Is Al Gore Giving Dianne Sawyer a Prescription to Revive this Dead Forum & US Focus?

[host]

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/21/...yer-interview/

Sawyer’s Interview Focuses On Media’s Obsessions With Gore, Reaffirms Thesis Of His Book

In his new book, The Assault on Reason, which will be released tomorrow, Al Gore explains “why logic and reason and the best evidence available and the scientific discoveries do not have more force in changing the way we all think about the reality we are now facing.” Gore explains that part of the explanation lies in how much television viewing time is devoted to coverage of “serial obsessions,” such as the Anna Nicole Smith and JonBenet Ramsey.

In her interview with Al Gore this morning, ABC’s Diane Sawyer displayed the media’s propensity to focus on their “serial obsessions” rather than substantive issues that currently affect the country.

Sawyer’s first question to Gore was “You’re not going to tell me again that you have no plans to run, are you?” Gore quickly disposed of the question, saying, “Well, I’m not a candidate and this book is not a political book, it’s not a candidate book at all.” That answer didn’t prevent Sawyer from re-asking the question three more times, consuming airtime that could instead have demonstrated how to raise the level of debate.

Some lowlights:

SAWYER: Again, not to come back to this and fall into your thesis that the press only wants the horserace of the political campaign, but one way…
GORE: But back to the horserace.

[…]

SAWYER: And what will it be that causes you to make that decision, if you’re waiting and watching?
GORE: Well, you know, I’m not pondering it, I’m not focused on that.

[…]

SAWYER: I just want to say, Donna Brazile, your former campaign manager, has said, If he drops 25 to 30 pounds he’s running. Lost any weight?

<b>Watch it:</b>

At the conclusion of the interview, Gore mocked Sawyer’s line of questioning. “Listen to your questions,” he said. “You know, the horserace, the cosmetic parts of this — and, look, that’s all understandable and natural. But while we’re focused on, you know, Britney and K-Fed and Anna Nicole Smith and all this stuff, meanwhile, <h3>very quietly, our country has been making some very serious mistakes that could be avoided if we, the people, including the news media, are involved in a full and vigorous discussion of what our choices are.”</h3>

....and....isn't "the problem" in this country, and on this forum, that "the gulf" between Gore's mindset and the following, is so "wide"......coupled with the "disconnect" of the news/infotainment "coverage" on display in Gore's exchange with Sawyer, that <b>it precludes discussion?:</b>

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/p...8/1311/48HOURS
Gingrich: Fight 'radical secularism'
At Liberty graduation, a tribute to Falwell

By BOB LEWIS
The Associated Press
May 20, 2007

Former House speaker Newt Gingrich told Liberty University's graduating class yesterday to honor the spirit of school founder Jerry Falwell by confronting "the growing culture of radical secularism" with Christian ideals.

Gingrich, who is considering a 2008 presidential run, quoted Bible passages to a mournful crowd of about 17,000 packed into the university's football stadium in Lynchburg, Va., four days after Falwell's death.

Despite the somber tone of the day, graduates who covered the football field chanted "Jerry! Jerry!" in tribute to Falwell.

<b>"A growing culture of radical secularism</b> declares that the nation cannot profess the truths on which it was founded," Gingrich said. "We are told that our public schools can no longer invoke the creator, nor proclaim the natural law nor profess the God-given quality of human rights.

"In hostility to American history, the radical secularists insist that religious belief is inherently divisive and that public debate can only proceed on secular terms," he said.
Liberty's commencement <b>has become a forum for conservative politicians. Last year's address came from Republican presidential candidate John McCain, who made amends with Falwell</b> after attacking him by name during McCain's failed 2000 White House bid.

<b>Gingrich said he won't decide until October whether to run for president.</b>

It was the first commencement without Falwell, the Baptist preacher who established the church-based university in 1971, before he founded the Moral Majority that helped elect Ronald Reagan president in 1980.

On Tuesday morning, the 73-year-old Falwell was discovered without a pulse in his office at Liberty and pronounced dead at a hospital about an hour later. His physician said Falwell had a heart condition and presumably died of a heart rhythm abnormality.

His funeral was set for Tuesday.

His son, Jerry Falwell Jr., addressed Liberty's students as the school's new chancellor.

Gingrich said after his speech that Falwell's death would not slow the Christian right's efforts.

<h3>"Anybody on the left who hopes that when people like Reverend Falwell disappear that the opportunity to convert all of America has gone with them fundamentally misunderstands why institutions like this were created," Gingrich said.</h3>

------ End of article

Although I can certainly see an opportunity for republicans with a more politically moderate and secular POV than the ones exhibited by the pandering former house speaker Newt Gingrich and last year, by US senator and presidential candidate John McCain, I don't see how folks with similar views to mine....to the left of Al Gore, can find common ground to engage in discussion with more moderate....but largely compliant (I don't see anything unusual going on here on the American political front...) republicans, especially in view of the post 9/11 political "message of fear" that allegedly justified the invasion and continuing occupation of Iraq, and of course, "things" like this:

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwash...hington_nation
Posted on Sun, May. 20, 2007

U. S. ATTORNEYS
Efforts to stop `voter fraud' may have curbed legitimate voting
By Greg Gordon
McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON - During four years as a Justice Department civil rights lawyer, Hans von Spakovsky went so far in a crusade against voter fraud as to warn of its dangers under a pseudonym in a law journal article.

Writing as "Publius," von Spakovsky contended that every voter should be required to produce a photo-identification card and that there was "no evidence" that such restrictions burden minority voters disproportionately.

Now, amid a scandal over politicization of the Justice Department, Congress is beginning to examine allegations that von Spakovsky was a key player in a Republican campaign to hang onto power in Washington by suppressing the votes of minority voters.

"Mr. von Spakovsky was central to the administration's pursuit of strategies that had the effect of suppressing the minority vote," charged Joseph Rich, a former Justice Department voting rights chief who worked under him. ......

So, knowing what "I know"....and with Gore's demonstration today of "the problem" with the media, and with a "war on terror" that seems guaranteed to "mint" new terrorists, a DOJ civil rights division transformed into an agency that reverses the protections that justified the division's existence, and "mainstream" republican politicians openly backing a "conversion drive" by christian fundamentalists, while providing justification for a DOJ operating in reverse mode, because of a non-existent <b>"growing culture of radical secularism"</b> (translated to mean white fundamentalist christian republicans must dominate the DOJ and all other federal branches of government, for their own safety....)... <b>I invite input as to how I should go about moderating my mindset (and that of likeminded folks), my "attitude", to invite/promote "in depth" political discussion?</b>

[Willravel]

I chose #2 because I feel that the media is a massive part of how the US thinks as a whole. In my opinion, our current problems are as follows:
1) overpopulation
2) unfair media*
3) apathy of populace
4) associations drawn between religion and either government or science
5) war culture

*The news media has become dependent on ratings and profit, and this is the greatest danger to our ability to gather subjective information and make an informed decision about the world around us. Misinformation and controlled information lead to control. I don't want a media that seeks to control me, as a matter of fact, I seek a media that the people can control. It's the same as government: the government serves the people, just as the media should serve the people....and I wonder if a media constitution or bill of rights, including the reintroduction of the fariness doctrine or a similar law, would improve the media situation in this country. Just as all of our freedoms come with responsibility, free press comes with a responsibility. We need rules about labeling truth as truth and fiction as fiction. When a news reporter sensationalizes a story and blurs the line between truth and fiction, they should be required, as a part of freedom of speech, to disclose sources, provide proof and be penalized if they don't present an unbiased story. If every news organization were fined $200k for the Jessica Lynch story, we could have paid for new programs in schools or better healthcare, while at the same time preventing the spread of misinformation.

[host]

Originally Posted by willravel

I chose #2 because I feel that the media is a massive part of how the US thinks as a whole. In my opinion, our current problems are as follows:.....

.....We need rules about labeling truth as truth and fiction as fiction. When a news reporter sensationalizes a story and blurs the line between truth and fiction, they should be required, as a part of freedom of speech, to disclose sources, provide proof and be penalized if they don't present an unbiased story. If every news organization were fined $200k for the Jessica Lynch story, we could have paid for new programs in schools or better healthcare, while at the same time preventing the spread of misinformation.

I have to disagree with your "Jessica Lynch story" as an example, will....

The U.S. government executive branch insisted on "embedding" all reporters in Iraq, to insure that it would be possible for it to control the flow of "news", instead of the news correspondents controlling it, as they were able to do during the Vietnam war, and during other wars that the US military had participated in....this is the "official story", and the media had only two choices, because of the embedding and censorship constraints place on it.
They could "carry" (distribute) this....or not...

http://www.defendamerica.mil/article.../a040303d.html
<h3>Defend America</h3>
<b>U.S. Department if Defense News About the War on Terrorism</b>

Iraqi Family Risks It All
To Save American POW
line space
By U.S. Marine Corps Sgt. Joseph R. Chenelly
line space

MARINE COMBAT HEADQUARTERS, Iraq, April 3, 2003 — New heroes have surfaced in the rescue of U.S. Army Pfc. Jessica Lynch.

Under the watchful eyes of more than 40 murderous gunmen, the 19-year-old supply clerk laid in Saddam Hussein Hospital suffering from at least one gunshot wound and several broken bones.

As her captors discussed amputating her leg, an Iraqi man leaned to her ear and whispered, "Don't worry." Lynch replied with a warm smile.

The man was already working with U.S. Marines to gain the critical information needed to rescue one of the first American prisoners of war in Operation Iraqi Freedom.

....Mohammad walked through battles in the city streets for two straight days to get to back to the hospital. His main mission was to watch the guards, but each morning he attempted to keep Lynch's spirits strong with a "good morning" in English.

He said she was brave throughout the ordeal.

When reporting back to the Marines on March 30, he brought five different maps he and his wife had made. He was able to point to the exact room the captured soldier was being held in. He also handed over the security layout, reaction plan and times that shift changes occurred.

He had counted 41 bad guys, and determined a helicopter could land on the hospital's roof. It was just the information the Marines needed.

American forces conducted a nighttime raid April 1. Lynch was safely rescued. She has since been transported to a medical facility in Germany.....

I see nothing to "fine" the media for doing, in the above example. I see intentional, politically divisive, propaganda, in your example, coming from one political faction, and I see it as one of many examples that has deepened a divide that hampers discussion. The "middle" ground ends up being the mindset that does not see anything that has happened as any more unusual as "routine" politics.... and that does not lead to serious discussion....as in,
"discuss what"? or "same old, same old".....

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by host

I have to disagree with your "Jessica Lynch story" as an example, will....

I use it because of it's exposure and because bringing up the more brazen examples might start a threadjack about Iraq or the al Qaeda. The fact of the matter is that the reality of the situation, where Jessica's weapon jammed, she never fought back, she was treated with respect and care by the Iraqi doctors, and there was no armed rescue, was hidden and a Rambo from West Virginia was spread by the media and a congressman from West Virginia. That type of purposeful misinformation, intended to rally support for an unpopular war, is propaganda and should be considered illegal.

The story was misrepresented and sensationalized not only to improve ratings (and produce a shitty made for TV movie), but to change people's minds about the war. That behavior should be punished.

Originally Posted by host

The U.S. government executive branch insisted on "embedding" all reporters in Iraq, to insure that it would be possible for it to control the flow of "news", instead of the news correspondents controlling it, as they were able to do during the Vietnam war, and during other wars that the US military had participated in....this is the "official story", and the media had only two choices, because of the embedding and censorship constraints place on it.
They could "carry" (distribute) this....or not...

Yes, but it's not as simple as government bad, media good. I'm sure you watched Geraldo embedded acting like a complete ponce. That was not due to any action taken by the government. Liberal correspondents did do a lot to get information back about the negative aspects of the war. I'm sure if we were to ask Shakran, he could tell you how many of those videos of IEDs lifting US humvees into the air were left on the cutting room floor because people wouldn't want to see that level of reality from the ground. That's what I'm walking about. Keeping those videos off the air serves a dual purpose: coddling viewers so that they don't change the channel, and portraying the war as being much less dangerous and bloody than it really is so that people aren't as strongly against it.

Originally Posted by host

I see nothing to "fine" the media for doing, in the above example. I see intentional, politically divisive, propaganda, in your example, coming from one political faction, and I see it as one of many examples that has deepened a divide that hampers discussion. The "middle" ground ends up being the mindset that does not see anything that has happened as any more unusual as "routine" politics.... and that does not lead to serious discussion....as in,
"discuss what"? or "same old, same old".....

It's not about the divide, it's about ammunition for the battle for real positive change. I can't tell people what to do with the information, they have to make the determination about what they'll do with it. They can stand up and say "no more", just as easily as they can say "same shit, different day". I recognize that most people are too comfortable to shed their apathy. I can only hope to get through enough to spark change.

[Judy Taber]

Gore pimping his SECOND useless book on national tv...talk about serial obsessions. He's contributing to the same thing he seems to think all us dumb Americans need to be paying attention to. The man lives in a 25,000 sq ft mansion, his energy bills are 10x greater than the average American (records of this are online) and he has the nerve to preach about energy conservation. Plus, he looks fat and bloated these days.

[archetypal fool]

Judy, your bias is showing, and you also neglected to mention that Gore's electric company is powered by green power (dams and wind power and solar panels) which produce no carbon dioxide (which is what Gore wants for Americans), and that currently green power is more expensive than traditional oil/coal energy. Maybe that contributes to his "excessive" energy bill. I just thought I'd add that nugget of information into the discussion.

And please, no need to attack Gore's person. You can disagree with his opinions without having to resort to attacking him personally.

[EDIT] About the current discussion...

I'm deeply bothered by the media these days. Almost all the networks are partisan, and show their extreme bias by spinning storied and molding facts until they resemble the shapes they want them to. There's not a doubt in my mind that Fox, et al. are at least partially to blame for this ugly divide and the horrid 2-party state of this country. It's ridiculous.

Ultimately the result you have is a nation divided into democrat and republican (sounds familiar?) and neither side is focusing on the real issues.

It's so frustrating.

[EDIT again] Here's a link to an excerpt from his book. I don't know why some consider it a "useless" book; there is some interesting information. I'll read it as soon as I get a chance.

[ubertuber]

It's not necessarily that all of the media are partisan. The issue is that, if you look at this with the mindset of an economist, there are very few incentives to entice journalists and networks to report and encourage thoughtful consideration of ideas.

Even if the journalists themselves practice their craft for larger reasons, the system of rewards is set up such that larger forces will inevitably create the exact state of affairs which now obtains.

This dynamic may have been tweaked or ridden by the parties currently in power, but it wasn't created by them. Corporate interests are larger and more powerful in this country than political ones.

In response to your direct question, host, I'm running low on ideas. You and I have communicated about this before. I think the question you ask about how to engage others is an important one, perhaps one of the most important questions in our local dialog.

[Superbelt]

News isn't about providing a public service anymore. It's about appealing to the lowest common denominator and making $$$.

Which is a shame because the news isn't supposed to be about making money.
It used to be something forced on the network to keep their license renewall.
FCC broadcast licenses used to be based on an obligations to operate "in the public interest." When a station license came up for renewal, the station had to demonstrate with it's broadcast shedule and accessibility for the public, that it made an effort to live up to the commitment to the community. That forced them to pour money into a quality news program. Citizens could also protest at the renewal hearing and give evidence that the broadcaster wasn't in compliance.
In the 80's the FCC stopped requiring them to be dilligent in their presentation. And now it's a sham and a joke where the broadcasters take their licenses for granted and see them as an entitlement.
That, and the 'evolution' of news into entertainment, something that became marketable (at the grossest end are the 24 hour cable news networks), are what brought about the downfall of a quality news reporting.
When they put a tv personality like Katie Couric in the same chair Walter Cronkite used. It's an embarassment to journalism.

Then, the fact that one of those 24 hour cable news station, Fox, created and gives air time to a half hour satire news show is just irony piled on top of itself. That they felt the need to copy (quite poorly too), what is unfortunately the most insightful news program on the air is sad.

[Charlatan]

I don't believe that "news" was ever truly about "providing a public service". Perhaps in the early (early) days of small printing presses and leaflets but the reality is that print news and broadcast news are all about selling advertising.

The content around the ads takes the form it does in an effort to drive more eyeballs to the ads.

There are a "public" broadcasters that are partially immune to this but they too come under pressure to perform and draw viewers the way that private broadcasters do (think BBC or TVOntario).

[tecoyah]

Originally Posted by host

-snip-

I see nothing to "fine" the media for doing, in the above example. I see intentional, politically divisive, propaganda, in your example, coming from one political faction, and I see it as one of many examples that has deepened a divide that hampers discussion. The "middle" ground ends up being the mindset that does not see anything that has happened as any more unusual as "routine" politics.... and that does not lead to serious discussion....as in,
"discuss what"? or "same old, same old".....

The Media is not really to blame, the people digesting it are. If the population truly wants more information, it is there for the taking....BBC, and NPR as an example. I have come to the conclusion that Americans in general do not want to know just how bad things might be, and so create a self imposed vacuum of unimportant headlines. The Media as a whole are a business, and to remain viable must react to the market if they want to stay in the game.
If peole did not create the "Paris Hilton" syndrome by demand, it would not exist. But I have heard her name (1) One time in the last month on NPR, and only twice on the BBC, which is part of the reason I watch and listen to these sources. Dwelling in ignorance during troubled times can be an effective tool of self preservation for he weak minded.....and we as a country have a very weak mind.

[roachboy]

i dont see the questions raised here as being so easy.

information is a commodity. the space of information circulation--which should be a public sphere--is a market. a market links a dispersed public to a variety of private firms. information commodities are packaged in various ways in order to appeal to particular demographics. politics itself is a mode of accessorizing, an attitude, a disposition.

for many years, we have been informed that we exercise our political freedoms when we consume products.

that a segments of consumer preferences would take shape across political statements, and that these preferences would have the paradoxical effect of reducing politics to a type of consumer action follows in a straight line from this.

it is a frame-effect, if you like. as consumers, we adapt to the characteristics of the ideological framework within which we operate. the most effective ideological frameworks are those which tend to disappear as frameworks because they are shared across positions and are not themselves politicized. there is no counter-discourse within the ideological framework that the press has adopted for itself. and there is no conspiracy that explains this: rather, it think it is a function of this particular historical situation.

the left has collapsed long ago, the marxian frame that functioned as its dominant referencepoint dissolved along with it

(nb: this claim that does not require that all oppositional positions were marxist--rather, marxism functioned as the organizing center for oppositional politics--it was the legitimate counter-discourse within capitalism from over 150 years. as the political left imploded, so did the political legitimacy of that frame or the other way around. the relation is complicated, and the process of collapse was quite long. this is the center of my academic work, and i can blab about it at length. anyway...)

so over the past 30 years or so, and in particular since the 1980s, there a political consensus has taken shape that treats capitalism as a kind of natural horizon for political thinking and action. systen questions have been collapsed into the natural background; this collapse is reinforced continually by the dominance of television---not in itself, and not as a function of what any given series of talking heads might say---but in the illusion of immediacy it provides, of immediate connection to the world given by video footage--which i think reinforces the naturalization of neoliberalism.

so it seems that we have followed this path in general: one which no-one in particular layed out, but which functions quite powerfully nonetheless.

this is a rather deeper process than we think.
i dont think al gore or anyone else whose faces and voices circulate within the dominant ideological apparatus has anything to say about the characteristics and effects of the apparatus itself. they simply point to different types of consumer choices, which political consumers can adopt or not adopt in the way that they adopt brands of peanut butter or types of asprin.

folk who work in basic opposition to the existing order are at an enormous disadvantage now because they find themselves not only having to work out what opposition means--they are also in a position of having to invent a new frame. no matter what these frames may look like, they are not likely to be accurate or compelling straight away and even if they are, the process of taking-hold of a basic critique is not immediate.

meanwhile, shit transpires.

it is a depressing situation--and is in fact more complicated and more difficult than i make it sound here. messageboards are problematic when complexity enters.

but the basic problem--that there is no political framework that has a general purchase that enables folk to relativize the ideological order within which we currently operate, and that this order is being continually collapsed into the order of things--so that political action becomes enframed by the logic of the system that in another time much of it would have opposed--and that within this you have an informational market that treats information as a commodity and attaches various predicates to thse commodities as a way of reaching particular consumer demographics--with the effect of integrating all opposition into the logic of cultural markets--and in so doing removing the potentials for fundamental critique...this sprial is what we are living through.

[host]

roachboy, I'm puzzled that all it takes in the US today.....to be considered "radically left", is to study and react to the following with strenuous objections,
(i.e., with "outrage"), and to be influenced by these three examples (and there are many more....) to believe that "Amercan style" capitalism is not working, and neither are the "checks and balances" of the formerly constitutional government, that once seemed to serve this country well:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...=Google+Search
[PDF] Currents and Undercurrents: Changes in the Distribution of Wealth ...
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
Currents and Undercurrents: Changes in the Distribution of Wealth, 1989–2004. Arthur B. Kennickell. Senior Economist and Project Director ...
http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/f.../200613pap.pdf

From page 1

Currents and Undercurrents: Changes in the Distribution of Wealth, 1989–2004
Arthur B. Kennickell
Senior Economist and Project Director
Survey of Consumer Finances
Mail Stop 153
Federal Reserve Board
Washington, DC 20551

Email: Arthur.Kennickell@frb.gov
SCF Web Site: http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/o.../scfindex.html
January 30, 2006
Abstract
This paper considers changes in the distribution of the wealth of U.S. families over the 1989–2004 period using data from
the Survey of Consumer Finances (SCF). Real net worth grew broadly over this period. At the same time, there are
indications that wealth became more concentrated, but the result does not hold unambiguously across a set of plausible
measures. For example, the Gini coefficient shows significant increases in the concentration of wealth from 1989 to
2004, but the wealth share of the wealthiest one percent of families did not change significantly. Graphical analysis
suggests that there was a shift in favor of the top of the distribution, while for the broad middle of the distribution
increases were about in proportion to earlier wealth. Within this period, there are other interesting patterns. For
example, from 1992 to 2004 the wealth share of the least wealthy half of the population fell significantly to 2.5 percent
of total wealth.


from page 11

"Concentration ratios. Because the Gini coefficient attempts to summarize many complex
changes in terms of a single number, it may miss important variation for particular parts of a
distribution or for particular subpopulations. A more detailed means of summarizing the relative
distribution of wealth is the use of concentration ratios, the proportion of total wealth held by
specific groups. In 2004, slightly more than one-third of total net worth was held by the
wealthiest one percent of families (table 5). Although the estimated level of this share has
changed over the surveys since 1989, the differences are not statistically significant. In 2004, the
next-wealthiest nine percent of families held 36.1 percent of total wealth, again, a figure not
significantly changed over the course of the surveys. This leaves less than a third of the total for
the remaining ninety percent of the population. A subset of that group, families in the bottom
half of wealth distribution, held only 2.5 percent of total wealth in 2004, and this figure is
significantly different from the higher estimates for 1995, 1998, and 2001; of course, those
differences reflect movements elsewhere in the distribution, but the statistical power of the tests
is not sufficient to identify where among the groups shown the offsetting changes occurred."....

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/22/bu...ia&oref=slogin
Few of them may become Michael Moore fans. But some insurance industry officials and health policy experts acknowledged yesterday that the film documentary “Sicko,” Mr. Moore’s indictment of health care in this country, taps into widespread public concern that the system does not work for millions of Americans.

http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t...ZUVFeXky&cid=0

It's time to address plight of the uninsured

Sunday, May 20, 2007
HERALD NEWS EDITORIAL

.....Today, more than 45 million Americans lack health insurance. They include 1.3 million in New Jersey, </b>where the number of uninsured has grown by 300,000 in the last five years.</b>

As a series by Herald News health writer Betsy Querna has shown, the uninsured cut across a broad swath. In April, she wrote: "She's the woman ahead of you in the grocery line. The man sitting next to you in church. The child who plays with yours after school. The woman who cares for your son or daughter."

Over time, opposition to universal health care insurance (some have dismissed it as "socialized medicine") has been strong and well-financed. The opponents, including conservative Republican politicians (who maintain that a free market sustains quality and choice), domestic insurance companies, and pharmaceutical companies say they seek to protect the nation's health care system from government red tape and ineptitude they believe would attend an American version of European-style universal health care coverage.

But we are already paying much more for our health care and getting much less than people do in other industrialized nations. We trail many other industrialized nations in terms of infant mortality and life expectancy........

In a post on the <b>"Has The US DOJ, Itself been Politicized into a Criminal Enterprise?"</b>, thread on this forum, I documented the accusations that the US DOJ has been corrupted by the republican party and it's current elected federal administration, into an enforcement bureau of the politcal party's goal of opposition vote suppression via an illegal and elaborate campaign to disqualify, intimidate, and/or prosecute legitimate opposition voters and those who attempt to register them to vote.
The criminal conspiracy implicates white house officials and prominent republican leaning lawyers and law firms. The goal seems to be to achieve permanent control...the ability to win key elections without a constituency for it's policies and platform that would lend itself, in fair, open and untampered with elections, to a winning outcome.....

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...78&postcount=4

....Bottomline:

May, 2006: Report that Bud Cummins, US Attorney in Arkansas, is investigating Missouri Gov., Matt Blunt, son on US House leader, Roy Blunt.
Matt Blunt has given wife of Missouri US Attorney, Todd Graves, a "perk"..a lucrative franchise in Missouri DMV licensing office, operateed by Mark Hearnes' law firm....

WSJ reports in Jan., 2007, that a month after the May, 2006 reporting about Cummins investigation of Blunt....in June of 2006, Cummins is asked to resign to make way for Karl Roves' "Timothy Griffin". DOJ sends Brad Schlozman, the man who dismantled the DOJ's civil right's section, to replace Todd Graves as US Attorney in Missouri....

Friends....more and more, it's looking certain that the repubs stole both the 2000 and the 2004 presidential elections, and a bunch of other state and federal election races, too !....with the help of the lawyers who worked for Bush/Cheney 2000 in the Florida recount, and then in the Bush administration, or in aligned law firms, ever since. The DOJ has been transformed into a branch of this partisan republican, criminal conspiracy!

Instead of being "pillars" of the political and the economic status quo, huge numbers of attorneys with conservative and/or christian fundamentalist sympathies, have gained near complete control of the prosecutoriaL apparatus on the federal level, and have used it to insure their own grip on political power, by reversing the protections that civil rights reform had brought, over the last 40 years, to the most fragile and victimized segment of potential voters.....

With the wealth, the means to purchase healthcare when injured or ill, and the ability to achieve change at the polls via the will of the sheer numbers of economically and politically disenfranchised, all removed from the possession of so many....and so relatively quickly and in such great numbers, <b>will a "new left" only energize and grow itself because of a severe, general economic downturn, or will a more extreme political event "do the trick"?</b>
.....or will nothing alter (for so many.....) the economic decline and the loss of of populist political influence of the last six years?

....and it does not help that the news media seems to have under reported all three of my examples.

[aceventura3]

Hypocrasy is the problem especially when the media fails to address the hypcracy. On certain issues one side or the other gets a pass. Democrats get a pass on certain issues and Republicans on other issues. Given this attitude it is difficult to have legit conversation or discussion on serious issues primarily because once labeled that is the end of the discussion.

Here is a perfect example of hypocracy:

• PoliticsBlog (San Francisco Chronicle) -- Edwards was paid $55K for speech about poverty: John Edwards made nine appearances at colleges and universities last year, his financial records show, and was paid as much as $55,000 per speech (by the University of California at Davis). That fee included his travel expenses and covered the Democratic presidential candidate's appearance to discuss: "Poverty, the great moral issue facing America."

http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics...ts_new_11.html

First Edwards is a millionaire many times over, yet he goes to a college campus and is paid $55K to talk about poverty.
Why didn't they pay real people living in poverty to discuss the issue?
Why didn't Edwards volunteer his time to talk to students?
Why would anyone at a University think about paying anyone $55K to give a single speech at a time when the cost of higher education is going through the roof and becoming unaffordable for many?
What can Edwards say that is worth $55k on the subject of poverty? Perhaps he was acting as a living example of immorality of dealing with the issue of poverty.

Edwards carved-out his political niche as the "poverty candidate" in order to get votes and support. His fee illustrates he has very little concern for poor people or higher education. If Edwards were Republican the media would have no problem jumping all over this hypocracy. Edwards gets a pass.

Gore is carving-out his niche. Diane Sawyer knows it, most thoughtful people know it, and one of the prime reasons Gore would carve-out a niche like he is doing is to run for office or for personal gain. Yet he pretends that he is Mother Teressa like, and is trying to save the world. When people on the other-side of the political spectrum see what is happening it makes you want to gag, yet he gets a pass. I sure there are instances when Democrats feel the same about Republicans.

Signed,

Your Resident Cynic

[dc_dux]

The media in the US has many problems, biases and shortcomings, but the fault likes equally, if not more so, with the readers and viewers.

For those who care to seek out the truth and the full story, there are numerous sources of reliable factual information.

The problem, IMO, is not the media, but rather the desire of many to play "gotcha" politics and their propensity to only rely on or site those sources that suit or support their pre-conceived notions.

One onely need to look at Judy's example of Gore's energy costs without siting the FACT that it comes from green sources....

Or Ace's example of Edwards's speaking fees where he rightly questions the Univ for paying such a fee, then resorts to characterizing Edwards as a hypocrite for doing what every pulic figure does (get paid for public speaking because there is a market for such speechmaking). DId you bother to look beyond the blog to determine how much time and/or money Edwards donates to charity and/or poverty causes (I dont know) or how many pro-bono cases he took as an attorney for clients in poverty?

[aceventura3]

Originally Posted by dc_dux

The media in the US has many problems, biases and shortcomings, but the fault likes equally, if not more so, with the readers and viewers.

For those who care to seek out the truth and the full story, there are numomours sources of reliable information.

The problem, IMO, is not the media, but rather the desire of many to play "gotcha" politics and their propensity to only rely on or site those sources that suit or support their pre-conceived notions.

One onely need to look at Judy's example of Gore's energy costs without siting the FACT that it comes from green sources....

Or Ace's example of Edwards's speaking fees where he rightly questions the Univ for paying such a fee, then resorts to characterizing Edwards as a hypocrite for doing what every pulic figure does (get paid for public speaking because there is a market for such speechmaking.

From my point of view DC's comments support my point.

Not every candidate (Edwards) is running as the "poverty candidate". If that is his issue he has set himself a higher standard than everyone else.

Not every public figue (Gore) is at the fore-front of the Global Warming cause. If that is his issue he has set himself a higher standard than everyone else.

Most in the media and otherwise fail to see this when it applies to those they are sympathetic to, or when it fits the label.

[dc_dux]

Ace....My point is that before you call someone a hyprocrite, you should have a full picture of his words and actions.

You dont know how much time/money he devoted to poverty causes... you dont know how many bills he sponsored or supported in the Senate that benefited the poor and middle class to the detriment of the rich like himself. Yet you draw conclusions on the merits of his actions as it relates to (or contradicts?) his political position.

Get the full facts first, then criticize Gore or any politician.

[tecoyah]

Originally Posted by aceventura3

From my point of view DC's comments support my point.

Not every candidate (Edwards) is running as the "poverty candidate". If that is his issue he has set himself a higher standard than everyone else.

Not every public figue (Gore) is at the fore-front of the Global Warming cause. If that is his issue he has set himself a higher standard than everyone else.

Most in the media and otherwise fail to see this when it applies to those they are sympathetic to, or when it fits the label.

I have noted a trend in those who self proclaim conservatism. Ignoring the message in favor of attacking the messenger, which makes most people actually concerned with the actual issue walk away rather than try to defend someone they may not care for.
Kind of makes you irrellevant in the grand scheme, and easy to disregard.

[aceventura3]

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Ace....My point is that before you call someone a hyprocrite, you should have a full picture of his words and actions.

You dont know how much time/money he devoted to poverty causes... you dont know how many bills he sponsored or supported in the Senate that benefited the poor and middle class to the detriment of the rich like himself. Yet you draw conclusions on the merits of his actions and political position.

Get the full facts first, then criticize Gore or any politician.

Why do you choose to ignore facts that don't support your point of view? Using your argument, no one could ever be a hypocrit because it is not possible to have "full picture" of anyone's words and actions. Most people know it is possible to draw conclusions without 100% of the information, it happens all the time, in-fact if you waited to get 100% information before drawing a conclusion, you would never come to one.

When you make absolute statements like the above, we always drift off of the real issue being discussed because we have to clarify how an absolute statement is illogical. Do you really not see this, or is it your intent to divert the discussion?

Originally Posted by tecoyah

I have noted a trend in those who self proclaim conservatism. Ignoring the message in favor of attacking the messenger, which makes most people actually concerned with the actual issue walk away rather than try to defend someone they may not care for.
Kind of makes you irrellevant in the grand scheme, and easy to disregard.

I admit Republican use ad hominem attacks. Do Democrats ever do that?

[dc_dux]

My point is not off the real issue.....it demonstrates that the problem is not with the media, but with those who rely only on the sources that support their pre-determined outcome.

Obviously, you cannot get 100% of the facts about any political figure...However, if you take the time and make the effort, you can get more factual information than you find in one blog before coming to your conclusions...if you have a sincere desire to understand an issue or a poliitican's actions rather than play "gotcha".

Thats the problem raised in the OP.....too many people relying on one "media" source or one end of the media spectrum and drawing conclusions because it supports their position and they dont want to look further because they may find factual information they dont like.

[roachboy]

host: american style capitalism has never really worked.
not the way its defenders claim it has.
and most of these claims are incoherent at best. and even at their best, they have this tiresome quality of any phrase that is recycled endlessly, repeated regardless of whether there is or is not any correlation between the mode of production and its outcomes and what these folk say is the case.

that said, i dont agree with your apparent assumption that people will suddenly wake up politically in the context of an economic crisis. rather, i think that a population which is ideologicall incoherent, which accepts a wordview predicated on avoidance of what which is difficult, of that which is problematic, will continue to avoid that which is difficult and that which is problematic and so will stay incoherent even as their material lives begin to some unravelled. i do not buy it---it seems to me a version of diamat from the old days, the kind of thing that lukacs relied on when he described class consciousness on the part of the proletariat as emerging when the proletariat "does what is objectiely necessary."
well what the hell is objective? and who decides what is necessary?
even within that context, lukacs's positions were easily juxtaposed with lenin's, who assumed that, left to themselves, the working class could only aspire to "trade-union consciousness"--that they were "reactive" and therefore would fall into "tailism" unless there was a cadre of professional revolutionaries who knew--somehow--what was objective and what was necessary and told them what to do based on that.

what is possible politically seems to me a function of how the present system is politically enframed.
this lay behind the whole of my previous post, and that is why i dont buy the relation economic crisis/political awakening. i just dont.

as for what gets called "radical": i really dont care about that.
in the present degenerate political context, it is not important.
anything and everything can be called radical.
it means as much as the status of the talking heads or writers who have access to an apparatus that allows their actions to have social meaning allows these names to mean.
so it means nothing.
so you're right, of course...

[aceventura3]

Originally Posted by dc_dux

My point is not off the real issue.....it demonstrates that the problem is not with the media, but with those who rely only on the sources that support their pre-determined outcome.

Obviously, you cannot get 100% of the facts about any political figure...However, if you take the time and make the effort, you can get more factual information than you find in one blog before coming to your conclusions...if you have a sincere desire to understand an issue or a poliitican's actions rather than play "gotcha".

Thats the problem raised in the OP.....too many people relying on one "media" source or one end of the media spectrum and drawing conclusions because it supports their position and they dont want to look further because they may find factual information they dont like.

I posted a link so readers would have a source other than me. My views about Edwards goes deeper than what was in the blog.

I also gave readers the benefit of listing questions that came to my mind on the Edwards issue, questions that if answered could actually change my point of view. So, instead of addressing the issue and questions that could lead me to a different view of Edwards, criticism is directed towrds me rather than moving the discussion forward.

I honestly think Edwards is a hypocrit. It is my view, right or wrong, but I think it is right. We can discuss the information and facts that lead me to that conclusion or we can comment on how cynical/narrow/minded/dumb/etc/etc. I am. You tend to choose the latter on most issues with me, the discussion goes know where and we leave more entrenched in our views. This supports my premise.

[dc_dux]

ace....you sign your first post here (#13) "Your Resident Cynic" and then you accuse me of calling you a cynic (how cynical/narrow/minded/dumb/etc/etc. you are).

I did not suggest or imply you were cynical, narrow minded or dumb. I used your post (and Judy's) as an example of the problem as I see it....and that is, how some folks form opinions (that IMO may also be pre-conceived) based on selected media information that supports that opinion at the exclusion of other relevant information.

I really dont see how any of that supports your premise....whatever that may be.

[tecoyah]

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I admit Republican use ad hominem attacks. Do Democrats ever do that?

"Democrats" Most certainly do, Does that make your post any more acceptable as a means of addressing the issue of this thread?

At some level, you actually just solidified my point....Think about it.

[aceventura3]

Originally Posted by dc_dux

ace....you sign your first post here (#13) "Your Resident Cynic" and then you accuse me of calling you a cynic (how cynical/narrow/minded/dumb/etc/etc. you are).

During the time I have been posting my views on TFP there has often been a focus on me as an individual rather my views and the basis for my views. This has hindered the discussion of those issues. This pattern is consistent with the general tone of political discourse in this country.

I don't take this stuff personal.

Originally Posted by tecoyah

"Democrats" Most certainly do, Does that make your post any more acceptable as a means of addressing the issue of this thread?

At some level, you actually just solidified my point....Think about it.

I am not sure I get your point, but if you think the general problem with understanding the point of view of others includes failing on both sides of most issues, I am with you.

Generally, when I discuss an issue I try to let everyone know my bias' up front. I don't appologize for having an opinion when I come to the table. I am unrelenting and I will aggressively challenge the point of view of others. When others percieve this as an attack, I percieve their position as weak or that they lack conviction. I think part of the problem comes down to style. But in most cases people want nice labels to put on everyone. It is suprising how often people will argue points where there is agreement simply because of how they have put the other in a certain category. And of course everyone in that category has the same point of view. You make the point that I attacked Edwards, which I did. We agree. But I think the attack is deserved, perhaps we don't agree on that. But we agree that attacks go both ways. We end up discussing whatever it is we are discussing and nothing of substance regarding the real area where we disagree. Again this is the pattern of political discourse in this country.

[roachboy]

so wait, ace: what you're basically saying is that everyone should take conservative political premises as seriously as anything else--sorry, but i dont.

second, you are claiming AS A CONSERVATIVE that the politics of attack-the-messenger--which was and is among the central elements of the conservative political repertoire--are now being used to dismiss YOUR positions?

all this indicates to me is that you cannot distinguish between dismissal of the premises of your arguments and personal attacks. which is your problem, not mine.

and then, because you cannot make such a distinction, it follows for you that there isnt one so therefore...somehow...there are no attacks on conservative premises, only on you...and therefore...somehow...the arguments that you advance can be confused with arguments that are not in themselves problematic...so therefore...somehow...the arguments remain legitimate.

ok fine: given the history of this character acventura3, all this follows.
but let me step to the side of this for a minute and make a suggestion, if you will.

i think your arguments ARE problematic.
but within this, there is another issue, and that is what the suggestion concerns:
the written persona you have chosen to adopt functions exclusively through repetition of these arguments.
whoever you are behind this persona is not an issue--speaking for myself, i have no idea who you are back there.

the mask you have developed--"aceventura3"---is so constructed that anything anyone says in opposition to its positions end up looking like attacks on the mask because you--you know, you back there, the guy who writes this stuff--you make no separations yourself.

all this projection and illusion simply to avoid confronting the fact that there are people who find your arguments at the very best problematic...it's tiresome.

it is NOT a reflection of anything bigger, despite what you may imagine: it is a direct function of how you choose to manipulate your written persona.

maybe if you consider exploring another relation to this character aceventura3 you'd find yourself operating in a different game.

try it out--have some fun with the guy--he's only a fiction.
if you don't enjoy it, you can always go back.

[aceventura3]

Originally Posted by roachboy

so wait, ace: what you're basically saying is that everyone should take conservative political premises as seriously as anything else--sorry, but i dont.

I am not sure I said that, but no. I certainly don't take every conservative political premise seriously.

second, you are claiming AS A CONSERVATIVE that the politics of attack-the-messenger--which was and is among the central elements of the conservative political repertoire--are now being used to dismiss YOUR positions?

It happens.

all this indicates to me is that you cannot distinguish between dismissal of the premises of your arguments and personal attacks. which is your problem, not mine.

I usually distinguish the difference based on how a person holding a different view responds to my questions. When a person fails to address a question on the table and then chnages the subject, I assume they don't have an answer to the question and their position is weak. When a person fails to answer a question, and then makes a comment about me, I take that as a last ditch effort to save face short of ignoring me.

and then, because you cannot make such a distinction, it follows for you that there isnt one so therefore...somehow...there are no attacks on conservative premises, only on you...and therefore...somehow...the arguments that you advance can be confused with arguments that are not in themselves problematic...so therefore...somehow...the arguments remain legitimate.

What?

ok fine: given the history of this character acventura3, all this follows.
but let me step to the side of this for a minute and make a suggestion, if you will.

i think your arguments ARE problematic.

All or some, based on your experience?

but within this, there is another issue, and that is what the suggestion concerns:
the written persona you have chosen to adopt functions exclusively through repetition of these arguments.
whoever you are behind this persona is not an issue--speaking for myself, i have no idea who you are back there.

"I am what I am" - Popeye

the mask you have developed--"aceventura3"---is so constructed that anything anyone says in opposition to its positions end up looking like attacks on the mask because you--you know, you back there, the guy who writes this stuff--you make no separations yourself.

all this projection and illusion simply to avoid confronting the fact that there are people who find your arguments at the very best problematic...it's tiresome.

it is NOT a reflection of anything bigger, despite what you may imagine: it is a direct function of how you choose to manipulate your written persona.

I think Gore believes there is a problem, according to the OP he blames the media. I onlt point out that the tone of those you respond to me, follows a pattern.

maybe if you consider exploring another relation to this character aceventura3 you'd find yourself operating in a different game.

try it out--have some fun with the guy--he's only a fiction.
if you don't enjoy it, you can always go back.

I don't know how to be something I am not. You will always get the real Ace.

[host]

ace, here are some reasons why I cannot have a substantative discussion with you:

I believe that, while the actual scandal documented below is taking place, you are distracted by the non-issue of BS spin painting John Edwards as a phony elitist. Here are some reasons why I disagree strongly to your opinion:
Director of the Center on Poverty, Work, and Opportunity at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Major Cases Litigated by John Edwards:
http://news.findlaw.com/newsmakers/john.edwards.html

John Edwards: The People Party Candidate of 2008
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-...-_b_45053.html

http://liberaldoomsayer.blogspot.com...rds-story.html

<b>I posted, 30 hours ago, about the "real" scandal, ace:...the Phony BS

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...78&postcount=4

campaign to hijack the DOJ to manipulate the vote in future (and past) elections....it's pretty damning, but you would have to examine the documentation to see how obvious the criminal conspiracy is, and who the sources of it are:</b>

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...d-report_x.htm
Report refutes fraud at poll sites
Updated 10/11/2006 12:32 PM ET
By Richard Wolf, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — At a time when many states are instituting new requirements for voter registration and identification, a preliminary report to the U.S. Election Assistance Commission has found little evidence of the type of polling-place fraud those measures seek to stop.

USA TODAY obtained the report from the commission four months after it was delivered by two consultants hired to write it. The commission has not distributed it publicly.

NEW LAWS: Thousands of voters shut out | Read the preliminary report

At least 11 states have approved new rules for independent voter-registration drives or requirements that voters produce specific forms of photo ID at polling places. Several of those laws have been blocked in court, most recently in Arizona last week. The House of Representatives last month approved a photo-ID law, now pending in the Senate.

The bipartisan report by two consultants to the election commission casts doubt on the problem those laws are intended to address. "There is widespread but not unanimous agreement that there is little polling-place fraud, or at least much less than is claimed, including voter impersonation, 'dead' voters, non-citizen voting and felon voters," the report says.

The report, prepared by Tova Wang, an elections expert at the Century Foundation think tank, and Job Serebrov, an Arkansas attorney, says most fraud occurs in the absentee ballot process, such as through coercion or forgery. Wang declined to comment on the report, and Serebrov could not be reached for comment.

Others who reviewed the report for the election commission differ on its findings. Jon Greenbaum of the liberal Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law says it was convincing. The committee wrote to the commission Friday seeking its release.

Conservatives dispute the research and conclusions. Thor Hearne, counsel to the American Center for Voting Rights, notes that the Justice Department has sued Missouri for having ineligible voters registered, while dead people have turned up on the registration rolls in Michigan. "It is just wrong to say that this isn't a problem," he says.

That's one reason the commission decided not to officially release the report. "There was a division of opinion here," Chairman Paul DeGregorio says. "We've seen places where fraud does occur."

The consultants found little evidence of that. Barry Weinberg, former deputy chief of the voting section in the Justice Department's civil rights division, reviewed their work. "Fraud at the polling place is generally difficult to pull off," he says. "It takes a lot of planning and a lot of coordination."

http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t...3259.php&cid=0
<h3>.....Little more than a name to serve as a fig leaf to Republican operatives, ACVR was created, Hasen writes, to "give 'think tank' academic cachet to the unproven idea that voter fraud is a major problem in elections."</h3>

That effort to give claims of voter fraud legitimacy explains a lot about what's been happening in the Justice Department. It explains why the administration pressured U.S. attorneys to pursue voter fraud cases and fired the ones who didn't deliver. And it explains why political appointees ruled the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division with such an iron grip.

Here's the apparent scheme from A to Z: ACVR (a think tank with a respectable name) would seize on instances of prosecuted voter fraud by U.S. attorneys (a respected group) to push for voter ID laws. And then once Republicans in the state legislatures passed the laws, the political appointees that ran the Civil Rights Division (a once revered institution) would make sure that the career staff in the voting rights section didn't get in the way. Opponents of the laws would never know what hit them.

There was, as should be expected, some crossover among these groups. A number of political appointees in the Civil Rights Division were sent out to be U.S. attorneys (e.g. Kansas City's Brad Schlozman, among others). And there's at least one case of a political appointee in the Civil Rights Division moving on to work for the American Center for Voting Rights.

Jason Torchinsky, in fact, has held a variety of key positions since graduating law school in 2001. In addition to working at the White House counsel's office under Alberto Gonzales, Torchinsky was Deputy General Counsel to Bush-Cheney '04 and Counsel to the 2005 Presidential Inaugural Committee, according to an online bio. At the Justice Department, he had a short stint in the U.S. attorney's office in Milwaukee as a Special Assistant USA (he did not handle any voting related cases, according to filings) and was a junior political appointee in the Civil Rights Division. When he left the Division, he held the title of Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General.

Once out of the division, Torchinsky went to work for ACVR (it's worth noting that Torchinsky most likely worked together with ACVR head Mark "Thor" Hearne on Bush-Cheney '04, where Hearne was national election counsel).

Unsurprisingly, Torchinsky makes an appearance in the bipartisan draft fraud report ordered by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission -- the report that was suppressed last year after it concluded that there was very little actual voter fraud. Torchinsky was the lone holdout:

"Jason Torchinsky from the American Center for Voting Rights is the only interviewee who believes that polling place fraud is widespread and among the most significant problems in the system."

But as Slate notes, ACVR and its website abruptly disappeared in March of this year (ACVR was little more than a name and a P.O. Box anyway). Don't worry about Torchinsky, though -- he currently works for the Republican law firm Holtzman Vogel as a senior associate..........

From the unreleased EAC reportblocked by partisan Bush appointees because it's "reality based" findings conflicted with the fake Mark "Thor" Hearnes (2004 Counsel to Bush-Cheney campaign) and Jason Torchinsky (Asst. Counsel to 2004 Bush-Cheney campaign and fromer DOJ staffer...), now disappeared <b>ACVR</b>....phony research of election "fraud" that justified the partisan transformation of the DOJ into a reverse of what a voting rights enforcement agency would actually be....in the "real" world):

http://www.usatoday.com/news/pdf/200...on-report.pdf?
Page 4:

"American Center for Voting Rights uniquely alleges it is focused on Republicans"

Interviews
The consultants jointly selected experts from the public and private sectors for interviews.
The consultants' analysis of their discussion with these members of the legal, election
official, advocacy, and academci communtities follows.

Page 5:

....Jason Torchinsky from the American Center for Voting Rights is the only interviewee who believes that polling place fraud is widespread and among the most significant problems in the system....

[aceventura3]

O.k., I have one question, no two to start with.

What was the average percentage collected by Edwards on the cases he took to trial or the cases he settled?

What percentage of cases handled by Edwards was done pro bono?

Please go beyond the obvious and say all lawyers collect xx%...., etc. Edwards is not all lawyers, he is running for President and representing himself as the leading advocate on the issue of poverty. He has set a higher standard for himself, if you say he is like every other lawyer, he would fail my test. Perhaps, not yours, I grant you that. But I have given you my view. You call it B.S. and a non-issue, which is your right to do so, but it is interesting how it relates to your OP, doesn't it?

[ubertuber]

Ace, is the thrust of your point that Edwards is ineligible to advocate for the poor because he has made a lot of money?

[dc_dux]

Originally Posted by aceventura3

O.k., I have one question, no two to start with.

What was the average percentage collected by Edwards on the cases he took to trial or the cases he settled?

What percentage of cases handled by Edwards was done pro bono?

ace....it seems to me those are questions you should be answering since you are the one calling Edwards a hypocrite.

[aceventura3]

Originally Posted by ubertuber

Ace, is the thrust of your point that Edwards is ineligible to advocate for the poor because he has made a lot of money?

No. The point is that his advocating for the issue of poverty, is a political stragegic move.

He was poor once, and I am sure he represented poor people extremely well. I don't doubt that he will advocate for governement policies that he thinks will help the poor. Part of the problem is, most of these policies will do more harm than good, but thats another topic.

Originally Posted by dc_dux

ace....it seems to me those are questions you should be answering since you are the one calling Edwards a hypocrite.

I would think Edwards would want to address these issues. I have an opinion as do others who share my view. If he chooses to ignore what many people think, he does it at his own peril. If I am wrong in my view, at what point should he or those who support him, attempt to clear the issue up? Again, this is an example of political discord. Ignoring 800 pound gorillas in the room, isn't helpful. But, you folks think my view on this Edwards, issue is baseless. Perhaps, it is only a 600 pound gorilla, but he is in the room.

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by aceventura3

No. The point is that his advocating for the issue of poverty, is a political [strategic] move.

Can you prove that? No? Sounds like an unfounded accusation from the right.

[ubertuber]

Originally Posted by aceventura3

No. The point is that his advocating for the issue of poverty, is a political stragegic move.

If that's the case, then why did you ask these questions?

Originally Posted by aceventura3

What was the average percentage collected by Edwards on the cases he took to trial or the cases he settled?

What percentage of cases handled by Edwards was done pro bono?

They don't really have too much to do with whether Edwards will follow through with this focus on poverty, or whether he'd be any good at addressing those issues.

[aceventura3]

Originally Posted by ubertuber

If that's the case, then why did you ask these questions?




They don't really have too much to do with whether Edwards will follow through with this focus on poverty, or whether he'd be any good at addressing those issues.

I really only brought the issue up to use as an example. An objective reader of this thread would find it pretty interesting in relation to the point in the OP.

Here is an analogy to help clarify my view of Edwards. When Apple markets itself as the alternative to windows based PC's, that is honest. When tobacco companies do anti-smoking ads, that is dishonest. Edwards can claim to be the "poverty candidate", that doesn't mean that I will buy it. If you buy it hook-line and sinker without question, thats fine with me. on the otherhand I don't buy it and I ask questions to give people an opportunity to convince me that I am wrong. I have had several on this issue, and no answers.

What exactly is the point of responding to my outlandish views, if your intent is not to help me see the light. I would think that if I am so wrong and so unreasonable, that you folks would just ignore my silly views. To the contrary saying things like my views are baseless or b.s., just brings out the dog (my pit-bull nature) in me. Now, I am more entrenched than ever.

Originally Posted by willravel

Can you prove that? No? Sounds like an unfounded accusation from the right.

Can I prove that tabacco companies don't really want to prevent teenagers from smoking? Can you? Didn't think so. Hey, perhaps I based my view on the prima facia evidence that is clear for all to see. Or at least those of use who can actually see 800 pound gorillas.

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Can I prove that tabacco companies don't really want to prevent teenagers from smoking? Can you?

http://edition.cnn.com/2001/HEALTH/0...o.advertising/
http://wctu.com/tobacco_companies_target_teens.html
http://youthdevelopment.suite101.com...sing_and_teens
So, yes. Meanwhile, you're assuming, despite a complete lack of any evidence, that John Edwards is fighting for the poor only to further his career.

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Hey, perhaps I based my view on the prima facia evidence that is clear for all to see. Or at least those of use who can actually see 800 pound gorillas.

You mean res ipsa loquitur., yes? I'm still not seeing ANY evidence supporting your assertion, let alone an '800 pound gorilla'.

Tell you what, I'll give you 'Edwards not really caring about the poor' if you give me 'Bush purposefully lied to congress and is fighting terror in order to create more terror that he can personally benefit monetarily from'. Deal?

[aceventura3]

Originally Posted by willravel

http://edition.cnn.com/2001/HEALTH/0...o.advertising/
http://wctu.com/tobacco_companies_target_teens.html
http://youthdevelopment.suite101.com...sing_and_teens
So, yes. Meanwhile, you're assuming, despite a complete lack of any evidence, that John Edwards is fighting for the poor only to further his career.

You mean res ipsa loquitur., yes? I'm still not seeing ANY evidence supporting your assertion, let alone an '800 pound gorilla'.

Tell you what, I'll give you 'Edwards not really caring about the poor' if you give me 'Bush purposefully lied to congress and is fighting terror in order to create more terror that he can personally benefit monetarily from'. Deal?

First, just a point to see if there is consistency in the logic against my point.

Edwards says the use of "Gobal war on terror" is political and pretty much a marketing gimmick to mislead.

This is a political frame and political rhetoric. They use it to justify everything they do. They use that language to justify the war in Iraq. They use it to justify Guantanamo. They use it to justify torture. They use it to justify illegal spying on the American people.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/5/2/173657/3999

I say Edwards being the "poverty candidate" is political and pretty much a marketing gimmick to mislead.

What is the difference?

I meant prima facia, on its face the evidence supports Edwards being a hypocrit, short of contradictory evidence.

Edwards is a multi-millionaire and does no more than the average millionaire in his class.
Edwards got rich collecting fees from judgements and settlements directed to poor people. Edwards was a hired gun, and did what most attonies would do. He was never know for pro-bono work above the norm.
Edwards lives an exorbitant life style.
Edwards is running for President and needs a cause that seperates him from the rest of the pack.
Edwards collects exorbitant fees for speaking about poverty to students.
Edwards has no track record as a former senetor where he championed the cause of the poor.

Perhaps, you will ignore those issues, I don't.

I guess I am not the only one who suspects Edwards is a phoney. Bob Shrum a former Edwards campaign manager has written a book. Here is quote from a reviewer of Shrum's book:

That surely helps to explain why No Excuses repeatedly portrays Edwards as a hyper-ambitious phony.

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?pt=QwYl...AfneMYn2%3D%3D

Ouch!

Want to keep ignoring the gorilla?

[aceventura3]

Now O'Reilly is calling Edwards a hypocrit. Here is a link to a segment he did on his show.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqFE46Ue80A

[JustJess]

COMPLETE THREADJACK:
Please, people (and this is completely non-partisan since most of you are doing this... ): for the love of any god you like, please spell hypocrite correctly.
H Y P O C R I T E. To be a hypocrite is H Y P O C R I T I C A L.

Crap. Now I've looked at the word so much it just looks stupid. Hm.
Okay, carry on, and my apologies for the threadjack.

/END THREADJACK

[aceventura3]

Originally Posted by dc_dux

ace....it seems to me those are questions you should be answering since you are the one calling Edwards a hypocrite.

Now it is the New York Times taking a shot at Edwards. Where are Edwards' defenders? Still ignoring the 800 pound gorilla, I bet.

The organization became a big part of a shadow political apparatus for Mr. Edwards after his defeat as the Democratic vice presidential nominee in 2004 and before the start of his presidential bid this time around. Its officers were members of his political staff, and it helped pay for his nearly constant travel, including to early primary states.

While Mr. Edwards said the organization’s purpose was “making the eradication of poverty the cause of this generation,” its federal filings say it financed “retreats and seminars” with foreign policy experts on Iraq and national security issues. Unlike the scholarship charity, donations to it were not tax deductible, and, significantly, it did not have to disclose its donors — as political action committees and other political fund-raising vehicles do — and there were no limits on the size of individual donations.

Mr. Edwards, a former North Carolina senator, set out to keep his political options open by promoting issues he cared about, like poverty.

“He wanted to learn, travel and be in a position to be a viable candidate,” said J. Edwin Turlington, a Raleigh lawyer who was the manager of Mr. Edward’s 2003 presidential exploratory committee.

He traveled to China, India, Brussels, Uganda and Russia, and met with Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain and his likely successor, Gordon Brown, at 10 Downing Street.

“He was not a U.S. senator; he had no office,” said Ferrel Guillory, a political program director at the Center for the Study of the American South at the University of North Carolina. “So he set up a series of entities to finance his travel, to finance a political shop and to finance an issue shop. It all adds up to a remarkable feat of keeping a presidential candidacy alive without any of the traditional bases for it.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/22/us...in&oref=slogin

[dc_dux]

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Now it is the New York Times taking a shot at Edwards. Where are Edwards' defenders? Still ignoring the 800 pound gorilla, I bet.

ace....as opposed to the 800 lb gorilla following John McCain, Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson?

"Straight-talking" John McCain who is now pandering to the religious right he was so critical of in the past...or has backtracked on campaign finance reform and other positions so that he can demonstrate his "true" conservative credentials to the far right.

Giuliani, the self-proclaimed homeland security advocate, whose incompetence, according to many NYC firefighters, was responsible for the deaths of many first responders...and who, as a member of the Iraq Study Group, failed to show up at even one meeting because it conflicted with fund raising events.

Fred Thompson, who now`calls himself a "political outsider", who was a lobbyist for 20 years during which time he lobbied for a savings-and-loan deregulation bill that helped bring about the industry’s collapse and a failed nuclear energy project that cost taxpayers more than a billion dollars. Not to mention being a paid lobbyist for a foreign dictator, deposed Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide in Haiti.

Oh...and how can we forget GW Bush, who campaigned as a "compassionate conservative" and a "uniter, not a divider".....we know how that turned out.

Not that I am an Edwards defender.....he wont be my first choice.

But whats your point?