| Author |
Message |
    
Michaela May
Citizen
Username: Mayquene
Post Number: 52
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 3:29 pm: |     |
With New Hampshire's primary approaching and voters hedging their bets on candidates' appeal, electability and long-term staying power, things are getting interesting. And Republicans are getting antsy that Howard Dean won't be the nominee. Uh oh...
|
United STRAWBERRY of America
Citizen
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 1842
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 3:35 pm: | |
Dearest Michaela,
No one is getting antsy. It's only January..
I pledge Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.
|
JJC
Citizen
Username: Mercury
Post Number: 186
Registered: 12-2002
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 3:40 pm: | |
New Hampshire - really, who cares? Next week NH will not matter. |
lumpyhead
Citizen
Username: Lumpyhead
Post Number: 644
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 3:40 pm: | |
Do you think Dad will let her put a Vote Bush Out sign on the lawn?? |
Michaela May
Citizen
Username: Mayquene
Post Number: 53
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 4:09 pm: | |
Straw, I gave you the benefit of the doubt, and figured it would be maybe 10 minutes until you responded. Buh, wow, only 6!
You don't think they have reason to get nervous? Now, I can't imagine you read that article in that six minutes. Read it, then tell me. 
My dad would never allow an anti-Bush sign in the front yard. NEVER.
I think New Hampshire will matter to the extent that it could weed out candidates, make others gain steam (Edwards?). Who knows? |
Dave Ross
Citizen
Username: Dave
Post Number: 6201
Registered: 4-1998
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 4:10 pm: | |
I'm glad Bush was attacking Edwards today. Good sign. A third place would be great for him in NH tomorrow, but Clark has been campaigning in NH for so long it isn't likely. Predicting finish of Kerry, Dean, Clark, Edwards tomorrow. Rev. Al won't do so well. |
United STRAWBERRY of America
Citizen
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 1845
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 4:25 pm: | |
what article?
I pledge Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.
|
Michaela May
Citizen
Username: Mayquene
Post Number: 55
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 4:34 pm: | |
Sorry Straw, I screwed up!
Here is the link, titled the same: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47276-2004Jan25.html?nav=hptoc_p
|
Dave Ross
Citizen
Username: Dave
Post Number: 6203
Registered: 4-1998
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 4:43 pm: | |
Presenting our next president....
quote:These Republicans said they worry most about Edwards, because he is so little known and has such a comparatively short public record. That combination would give him the easiest time morphing into whatever his campaign decides that swing voters want. "Personally, I'm the most concerned about Edwards, because he has a huge attractiveness to him," a senior Republican official said. "The only negative is the lack of experience."
Another Republican official who is worried about facing Edwards called him "Clinton without the scandal -- John Kennedy, from the South."
"He's the most appealing of the candidates, and hardest to typify as a hard-core liberal," this official said. "Edwards is seen as a problem. Everybody in Massachusetts hates Kerry. Everybody in the Democratic Party hates Dean. Everyone in the military hates Clark. But nobody hates Edwards."
|
Nohero
Citizen
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 2802
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 4:48 pm: | |
Mo Rocca of the Daily Show, on a newschannel over the weekend, described Senator Edwards as a combination of Bill Clinton and Justin Timberlake ...
That experience issue is something to give serious thought about, however. Unfortunately, it could be used as an unfair "shorthand" attack on Edwards, in the fall campaign. Edwards would be an asset to the ticket as a number 2, absolutely no question about that.
And yes, I am unfairly looking at "electability", as a factor to be considered in the primaries. |
Dave Ross
Citizen
Username: Dave
Post Number: 6204
Registered: 4-1998
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 4:57 pm: | |
Bush will attack Edwards for being a trial attorney (you know, those nasty people who get in the way of corporations producing shoddy, overpriced and dangerous products for an unsuspecting and defenseless public).
And it won't work because Bush can't get away from his ties to big corporate America. Edwards is, simply, the only candidate who won't need to work hard to beat Bush. |
sportsnut
Citizen
Username: Sportsnut
Post Number: 867
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 5:00 pm: | |
and those who back Edwards - are they prohibited from bashing Bush's corporate ties?
After all I think I read that early on 80% of edwards campaign funds came from trial attorneys. See it works both ways. |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 494
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 5:09 pm: | |
I thought trial attorneys are the guys who sue the big, bad corporations.
I think it gives you more latitude to bash Bush's corporate ties. |
Nohero
Citizen
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 2804
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 5:10 pm: | |
I have to confess, that I don't know anything about the cases Edwards dealt with. I'd guess that in the mind of the general public, there are two kinds of trial attorneys. There are the "good" trial attorneys (who win justice for sick kids poisoned by their drinking water, etc.), and "bad" trial attorneys (suing McD's for overly-hot coffee, etc.).
The "good" kind can claim to be battling evil corporations on behalf of the little guy. |
Dave Ross
Citizen
Username: Dave
Post Number: 6206
Registered: 4-1998
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 5:17 pm: | |
Here's how Edwards fairs. Give Bush all the states he won against Gore except for North Carolina. Edwards wins. (Though I predict a blowout against Bush with additional southern states).
 |
Dave Ross
Citizen
Username: Dave
Post Number: 6207
Registered: 4-1998
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 5:19 pm: | |
quote:The defining case in Edwards' legal career wrapped up that same year. In 1993, a five-year-old girl named Valerie Lakey had been playing in a Wake County, N.C., wading pool when she became caught in an uncovered drain so forcefully that the suction pulled out most of her intestines. She survived but for the rest of her life will need to be hooked up to feeding tubes for 12 hours each night. Edwards filed suit on the Lakeys' behalf against Sta-Rite Industries, the Wisconsin corporation that manufactured the drain. Attorneys describe his handling of the case as a virtuoso example of a trial layer bringing a negligent corporation to heel. Sta-Rite offered the Lakeys $100,000 to settle the case. Edwards passed. Before trial, he discovered that 12 other children had suffered similar injuries from Sta-Rite drains. The company raised its offer to $1.25 million. Two weeks into the trial, they upped the figure to $8.5 million. Edwards declined the offer and asked for their insurance policy limit of $22.5 million. The day before the trial resumed from Christmas break, Sta-Rite countered with $17.5 million. Again, Edwards said no. On January 10, 1997, lawyers from across the state packed the courtroom to hear Edwards' closing argument, "the most impressive legal performance I have ever seen," recalls Dayton. Three days later, the jury found Sta-Rite guilty and liable for $25 million in economic damages (by state law, punitive damages could have tripled that amount). The company immediately settled for $25 million, the largest verdict in state history. For their part, Edwards and Kirby earned the Association of Trial Lawyers of America's national award for public service.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0110.green.html |
Michaela May
Citizen
Username: Mayquene
Post Number: 56
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 5:24 pm: | |
I'm suspicious of some of legislation to curb lawsuits ... A lot of it seems to be pushed by big business interests who don't want to be held accountable for knowingly exposing people to asbestos and for other terrible things. Unfortunately, some politicans are happy to confuse outrageous lawsuits with ones on the behalf of truly injured, generally powerless people harmed by big political contributors. |
Nohero
Citizen
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 2806
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 5:27 pm: | |
So, Dave, you're saying that Edwards is the "good" kind?  |
Tom Reingold
Citizen
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 1865
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 5:38 pm: | |
Given that independents are allowed to vote in either (but not both) primaries in NH, couldn't a lot of Republican-tending people vote for the Democrat whom they think has the least chance of beating Bush? Well, yes, they could, but would they?
Tom Reingold the prissy-pants
There is nothing
|
bobk
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 4451
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 5:53 pm: | |
Bush is cycling prominent Republicans through New Hampshire to try to offset the publicity the Dems are getting. Yesterday and today John McCain, who whooped Bush IIs butt there is freezing his Arizona butt up in the frozen north, although, I suspect he keeps his fingers crossed when praising Bush.
Tom, some of that goes on. However, New Hampshire voters seem to take their role as the first real primary pretty seriously from everything I have read. The main problem is that independents will support centrist candidates and then vote for the other party in the general elections. The aforementioned Senator McCain won on the strength of the independent vote four years ago. |
Nohero
Citizen
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 2807
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 8:15 pm: | |
Bobk: I think you're right about McCain having mixed feelings about stumping for Bush.
I think he won in N.H. four years ago. That made Bush fall back on an old family habit - that is, be as nasty as necessary. In order to win in South Carolina the next week, Bush spoke at racist, anti-Catholic Bob Jones University, and his minions started spreading stories about McCain having an illegitimate black child.
Turns out, the Senator with an illegitimate black child was Strom Thurmond. But that was long ago and far away ... |
ML1
Citizen
Username: Ml1
Post Number: 1506
Registered: 5-2002
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 11:09 pm: | |
Hey, check this out, courtesy of http://www.greasylake.org:
quote:John Edwards listens to Bruce
If you're American and a Democrat and getting ready to vote in the primary elections and don't have a clue who to vote for, why not let music taste decide it? According to the Associated Press, Senator John Edwards' favorite album at the moment is The Essential Bruce Springsteen. John Edwards came in 2nd at the first primary in Iowa and still has a good chance of winning the race. The other candidates' music taste spans from hip-hop singer Wyclef Jean (Howard Dean) to Journey (Wesley Clark) and Italian tenor Andrea Bocelli (Joe Lierberman).
A solid reason to vote Edwards! |
Mayhewdrive
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 745
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 11:17 pm: | |
ML1,
Very good point, but remember during the debate last Fall when asked for their favorite song, John Kerry said "No Surrender".
A Kerry-Edwards ticket (or vice versa) is starting to "sound" even better. (pun intended) |
Nohero
Citizen
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 2811
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 11:32 pm: | |
M-1 and M-Drive:
Gentlemen: You have both pointed out the reasons why a Kerry/Edwards ticket could be the ideal choice in this election. In addition to Edwards' selection of the "Essential Bruce" album, Kerry continues to use "No Surrender" as one of his rally songs.
Think about it. What if a certain performer could be persuaded to appear at the convention, to perform said "No Surrender", as the kick-off to the campaign? That should be worth some votes, right?
And after that, everybody shouts: "And we're going to retake the White House, Yee-hah!" |
ML1
Citizen
Username: Ml1
Post Number: 1512
Registered: 5-2002
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 11:38 pm: | |
Yee-hah! |
michael
Citizen
Username: Michael
Post Number: 462
Registered: 1-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 27, 2004 - 2:08 am: | |
Dave- you're living in a fantasy world man. Too young, too inexperienced too unknown. Not questioning character, ideas or policy just know the American electorate.
Sorry.
Hey how about Bush drops Cheney and brings on Rice as VP ! That’s a killer ticket.
Cheney served his purpose in the first election but now has become too much of a liability. Condie is the perfect choice. Smart intelligent Black woman Vice president.
Beats Hillary to the punch and solidifies ticket.
HEY GOP ARE YOU LISTENING OUT THERE?
Support the Maplewood/South Orange Ministry of Propaganda
(otherwise known as the CCR)
|
bobk
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 4452
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 27, 2004 - 5:03 am: | |
Personally I think Cheney is the actual President and Bush gets his advise from him down to what to have for dinner. Bush is very much a creation of the GOP. He has a famous name and a very short record of public service, all in a state with a very weak governors office. Heck, he even has deniability on the death penalty claims because there is a clemency board that makes the decisions.
Edwards is similar, without the famous name. He is a first term senator so he doesn't have a long voting record to pick apart. |
mem
Citizen
Username: Mem
Post Number: 2685
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 27, 2004 - 9:46 am: | |
Edwards must be rich with all those lawsuits. Is he an ambulance chaser? |
sportsnut
Citizen
Username: Sportsnut
Post Number: 868
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 27, 2004 - 12:44 pm: | |
Yes, he is an ambulance chaser.
Ms. May - your suspicion of curbing lawsuits is somewhat justified, however, consider the costs to the general public of multi-million dollar lawsuits. Everyone views them now as a way to beat the system. I have no problem with punishing big corporations who willingly produce bad products, however when someone is injured by a product in such a manner that could not have been forseen how do you justify such an amount.
Even in the case that Dave cited we don't know all of the facts and even if we did is a $25M verdict justified? All of those verdicts punish everyone not just the corporations because as you know they push those costs on to consumers. What happens when a verdict of that size causes a company to declare bankrupcy? What happens to all of their employees?
For every sad story like the one Dave presented there are hundreds more that are not so sad. My old college roommate started his legal career defending the NYC Housing Authority. He had one case where a man opened an emergency door and stuck his arm through it and repeatedly slammed the door on his arm until it broke. He then sued the city stating that the door malfunctioned. What he didn't realize was that the entire thing was caught on tape. These things go on all the time and my old college roommate could tell you hundreds of stories about how the city paid out millions of dollars on lawsuits where they viewed that sympathetic juries would award ten times that much.
If Edwards gets the nod you can count on the GOP hammering him on tort reform. They will get out the message that he got rich at the expense of the american population because the cost of his victories was passed on to the consumer. That ought to go over really well. |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 496
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 27, 2004 - 1:03 pm: | |
Here's a different take on liability litigation:
http://www.citizen.org/congress/civjus/tort/articles.cfm?ID=568 |
Dave
Citizen
Username: Dave
Post Number: 6221
Registered: 4-1998
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 27, 2004 - 1:22 pm: | |
Is Fred Profeta an ambulance-chaser, too? |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 1864
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 27, 2004 - 1:26 pm: | |
The thing is, though, that people want to feel safe and will pay a premium for it. Many of us realize that what is usually referred to as "tort And if you drive more expensive but higher safety-rated car, put in an alarm system, check your smoke detectors, get that heavy-duty stroller, and a host of other little things, you'vereform" is just code for "protect big corporations." People like it when the stuff they buy works the way it's supposed to, and doesn't injure you when it doesn't.
Check out the nearby thread on Target stores. Most people in that informal survey feel that Target employees need to be accountable to their customers, and are especially disappointed when the higher-ups are even less responsive.
Now in your example of the guy with the door. What ultimately happened to him? Did he go to prison? How about a tort reform that penalizes people who file lawsuits based on fraudulent claims? Not any person who loses the case, but allows prosecution of people like the broken-arm guy (who actually should be in a mental ward, but I digress) or the "expert" witness who presents demonstrably bogus conclusions*.
FBut for} every broken-arm guy there's a corporate executive sweeping product or workplace safety under the rug. Neither one of them ought to be protected.
* by demonstrably I mean that for scientific conclusions to be considered valid they need to be reproducable. |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 497
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 27, 2004 - 1:27 pm: | |
the interesting thing is that I checked out a few sites, from both public interest groups and the insurance industry and the numbers they use are all the same. For the last year available, all liability settlements totaled about $4.1 billion. Sounds like a lot of dough, untill you realize there are almost 290 million Americans. if as tort reformers claim, all that cost is passed back to consumers, by my math it's a paltry $14 per person per year.
According to Public Citizen, it works out to 0.26% of the cost of retail goods.
Doesn't really sound like a crisis to me. |
Dave
Citizen
Username: Dave
Post Number: 6223
Registered: 4-1998
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 27, 2004 - 1:34 pm: | |
I don't think anyone is arguing that there aren't abuses in some lawsuits. Nothing's perfect. How you price your life and health and how insurance companies price your life and health are going to be different numbers. The point is that a jury of your peers in a court of law is going to ultimately be the best judge rather than arbitrary limits to keep insurance companies happy. |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 1865
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 27, 2004 - 1:34 pm: | |
It's only a crisis if you're a corporation trying to get away with something. |
Tom Reingold
Citizen
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 1882
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 27, 2004 - 1:46 pm: | |
Dr. O'B, I don't think the total of settlements is the entirety of costs. It might even be the minority. There are warning labels, unnecessarily beefed up products, products taken off the market, and the price of liability insurance.
I'm not making a comment on either side of this issue yet, but we have to consider the above costs.
Tom Reingold the prissy-pants
There is nothing
|
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 788
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 27, 2004 - 1:48 pm: | |
It's not an across the board crisis. But there are states (MS, NV) where I've read malpractise insurance rates drive OB/GYN practitioners out of those states.
It costs a lot of money to come up innocent, and filing a case is much easier if the lawyer just thinks he can get some jury to convict and he takes 30% of the winnings. Loser pays? That discrminates against the poorest of corporate or medical victims.
There need to be some reforms. I'm not a legal guy to say what they need to be, but you have districts in this states known as "The Bank" -- where juries are out to shaft 'evil' deep-pocket corporations or medical outfits denying everyone service, or making it more expensive for everyone as it's the consumer that ends up paying for these sometimes outrageous awards. |
mem
Citizen
Username: Mem
Post Number: 2690
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 27, 2004 - 1:48 pm: | |
Dave,
I'm not sure what kind of law Fred practices, but I don't think it's lawsuits. Maybe someone here can answer that? |
Dave
Citizen
Username: Dave
Post Number: 6224
Registered: 4-1998
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 27, 2004 - 1:56 pm: | |
Sure, Fred got a big settlement against Volkswagen. He's a talented trial attorney. |
bobk
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 4463
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 27, 2004 - 1:58 pm: | |
The thing you forget is that only a very small small percentage of lawsuits ever go to trial. Most are settled. The threat of a very high verdict results in very high settlements, especially in juristictions where the courts are pro plaintiff such as here in NJ and in NY.
A personal opinion is that awards (and settlements) are so high in this country because there is a very weak safety net as far as social welfare programs as compared to most of Western Europe and Japan.
The swimming pool case that Dave mentions was a slam dunk for any reasonably skilled trial attorney. The company's products had a history of similar malfunctions and the injuries were truly horrible. The only question was how much? The manufacturers (actually his insurers) tried the case because they thought it was worth less than Edwards thought it was worth. Edwards, with his charm and down home manner got a lot of money for his client and for himself.
I kind of doubt that Senator Edwards made a career of representing people with phony injuries from staged accidents and other such shenanigans simply because he has the combination of skills, drive, looks, reputation (after the pool case) and personality to do very very well with cases that have merit.
The same skills make him a great political candidate by the way. He knows how to make people like him and he also does his homework.
|
Dave
Citizen
Username: Dave
Post Number: 6225
Registered: 4-1998
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 27, 2004 - 2:04 pm: | |
Link to the Volkswagen case (thanks to Ashear for posting it last year)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=ny&vol=I02&invol=0018 |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 498
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 27, 2004 - 2:55 pm: | |
Tom prissy pants,
my writing was a bit sloppy. the 0.26% number actually is independent of the total cost of liabilibty settlements. It's acutally the estimate of what percent liability insurance makes up of consumer goods' prices.
the other thing to look at in the data is that the cost of liability lawsuits is actually trending down, not up.
so if that's the case, where's the crisis? |
Tom Reingold
Citizen
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 1890
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 27, 2004 - 2:57 pm: | |
Indeed, that doesn't look as bad.
Private pilots, though, are disappointed that Cessna is out of business because of this.
And what about how gynocologists and structural engineers can't afford to practice?
I'm not in favor of capping awards, though. I don't know what the solution is.
Tom Reingold the prissy-pants
There is nothing
|
ashear
Citizen
Username: Ashear
Post Number: 930
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 27, 2004 - 3:41 pm: | |
The problem that gynocologists have is not that jury awards or settlements are too high, it is that malpractice insurance is too high. One might think these two things were connected but it is not clear that they are. When the stock market was good and the insurance compaines investments were soaring they offered lower rates to get buisiness from the competition. when the market tanked rates went up and some compaines went under. In Ca they did tort reform but did not see insurance rates go down till they started regulating the insurance companies. Even if you do tort reform, absent regualtion, you can't be sure the savings will be passed on to the doctors. |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 499
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 27, 2004 - 3:45 pm: | |
If I'm not mistaken, Texas also capped medical malpractice awards, and doctors' insurance premiums did not go down.
I'll have to verify that one. |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 500
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 27, 2004 - 3:54 pm: | |
I was close, it was auto insurance:
http://www.cej-online.org/factfic.php |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page