John Edwards supporters - please take a look at this letter

[Stuckinthebush]

The following is a letter posted on Andrew Sullivan's web site - http://www.andrewsullivan.com

Mods, please advise on copyright issues in regard to letters - if I need to trim it, I will.

Some background on me - I am a Dean supporter who is now in limbo waiting to see who wins the nomination. I know, I know...but it is just still too early for me to commit yet. Anyway, I, like other Dean people, think that either Kerry of Edwards would be fine in the GE against Bush. I am of the mindset that I could support either one in the GE. I saw this letter from a North Carolinian and was struck by some of his/her points about Edwards. Read it and give me some feedback on the writer's points, the validity of these points. and the play they would get in the GE. Oh, and please, no flames - I am truly interested in Edwards supporters thoughts on this.

Here 'tis...the letter is aimed at Andrew Sullivan and I'm assuming a conservative wrote it:


"It bothers and worries me to see how enamored you have become of John Edwards’ candidacy. I live in North Carolina, and having witnessed his rapid rise to national prominence I feel I should hold up a sign that says, "Warning, Turn Back NOW!" Edwards does have skill and charisma, but his primary skill is the ability to convince a jury (and an electorate) that he has substance. There is no evidence that he knows how to govern. He has never done it, at any level.
And remember, Edwards has also never been re-elected to any political office, has never been reaffirmed at the polls by those he represents. There are plenty of Carolinians who are convinced he decided to run for President only because he would be unlikely to be re-elected as Senator based on his performance in office so far. He began running for President less than half way through his first term in Washington, and consequently has done nothing for his constituents, unless one considers his actual constituency to be the trial lawyers lobby and those few who had the opportunity to give him 35% of the proceeds of their litigation.
For all the concern about other politicians’ ties to ‘special interests’, here we have a candidate who is financed by and is running for the trial lawyers, the richest and most entrenched special interest of all. It boggles the mind to realize that someone with no experience in government, no demonstrated understanding of international relations and no meaningful record in domestic affairs is being touted so highly for the most important job in the world, simply because he is a pretty face with the backing of serious money. And because he is not Kerry, Dean, or a Republican".

[ShaneGR]

1. www.wade.org

And sorry, Sullivan is a Repug.

[Stuckinthebush]

18. Yes, Sullivan is a conservative

But he is pissed at Bush, supports Edwards, and has conservatives and liberals alike write letters to him. I wonder how valid some of this guys points are in relation to Southern voters' understanding of JE.

[AP]

2. 93% of DEMOCRATS in NC approve of Edards's run.

I wouldn't trust anyone who writes to Andrew Sullivan, and I wouldn't trust anything I read on a site run by Andrew Sullivan.

Sullivan does NOT want a Democrat to win in Nov. no matter what he pretends on his web site.

[Stuckinthebush]

3. I know...

But he is pretty pissed about the gay marriage amendment.

I have thought - and heard - that Southern conservatives would be more likely to support Edwards. Does he have a bad rap in the South that we don't know about?

[AP]

6. Sullivans vision of gay marriage is every bit as conservative as Bush's --

it's the opposite pole on axis that exists entirely on the right side of the political spectrum.

Sullivan has no interest in seeing gay couples accumulate wealth and power in the face of teh corporotocracy. He wants to single income gay couples struggling to make it like everyone else who don't have good benefits, aren't saving money, and can't stand up and tell big corporations to keep their hands off their wallets.

[AP]

4. Also, if trial lawyers were richest and most entrenched special interest

group in America, Bush wouldn't be presdient, Republicans wouldn't run three branches of government, and the insurance companies, oil industry and banks wouldn't be having record profits in an economy in which people who work for a living are suffering.

[Stuckinthebush]

5. Ain't that the truth...

Does the whole "trial lawyers are evil" crap play well in the South, or is it just a desperate attempt at smearing JE?

[ShaneGR]

9. They tried to smear him with it in 96

He brought out the families he represented and beat an entrenched Repug from the Jesse Helms machine. In fact, Helms gave the eulogy for Edwards son on the floor of the Senate. Generally, he terrifies them.

[democratreformed]

10. It plays well..... just my opinion. n/t

[AP]

11. Here's what Nick Lemann says about trial lawyers and the south:

http://blog.johnedwards2004.com/comments.pl?sid=2432&op=&newsid=04/02/22/2258208&threshold=0&commentsort=1&mode=nested&cid=100444


In most places, liberal politics rests on labor unions—but not in the South, because it is a region where unions are weak, and where industries came, in part, to avoid unions. Non-economic liberalism, based on causes like environmentalism, legal abortion, and gun control, doesn't work in the South, either, because it is such a socially conservative region. The South does, however, still have a deeply ingrained underdog consciousness, and one place where that manifests itself is in the personal-injury courtroom. Throughout much of the South, trial lawyers are, in effect, the left: an influential group that, instead of converting populist sentiment into redistributionist legislation, converts it into big rewards for a small number of people who have stories of having been screwed by powerful, uncaring figures. Big jury verdicts in tort cases are what the South has instead of unions. It does not seem at all far-fetched to imagine that this version of liberalism could someday reach a national audience. The country is moving more and more toward a courtroom-style politics of anecdote.

On television, traditional evening-news broadcasts have lost viewers, and "news-magazine" shows often have the feeling of news as tort law, featuring narratives of individuals fighting back against doctors and corporations. Tort-law movies like "Erin Brockovich" and "A Civil Action" are a popular new genre. The airwaves are full of conservative populists railing against the liberal élite, and their force is much more a function of how dramatic their stories and their rhetoric are than of their actual circumstances. (Bill O'Reilly is no less effective as a populist for being rich than John Edwards is.) A climactic moment in every State of the Union Message is the introduction of the heroic "real people" sitting in the gallery next to the First Lady.

Presidential campaigns are always presented as being about the larger-than-lifeness of the candidate, but they embody something going on in the society, too. Edwards is a political novice who aims at communicating to people one wouldn't ordinarily think of as populists—middle-class and lower-middle-class suburbanites—that he completely gets it ("it" being the way the big guys are messing with their lives), and that he's going to do something about it. As a candidate, he is placing a bet that there's much more aggrievement around in the lone superpower than most people think. No matter how his candidacy turns out, he may well be betting right.

[democratreformed]

16. He sure has a different view that most people I know.

I have hear all my life about "crooked lawyers". And, most people I know are sick to death of the constant advertisements that begin with "if you have been injured......" Radio, television, newspapers, you name, there are tons of them advertising to get your business and take part of whatever "justice" they win for you.

Myself, I have actually been on a federal jury where I witnessed for myself one of those lawyers try to paint a picture that just wasn't true to get a load of money for the "victim". He lost that one. Many don't.

[AP]

22. Crooked lawyers is a national thing. However, Matlock and Atticus Finch

are very southern.

By the way, if you were on a federal jury in a civil matter, by definition, would have had to have been for a ton of money.

There are money limits for claims in federal court, and they have to have some kind of federal issue at stake (interstate commerce).

You should spend some time in bankruptcy court or county court if you want to see lawyers working for little people on little matters (which is the bulk of what happens in courts in America).

[democratreformed]

26. I had to go where I was called.

You're right, it was interstate commerce. Traffic accident on the interstate, to be exact. I was on another case after that which involved breach of contract with a very large corporation. It was fascinating. That one was for the little guy - sort of. The big corporation pretended they were going to buy his business just long enough to get all his manufacturing ideas and then started their own. He won. Each side had six lawyers. The large corporation paid a special court reporter to type every single word said in court every day for the next day's use. After our verdict, someone told us that our decision was the third time a jury had reached the same decision in the same case. I hope the little guy finally got his money.

I wouldn't want to go to bankruptcy court. Every minute would remind of how many times I have almost given up and gone there for myself.

County court - I'm not sure about. There have been some murder cases in my county and I don't know how I'd feel about that.
Nevertheless, some day, I may be called at the county level. And I will go.

[AP]

31. Hmm. I wonder how that case kept going back to trial.

Must have been some RW judge finding an out for the big corporation.

That's sick.

RW'ers complain about frivolous lawsuits. You just gave an example of a frivolous defense by a big corporation. It's amazing that they wouldn't settle. They must think they can rig the justice system in their favor.

[democratreformed]

37. It was about fourteen years ago.

There was no contract. It was a "handshake" deal. I'm not sure why it kept going back to trial. I was only involved in that one. The big corporation, of course, contended that there was no contract. It was up to us, the jury, to decide if a "handshake deal" constituted a contract. Based on the evidence, we all decided it did in this case. It was very interesting to be a part of - even though I did have to miss the first two day of the school year (I was a teacher then).

[spooky3]

35. Polls showed Edwards with a large lead for Senate reelection

before he chose not to run again.

http://www.dcpoliticalreport.com/2004/NCPoll.htm

[maddezmom]

7. not planning on reading it, but isn't he the guy that said

bush* would support gay marriage?

[Stuckinthebush]

14. I don't know about that...but I do know he is pissed off now

He seems to despise Bush for the whole anti-gay amendment.

[maddezmom]

29. here it is

http://www.andrewsullivan.com/main_article.php?artnum=20031210

[Stuckinthebush]

33. Thanks...(n/t)

[GainesT1958]

8. One thing tipped me off as to their ideology...

"Trial lawyers...the most entrenched special interest of all."

He (or she) is saying TRIAL LAWYERS are the MOST ENTRENCHED special interest? :wtf:

Apparently, Kenny Boy and Enron don't count, along with Halliburton, Bechtel, Pharmaceutical companies, broadcast conglomerates, etc. :mad:

This guy had some valid points about John Edwards, to be honest, UNTIL the "trial lawyers" thing. That just killed his credibility, as well as being a dead giveaway...and reinforced all the bad things we "know and love" about Andrew Sullivan, to boot! x(

Plus, I'm not so sure that John Edwards WOULD lose re-election in North Carolina, given the state of the economy here...and no Repub offering ANY meaningful solution to it...while being more and more at odds with Dub all the time themselves. If both candidates run against Dub's "policies", why would voters vote for someone from his party over someone who's challenged those "policies" every step of the way?

In addition, right now Erskine Bowles is ahead of his most likely Repub opponent! :bounce:

B-)

[Stuckinthebush]

12. Right...the whole lawyer thing was a giveaway, however...

are some of the other points valid? The lawyer bit is pure drivel (but may play well with some).

Can Edwards be successfully painted as a guy who has little to no experience in office and that he is running because he has no other option?

[AP]

If Bowles is beating the Republican, Edwards definitely would have.

Which is why you don't hear the Edwards-haters talking about this.

[Stuckinthebush]

15. Valid point...

Why doesn't your above post have a number attached to it? That's weird.

[napi21]

17. I'm planning on voting for JE on 3/2

I ;ive in Ga. and am a Dean supporter, but it looks like the election is going to be a decision between 2 candates. I'm planning on voting for JE because I think he could beat the pants off of GW in debates. After all, isn't that what trial lawyers do all the time?

I think the Dems can feel pretty secure in the votes from the blue states no matter who the nominee is, but I also think JE might have a slight edge because he is from the South.

[Stuckinthebush]

21. That would make sense....

and I don't totally disagree with that logic, however, I have some anecdotal evidence that disagrees with that logic.

My father in law is a South Carolina GOP voter. I posted a few weeks back about a conversation I had with him regarding the Dem nominees. He said that Kerry could win more votes in the South than Edwards because of his experience, his history fighting for veterans, and Edwards inexperience. He even said he would vote for Kerry, but that he needed Edwards as his VP. So, he won't vote for Edwards as the Pres, but he would insist on having Edwards as Kerry's VP if he were to vote for Kerry.

Interesting.

[citizen snips]

13. Well for one thing.

" Edwards does have skill and charisma, but his primary skill is the ability to convince a jury (and an electorate) that he has substance".

I think Edwards has the best charisma to take on Bush and his crowds keep on growing his voice is starting to resonate well with voters.

[Bombtrack]

19. There is nothing but the same misleading smears that he's gotten over and

over and over. Why would you post this? There is absolutely not one new critism that 99 percent of people who follow the news haven't already seen.

All of the basic "flaws" that Edwards has as a candidate are virtually impossible to be used to any substantitive effect by the GOP because the candidate he is facing is Bush. And almost all of them will backfire. Unlike with Kerry.

[Stuckinthebush]

23. I haven't heard about Carolinians distrust of Edwards

I haven't heard that there was serious unease in his job as Senator in North Carolina.

I posted it because I am interested as a voter without a candidate now.

[Bombtrack]

27. U hadn't heard one RWer post "plenty of Carolinians" believe something?

This isn't a freaking Gallup poll, it's one hit piece by an Andrew Sullivan reader. I'm sure there are "plenty of Carolinians" who believe in creationism too. But are there unsubstantiated assertions relevant? No

[Stuckinthebush]

30. I am not in North Carolina

The goal is to win the GE. Edwards has a good shot at being the nominee. I hear that he will play better than Kerry in the South. This letter to a conservative web site indicates that Edwards is not viewed well by a large portion of Carolinians. Is this valid? If not, why?

That's all I'm asking.

[Bombtrack]

36. there is absolutely no empirical evidence he uses to back up his statement

the "plenty" word is a big red flag that they don't have a real argument. Edwards was a fine position to win reelection had he pursued that path. But he could not run for both and he made a choice.

And if you believe that John Forbes Kerry has a better shot at winning southern states, I'd like to hear one sane argument for it. He doesn't have a better shot. Massachusetts is one of the 2 or 3 worst states a nominee could come from in all swingstates but particularly the south. And even Dukakis didn't have a record that could be held up and picked apart to say with some credibilty that they are "to the left of Ted Kennedy".

Not to mention the fact that he was born to multi-millionaires, married a 300 millionaire and messily divorced her, then married a woman worth twice that.

Modern history has shown clearly and unchallangingly that independant Southernors more than people of any other region will vote for democrats they can relate to, and when they can't, the GOP sweeps it.

They can relate to John Edwards. Very few can to John Kerry

[Stuckinthebush]

40. Please see post #21 for anecdotal evidence

I'll call my father in law and see if he still feels the same way about Kerry and Edwards.

He is very influential in his community and he says that many GOP voters he talks to feel the same way about Kerry over Edwards.

[Stuckinthebush]

42. Post #38 is from a North Carolinian

He/She has some interesting observations.

[Sequoia]

20. Hey, sounds like the Gov of California

"It boggles the mind to realize that someone with no experience in government, no demonstrated understanding of international relations and no meaningful record in domestic affairs is being touted so highly..."

[spooky3]

24. So... the Senate no longer counts as "government".

"It boggles the mind to realize that someone with no experience in government..."

I had not heard that our system of government had been so radically changed overnight!

I guess he must not think much of Kerry either, since he has more of the same no-count experience.

What does count? Experience in ruining businesses handed to your by your daddy?

[Stuckinthebush]

25. While stated in an idiotic way...

I think the letter writer is alluding to Edwards lack of long term experience in the Senate and his using half of it to run for president. But it is foolish to say that he has no experience in government.

Is this lack of experience a problem with Southern voters? I guess they give Bush the experience card because he was "Governor" of Texas.

[surfermaw]

28. Going our & don't have time to respond in depth

I red enough of this to know this is typical old Jesse Helms junk, ignore it....At this time in North Carolina, many republicans are saying they want vote for Bush again

They complain about Edwards, however Edwards visited almost every counties in his district in the four years he has been Senator..He has missed fewer votes in the Senate than most of his friends who are running for office

You can rest assured that if Edwards graduated from State and Carolina, he is up to the job, and might I add he graduated from state in 3 years instead of 4.

Some republicans in North Carolina will do any thing to keep Edwards from winning the election...but don't you believe it when they say he wouldn't have won his senate again...Terry Sanford was Good Presidential material, but the dummies in the state wouldn't have helped him and probably would have said the same thing about him as they are saying about Edwards...Terry Sanford was Governor of North Carolina for one or two terms, and all so President of Duke University. Now the Sanford thing should answer your question

Jim Hunt served as Governor of North Carolina for several years, but he was defeated by Helms for the Senate..Given a chance by republicans in the state, Hunt probably would have made an excellent.. I will be home later and read the article

[Stuckinthebush]

32. Thank you!!!

That is what I wanted to know. I appreciate your feedback.

[citizen snips]

34. Jesse Helms always has his nose stuck in an election.

I see commercials on Fox news that show him with a repuke running for governor. Jesse Helms does not get it N.C. is moving to the democrats and he can't do nothing to stop us.

[NC_Nurse]

38. I'm from NC

and I've heard a few people say they thought he was "sleazy". I did not pay much attention at the time, but I'll ask them what they were referring to. Personally, I found it perturbing that he was basically running for prez as soon as he got elected to the Senate here. I voted for him...but I wasn't to happy with him for his IWR vote, his support of the Patriot act, and I feel pretty uneasy with his unapologetic support for the Iraq War. I haven't heard his great plan for getting us out of there either.
He's not winning me over with his take on gay marriage today.
He is obviously intelligent though, and I'd love to see him debate the chimp. He'd rip him a new one!

[Stuckinthebush]

41. Thanks!

It is nice to hear from a Carolinian on this.

I appreciate it.

[colonel odis]

39. the white house DOES NOT want to run against edwards

they know he'd do very, very well in the south, a region bush needs desperately.

down here, there's the image of the trial lawyer as the lone voice that protects us from the ownership class. like the aforementioned atticus finch. like those lawyers in john grisham novels who want to what is right. we have the sheister lawyers in large supply here. but we have a notion about lawyers who protect us, too.

edwards has painted himself as that sort of lawyer. all he has to do is trot out the people he won judgements for. they're regular folks, just like the vast majority of southerners. corporations and the wealthy hate edwards and what he represents. but there are a lot more of us than there are of them.

i just don't think kerry could win the south. the states we won last time will probably stay in our column. but to pick up the south the way clinton did in '92 would be a good strategy, i believe. edwards stands the better chance of doing that.