I am David]

Aside from the above politically offended other puppy above...

Hmm, am I being called names and dismissed because I disagree with you, or because you assume I'm a liberal, or what? And why should either of those options be reason for calling someone childish names.

[abu afak]

Hmm, am I being called names because I disagree with you, or because you assume I'm a liberal, or what?

did you call anncoulter (and ME/my posting of her article) "names" because she/we disagreed with your political point of view?

hmmm

Any insult/"lack of intelligence" began in YOUR Post...

EDIT///
PS: I am done with responding to this poster in this string.. lest it deteriorate further.. other responses by other posters are still welcome.

ty/aa

[I am David]

Besides informing us somewhat about his career, She really nails why Edwards was picked (finally.. and perhaps after others rejected the spot); For his youthful good looks/puppy-like appeal.

And for an energy injection, and for swing-voter popularity, and for moderate conservative apeal, and others. What's your point?

[I am David]

did you call anncoulter (and ME/my posting of her article) "names" because she/we disagreed with your political point of view?

hmmm

Any insult/"lack of intelligence" began in YOUR Post.
No.

I'd like to have a civil, polite debate about an article disagreeing with me but its hard to do that when the article is about as intellectual as "Just don't ask the Democrats what they believe. Edwards' father was a millworker, and that's all you need to know."

I.E - there wasnt much to debate, other than the 'witty' put-downs and unfair distortions.

Oh, boy, I insulted an article :rolleyes:

[I am David]

EDIT///
PS: I am done with responding to this poster in this string.. lest it deteriorate further.. other responses by other posters are still welcome.

Well ok...But I wouldnt set my expectations too high for an article so partisan and distortive.

EDIT:

Also, I don't understand why your being so hard on me. I've debated with you before and I've just been called a partisan liberal who was only saying what I said because I'm a liberal. If that's how you treat someone when they try and debate you, then I guess you were hoping for people to simply agree with you?

[Mediocrates]

Ann Coulter is paid to be hysterical. She knows she's over the top for the most part, no dummy (Cornell, honors; U Michigan Law, Editor Law Review) but inflammatory is always job one.

[I am David]

You think? You listen to people like her and Hannity, Levin, Malzberg, and I can't imagine them ever admitting the're even wrong in the slightest. Although I'd like to believe it, for humanity's sake.

[abu afak]

"...Besides informing us somewhat about his career, She really nails why Edwards was picked (finally.. and perhaps after others rejected the spot); For his youthful good looks/puppy-like appeal.

Kerry picks Edwards to add zest


By ALAN FREEMAN
Wednesday, July 7, 2004 - Page A1

WASHINGTON -- Opting for Charisma Over Experience, Democratic presidential hopeful John Kerry has selected John Edwards, the North Carolina senator with Movie-Star looks, as his vice-presidential running mate in November's election.

The choice of Mr. Edwards, a rookie senator known for his smooth speaking style and appeal to blue-collar voters, is expected to give the Democratic ticket the electioneering zest missing from Mr. Kerry's long-winded and dour style...."

http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/freeheadlines/LAC/20040707/USKERRY07/international/International

[I am David]

So he doesn't have enough experience?

[abu afak]

Kerry picks Edwards to add zest


By ALAN FREEMAN
Wednesday, July 7, 2004 - Page A1

WASHINGTON -- Opting for Charisma Over Experience, Democratic presidential hopeful John Kerry has selected John Edwards, the North Carolina senator with Movie-Star looks, as his vice-presidential running mate in November's election.

The choice of Mr. Edwards, a rookie senator known for his smooth speaking style and appeal to blue-collar voters, is expected to give the Democratic ticket the electioneering zest missing from Mr. Kerry's long-winded and dour style...."

http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/freeheadlines/LAC/20040707/USKERRY07/international/International
Reuters:

Kerry picks Edwards
Wed 7 July, 2004 04:35

SENATOR JOHN EDWARDS

By John Whitesides, Political Correspondent

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democrat John Kerry has chosen Youthful Energy (Woof! Woof!) over Seasoned Experience after he picked John Edwards as his running mate, hoping the Fresh-Faced Rookie (Woof! Woof!) broadens the ticket's appeal and wins over swing voters crucial to capturing the White House in November.

Edwards brings charisma and an image of sunny optimism to Kerry, a sometimes plodding campaigner who has been slammed by President George W. Bush as too pessimistic, and the choice balances the Massachusetts senator's sometimes elitist liberal image with a Southern populist from working-class roots.

http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=542612&section=news

[I am David]

Point Point?

[Ahava]

Ann Coulter is paid to be hysterical. She knows she's over the top for the most part, no dummy (Cornell, honors; U Michigan Law, Editor Law Review) but inflammatory is always job one.

She surely is hysterical!
http://users.rcn.com/skutsch/anticoulter/quotes.html
OMG:

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."

There are no good Democrats.

"I think, on the basis of the recent Supreme Court ruling that we can't execute the retarded, American journalists commit mass murder without facing the ultimate penalty," Ms. Coulter told me. "I think they are retarded. I'm trying to communicate to the American people and I have to work through a retarded person!" :confused:

I think I'm gonna join the anti-Coulter club. :cool:

[abu afak]

Kerry picks Edwards to add zest


By ALAN FREEMAN
Wednesday, July 7, 2004 - Page A1

WASHINGTON -- Opting for Charisma Over Experience, Democratic presidential hopeful John Kerry has selected John Edwards, the North Carolina senator with Movie-Star looks, as his vice-presidential running mate in November's election....."

http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/freeheadlines/LAC/20040707/USKERRY07/international/International
Reuters:

Kerry picks Edwards
Wed 7 July, 2004 04:35

SENATOR JOHN EDWARDS

By John Whitesides, Political Correspondent

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democrat John Kerry has chosen Youthful Energy (Woof! Woof!) over Seasoned Experience after he picked John Edwards as his running mate, hoping the Fresh-Faced Rookie (Woof! Woof!) broadens the ticket's appeal and wins over swing voters crucial to capturing the White House in November.

Edwards brings charisma and an image of sunny optimism to Kerry, a sometimes plodding campaigner who has been slammed by President George W. Bush as too pessimistic, and the choice balances the Massachusetts senator's sometimes elitist liberal image with a Southern populist from working-class roots.

http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=542612&section=news

Interesting.

All the unable seek to make the author (who I called partisan and occasionally Shrill) the Topic instead of her Right on point.. including now (inevitably) those who have no real interest in ths string except piling on/personality-partisanship.

A shame this good article has gone to waste.

I may post it again when the crowd is more sober.

Sorry to all those who had to watch the ridiculous shenannigans on the last page that sought to, and DID, sabotage this string.

sincerely, aa

[Ahava]

Are you Ann Coulter's husband? You're just as hysterical.

Have a nice day

[I am David]

He's not content with impersonal character smears, he has to accuse me of thread sabatatoge because I accused the article was devoid of any logically backed argument. I think this thread was sabatoged from the beggining by the ridiculousness and absurdity of the author (coulter) of the article. Even so, I asked what Abu's point was that Edwards was picked for Charisma, or if he had enough experience, and I was ignored. Instead I was accused of thread sabotage .

[abu afak]

Kerry picks Edwards to add zest


By ALAN FREEMAN
Wednesday, July 7, 2004 - Page A1

WASHINGTON -- Opting for Charisma Over Experience, Democratic presidential hopeful John Kerry has selected John Edwards, the North Carolina senator with Movie-Star looks, as his vice-presidential running mate in November's election....."

http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/freeheadlines/LAC/20040707/USKERRY07/international/International
Reuters:

Kerry picks Edwards
Wed 7 July, 2004 04:35

SENATOR JOHN EDWARDS

By John Whitesides, Political Correspondent

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democrat John Kerry has chosen Youthful Energy (Woof! Woof!) over Seasoned Experience after he picked John Edwards as his running mate, hoping the Fresh-Faced Rookie (Woof! Woof!) broadens the ticket's appeal and wins over swing voters crucial to capturing the White House in November.

Edwards brings charisma and an image of sunny optimism to Kerry, a sometimes plodding campaigner who has been slammed by President George W. Bush as too pessimistic, and the choice balances the Massachusetts senator's sometimes elitist liberal image with a Southern populist from working-class roots.

http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=542612&section=news
More "Hysterics" from the NY Times (to add to to those other notoriously 'rabid' News sources... Reuters and the Toronto Globe and Mail)

http://www.NYTimes.com/2004/07/11/weekinreview/11stol.html

Cute, Sure, but Is He Electable? (Woof! Woof!)
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG

July 11, 2004
NYTimes.com

WASHINGTON — Ever since John F. Kennedy trounced Richard M. Nixon in a televised debate during the 1960 presidential race, the rule of thumb in politics has been that looks count.

But can a candidate look too good for his own good? That is the question facing John Edwards's handlers (My God! he's even got 'handlers'.. it's like Westminster!.. abu), now that Senator John Kerry, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, has picked Mr. Edwards to be his running mate. Mr. Edwards, whose movie star looks earned him recognition as People magazine's "sexiest politician" in 2000, is fighting attempts by Republicans to paint him as youthful and inexperienced. Rush Limbaugh's favorite nickname for Mr. Edwards is "the Breck Girl."...."

[Mediocrates]

I am an Edwards constituent and he didn't run for the Senate on his looks. Though I'm still struggling to remember what if anything he did for North Carolina I'll submit that the Veep really doesn't need much in the way of 'experience' whatever that is. What is adequate experience for the job? Anything like Bush's resume of foreign policy experience as the rather weak governor of a large state? I say weak because the Texas constitution doesn't afford much actual power to the job, by definition. In fact, being a Senator probably puts him in better shape to manage Congress than being a governor, the usual prior job of almost all presidents and veeps.

What FP experience did Nixon have when he was veep other than getting Alger Hiss thrown in jail and calling his 1948 congressional opponent a lesbian? And by the time he was president he had been out of public service for 8 years.

What FP experience did Reagan have for that matter - and we got to hear how one of his virtues was that he didn't have any experience at all - he was a committed independent thinker....

No I think that's a fake thing to talk about and self gratifying oxyheads like Rush who are paid to make people dislike him are really grasping.

You don't like lawyers as Presidents or veeps? Ok how about Spies? - Bush I.

[minusthejihad]

If you don't mind me asking, who will you be voting for Medio?

[abu afak]

I am an Edwards constituent and he didn't run for the Senate on his looks. Though I'm still struggling to remember what if anything he did for North Carolina ...."

And polls have it the Dems won't even win his Home state/North Carolina, and that Edwards wouldn't even have won re-election there either!
(Dang things are a real pain to the Owners until they're house broken... even if Cute to others on the street/campaign trail)

None of your above.. changes the Funny and accurate characterization of him as political "puppy" and being chosen for some of those attributes. ..
interesting stuff on Veeps tho.

[Mediocrates]

I have never voted Republican in a national election since after 1980 when it was practically a necessity. I have voted for plenty of Republicans at the state and local level, in NYS even but less so down here where the Democrats are only a little to the right Nelson Rockefeller.

I think I will worry about this country first, this time round, and give Bush a timeout and a congenial handshake. Not real thrilled with the alternative but once I heard calm talk of delaying/suspending election day I decided I can't live with a candidate who doesn't understand how incredibly screwed up that is. I am surprisingly liberal on domestic issues because this is where my family and I have to live.

Terry Heinz? -don't really care. If she had all this magical power over her husband she would have exercized it before and I don't see that. His record on Israel is pretty good all the same. Not perfect but who's is? I still challenge someone to demonstrate what the current administration has really done to directly benefit Israel over and above what you would expect of American policy anyone else notwithstanding. The sense of it that I have is that America's relationship with Israel will more or less continue as it has. Even in the absence of the Cold War we are still strategic, technical and economic partners with one another and there are countries all over the world the US has close relations where those countries internal politics and situation are a mess. And people should note that in fact the trend is to reduce American aid to Israel on a year over year basis. It's happening today and if Bibi or the next Bibi can wrest some rational order out of the Israeli economy one can see a day where US aid dwindles away to a non issue.

It's probably somewhat true that the Israelis most difficult relations are with themselves. They aren't exactly their own worst enemies so much as suffering from a political system that breeds anarchy by default.

On the other hand the strategic threats to Israel and to the US are the same regardless of who is in the White House. Iran ranks near the top of that list. And I don't see either candidate articulating a rational strategy to confront that that is much different from one another. All our EuroQuackers here like to bash Bush but what they don't understand is that American policy really doesn't whipsaw very much. How we respond to panics really doesn't vary that much either. Does anyone seriously propose that a Democrat by definition would have handled post 9-11 materially different if what we're saying now is that everyone had bad information and lied about it? We would probably not be in Iraq now, for better or worse but Saddam would have been gone either way and Iraq would look much the same as it does now. These are all slow moving policy questions - that's why people I think are ennamored of foreign policy - because there is a lot less you can do about it compared to what's happening at home.

And what is happening at home? Well the state economy is down, the regional economy is down, the stock market is flat, jobs growth is positive but disappointing, we still have the PATRIOT act, we still have an FCC that has no idea what the public interest is, we still have 80% of the people in the jail for nonviolent drug crimes under crazy mandatory laws and segments of the administration who are fundamentalist hardcore literal apocalyptic Christians who honestly want to tell me I'll roast in Hell for not accepting
Christ and would prefer to make that the law of the land if they could. We also have 3 SC justices who will retire soon and as if the SC wasn't activist-conservative enough around the core of Rehnquist-Scalia-Thomas, the next president may get to apppoint 1 or 2 more which will definitively swing the SC further to the right than it has ever been since the end of the 19th Century. We also have hundreds of Federal Court appointees held up in Congressional deadlock and this could be resolved if a new administration wiped the slate clean and started over.

I don't imagine for a moment this would be paradise. I voted for Rudy Giuliani when NYC was going down in flames and what we needed was a fascist. But then it wasn't time for a fascist anymore and we had to get rid of him. I a voted for D'Amato because he got things done and Pataki for the same reason. But I even voted for Clinton, because you would have to be crazy in my view to want Bob Dole and/or George HW Bush or any of those lesser minor lunatics. But politics is the art of the possible isn't it?

[Mediocrates]

And polls have it the Dems won't even win his Home state/North Carolina, and that Edwards wouldn't even have won re-election there either!
(Dang things are a real pain to the Owners until they're house broken... even if Cute to others on the street/campaign trail)

None of your above.. changes the Funny and accurate characterization of him as political "puppy" and being chosen for some of those attributes. ..
interesting stuff on Veeps tho.


That may be true but let's face facts. The Republicans down here hate Libby Dole just as much because a) she's a woman and b) she's not conservative enough. The Democratic core in North Carolina is Charlotte and Asheville region. If you don't carry those areas you don't get elected as a Democrat but those are the only areas you really need. Edwards would be running against his own party if he reran down here. People don't understand how strong the political dynasty of Erskine Bolles is. His family goes back to national politics under FDR.