I think that should be the campaign slogan of the Democratic nominee for President in 2004.

There has already been a T-shirt made and sold at the
Lesbian/Women's Bookstore on 4th in Tucson that said, refering to the Supreme Court decision on sodomy and privacy:

"Lick Bush in 2004, The Supreme Court sez we can"

or something to that effect!

I think this is a better slogan. I admit I hate all of the democratic candidates and would probably vote for Bush again but this slogan has me reconsidering my position.

That is a good camel toe. Should be rated 10. Plz no more Bush, I want to go Cuba soon and with all his Cuba policy he got to go soon.

btw, check out more camel toes at www.cameltoe.com

Reminder to self: ignore all Presidential election talk until people actually start voting. Everything before that is worthless.

Hey, it turns out that the classic photo of Jane Fonda with John Kerry at some antiwar protest is a fake!

It's nice to see you ladies want to keep your right to choose.

According to some US general, "Time is running out for Bin Laden". I am sure that he is right, the election is only 7 months away. So, how soon before the election is the right time to announce the capture of Bin Laden's freeze dried body?

I'd say two or three weeks before the election. And right after that the adminstration is going to trot out Al Capone, the real killer of JFK and MLK, and the Easter Bunny.

I love liberals.

Oh come on Aldaron you know it's a right wing conspericy.

It's right to be right

A vast one.....

Its always a conspiracy.

The one that made me laugh the hardest is that Bush wants to go to Mars because Halliburton wants to have mineral rights there. God thats great.

US companies seldom have 20 year business plans, yet alone 100 year business plans, which would be about the time frame necesary for us to be ready to economically mine something on mars. In fact I would bet that we wont be able to pull it off even in 100 years. Unless Explorer invents a new type of very high speed heavy lift space craft.

Batstertheskeptic

More Trees, Less Bush!

This is the time when people start thinking that the Demos will oust Bush this November. However, after Kerry gets his bump from the convention, its the Republican turn, and they will spend the next 100 days trying to convince us all that Kerry is a chicken.

Hmmm ... Edwards just gave his speech, the first time I saw him give his speech. He kind of reminds me of Dan Quayle, except smarter, charismatic, better speaker, maybe not such a good golfer though.

As a Bush supporter, I view Edwards as perhaps the most dangerous aspect of the Democratic campaign. I'm a lawyer, and am well-acquainted with the contribution that my "noble" profession makes to the national well-being: absolutely none. The single largest special interest group supporting the DNC generally, and Kerry/Edwards specifically, is a relatively small elite of plaintiff's personal injury lawyers, who have already bankrupted scores of companies that were related, however tangentially, with asbestos, as well as Dow Corning, a manufacturer of breast implants. While there is medical evidence about the dangers of asbestos, the vast majority of current claimants have no symptoms, and a comparatively modest level of exposure. It is now clear that there is no scientific evidence that silicone implants caused any systemic disease, and yet it is that claim that put Dow Corning under. This group did the same thing with a product called Bendectin, the only efficacious treatment for morning sickness (a condition that results in the termination of a discernable percentage of pregnancies because of maternal intolerance of the condition). Their unsupported assertion drove the product off the market, and it has never been reintroduced. Plaintiff's lawyers almost drove childhood vaccine manufacturers out of business, and again it has been indisputably established that DPT vaccine does not cause catastophic neurological injuries, as plaintiffs' lawyers claimed. Edwards is supported by this group by very big cash donations, and he is cut from exactly the same cloth. His modus operandi when he was in practice was to sue ob/gyns, was to claim that an infant's cerebral palsy was caused by the doctor's delay in ordering a c-section. But there is no scientific evidence (as opposed to whorish expert witnesses [see I could get back on topic if I needed to])of any relationship between the incidence of cerebral palsy and c-sections. In fact, while the frequency of c-sections has sky-rocketed in recent years (thanks largely to perceived litigation exposure from vaginal childbirth) the incidence of cerebral palsy has remained constant. Were the Edwards' hypothesis supportable, as c-sections increased in popularity, the incidence of cerebral palsy should have decreased, and it has not. These lawyers, dressed up in faux populist garb, are elitist villians, gaming the justice system without regard for who gets hurt, as long as they get paid. They are a principal reason why our economy is not competitive in so many respects (do you think China will be bothered by the economic overhang of lawyers when it becomes a major exporting power?). If Kerry is elected, Edwards and his ilk will not only have gained unprecedented power, there will only be a heartbeat away from having the executive branch of the government controlled by a plaintiff's personal injury trial lawyer. This is a greater threat to our democracy than anything Nixon or Johnson or Reagan every pulled off. As an experienced defense attorney, I am genuinely fearful about this prospect. You should be too.

A very lawyerly response.

I guess that you are advocating that when 'regular' people are wronged by some corporate giant that we meekly give in and allow the corporate lawyer teams to successfully defend their clients, wrong or right. On the other hand, I suspect that you never met a corporate client who you thought was in the wrong.

I would strongly advocate severe constraints on trial lawyers, if similar and equal constraints were placed on corporate lawyers (what those constraints would be, I have no idea, though). Nothing would be better for our economy if 90% of the trial lawyers AND corporate attorneys were unemployed - Shakespeare had it right.

BUT simply demanding that the plaintiffs' attorneys are to be controlled without a similar demand against the defendant's attorneys is simply playing games.`

So, Dripper, let me see if I've got this right. You're against Edwards because he represents ... what? Greed? (Insert picture of pot calling kettle black.)

Perhaps I misunderstood. Perhaps you're opposed to individuals unfairly screwing corporations (e.g. Dow Corning), but as a Bush supporter you're OK with corporations unfairly screwing the people (Haliburton, Enron, ect.). Is that correct?

Explorer: I entirely agree that "constraints" should be placed equally on both sides of the bar. But, if you'll forgive me, you've changed the subject. Although I have a lot of reservations about the way we parcel out "justice" the immediate concern is whether it will be good for the nation to have plaintiffs' trial lawyers in positions of considerable power. I hope this will illustrate the willingness of the plaintiffs' trial bar to put their interests ahead of anything else. Ever since 9/11, much concern has been expressed about the dangers of anthrax, and we all remembers the letters with the "white powdery substance" in the Washington DC post office, Senate chamber, and in Florida where someone was killed. Companies have now developed a vaccine to meet this danger, but they are not inclined to produce it because they are concerned that if someone has an adverse reaction (which with vaccines occur even though the vaccine is perfectly made) the plaintiffs' trial bar will hit them with horrific class action suits. The trial bar has stopped legislation to give immunity to these manufacturers, so that if anthrax were, heaven forbid, discovered in your neighborhood, there will be no vaccine to protect. Thank John Edwards for that. Corporate America is not made up of saints, and it often deserves its comuppence (sp?). But, these guys are dangerous, want only to enrich themselves, have turned the culture to worship and revere victims, and tear down successes. I'm happy to discuss reforms needed in the legal system, but my present point is that Edwards should be stopped.

"the immediate concern is whether it will be good for the nation to have plaintiffs' trial lawyers in positions of considerable power. "

That may be YOUR immediate concern, because your job is to defend large corporations against them. OUR concern is that BOTH sides be more tightly controlled. To advocate that only one side of the judicial processs be restrained is UnAmerican, that is precisely what happened in the Soviet Union.

Wombat88: I'm not in favor of corporations taking advantage of anyone, and think that the bulk of the prosecutions from the era of grand excess (the '90s) are completely justified. But like Explorer, you've changed the subject. You're certainly not obliged to respond to my post, but if you do, you should do so on its terms. Edwards is the good-looking, smooth-talking poster child of a malignant impluse in our country: the willingness to prostitute our system of justice with junk science to make a buck, the larger social cost be damned. If lawyers on my side of the fence did it, I'd denounce them too.

Explorer: I entirely agree that limits should be applied equally to my side as well as theirs. But whether those limits are evenly imposed won't, I fear, bear much on how folks cast their votes.

Now, now, Dripper, you stated "... I view Edwards as perhaps the most dangerous aspect of the Democratic campaign" then go on to demonstrate how lawyers of his ilk harm corporations (and maybe the good of the country). Are you, or are you not, saying that Edwards, et. al., are greedy? If you are saying they're greedy, then the pot calls the kettle black. If you're not saying they are greedy, well, what the heck are you saying?

As for Edwards using junk science, well, shall we talk about the sort of science the White House used to go to war with Iraq? How 'bout the sort of science they're using to justify the missle defence strategy?

As a Bush supporter, are you saying that the country is better off with a war monger in office than a slick lawyer? Frankly, I'd rather Edwards screw us in the collective ass than Bush slit our throats.

Wombat88: Avarice all by itself is not the reason I condemn Edwards and his ilk. Rather, it is their unprincipled approach to the manipulation of the tort system that astounds me, makes everything more expensive for you, and costs the nation billions in lost jobs, decreased productivity, and unwarranted transfers of wealth. To be clear, I make money when these guys are successful, because defense lawyers have to be hired to resist their skullduggery (sp?). So I'm not sure where I have graduated to black kettle status. "Junk science" has little to do with the intelligence miscues leading up to Iraq. At least with Bush you can vote him out if you're not convinced about the missle defense issue. With Edwards and the plaintiffs' trial bar, there is no democracy involved at all. They persuade twelve jurors to do something, and wham, the case is closed and millions are ordered transferred. You get no vote whatsoever.

Dripper:

It sounds like you are simply frustrated that the trial lawyers are beating the pants off the corporate lawyers in court these days. Somehow, I just can't feel a lot of pity for the corporate lawyers, after having paid our corporate lawyers for their fine efforts in our behalf. You know, those $600 an hour guys that you want us to help. Not that they are greedy, mind you.

OK Dripper, so your beef with Edwards is that he has been able to manipulate people? Is that the problem? If so, let's talk about how the current administration has manipulated people, shall we?

Is your beef with Edwards to do with the fact that he has used legal slight-of-hand to win cases? If so, let's have a look at the rights of all those folks in prison who have not had access to a lawyer. Oh, sorry, those are "enemy combatants" and therefore don't count, right? Who gets to decide who is an "enemy combatant"? Why, the president of course. What criteria is use? Oh, I dunno, what ever the president (or whomever is pulling the strings) decides. Don't EVEN get me started on the Screw the Constitution Act ... uh, I mean Patriot Act.

As far as voting out Bush, that's the whole point, isn't it? I'm not exactly impressed with Kerry (hell, I'm not impressed with any current public official), but the Republican government has moved a little too close to fascism for my liking.

Explorer: Neither myself nor any of my colleagues need or want either sympathy or pity. The more successful the plaintiffs' trial bar is, the more successful we are. Nor am I suggesting that defense lawyers are working for the public welfare. That is not our job; we must represent our clients, not the public. The point is that the plaintiffs' trial bar is subverting the public interest, and it would be disastrous if they are allowed to have sufficient sway in the executive branch so that their influence is felt beyond the judicial branch.

Wombat88: Among my many beefs with Edwards is that he and his fellows purport to represent the interests of the "little guy" when in fact they are only interested in themselves, and are parasites on the backs of the their supposed clients. I am a little surprised, if you'll forgive me, that on a forum that so values personal experience of its contributors, you not only discount a career's worth of experience with these folks, and then turn the subject to whether the administration manipulates or is borderline fascist. Admittedly, my disparaging Edwards naturally leads to the question of what is the alternative. But if you don't consider my critique of Edwards on the merits, and move immediately to the option, it seems to me that you are willing to concede all of Edwards' many faults, and blindly cast your vote not for Edwards/Kerry, but against Bush. The "anybody but Bush" movement lacks any coherent policy alternative as nearly as I can tell, and is one poor reason to vote for an otherwise unpalatable candidate.

With that, I'll call a truce. Thanks for sharing your thoughts with me. I have enjoyed both your posts and comments and will look forward to them in the future. Peace.

C'mon, Dripper, you can't be serious. "... he and his fellows purport to represent the interests of the 'little guy'..." Just whose interests does Bush claim to represent? Uh, big oil? Gimme a break.

"and blindly cast your vote ... against Bush." Huh? Are you suggesting that if you identify something credibly wrong with Kerry/Edwards that I should therefore blindly cast my ballot for Bush? Gimme another break.

Perhaps if you provided some strong argument in favor of voting for Bush, I might be swayed. As far as I'm concerned, like most elections, it's the lessor of two evils.

(I just wish we could bring Clinton back.)

President Bush represents ALL of us, and has done and will continue to do what is best for the security of the USA.

Drip points to integrity/intentions in Edwards. As I watched him speak yesterday, I wondered who the hell would fall for his phony shit.
The punk isn't qualified. I feel better than ever about this election now.

Finally, Mr Gardner is speaking again about Kerry. Having served with Kerry, he knows him to be a phony, lacking integrity, self serving prick. He knows he ran when he should have fought, He knows he refused orders to draw fire, and instead altered course and hid in the reeds.

I can't wait till the Doonesbury cartoons pop back up, showing Kerry to be what he is. I can't wait till we see his draft number. I can't wait till we see how how picked his duty and why. I can't wait till everyone sees how contrived he was and how he fucked it up!

This is a guy who curses at the Secret Service agent and blames him for his fall skiing.
This is a guy who flips off a Vietnam Vet in front of school children.
This is a guy who can't admit to being able to afford and desire to use something as silly as botox.
This is a guy who holds the most liberal record in Washington, then runs from it in denial. What is the problem with backing your own ass up?

He will blow it tonight, rest assured. He can't lay on the Nam and not draw return fire.

Rimnoj:

I guess you were wrong.


BTW, any idea why Kerry's shipmates, who were actually with him in Vietnam, showed up to support him?

And how come you support that draft dodging, coke snorking, drunk for President?

Rimnoj says:

"I can't wait till we see his draft number."

If you are asserting that Kerry enlisted in the Navy to avoid the draft, all that he had to do is stay in college, and voila, no worries about the draft. Somehow, volunteering for a swift boat in the Mekong Delta does not seem like a good way to avoid the draft.

And yet, Rimnoj, you support a man who can't string four phrases together unless it's scripted for him by his puppetmasters? You support a man who, despite his strong Christian convictions, happily sent retards to their death in Texas prisons? You support a man who has spent more time vacationing than any other president in the past century? You support a man with close ties to the Saudis and the Bin Lauden family? (You remember the Saudis, right? They were the ones who flew the planes on Sept. 11.) You support a man who, even after the attacks of Sept 11 demonstrated our real vulnerabilities, believes that the US needs a missle defense system? You support a man who is in the process of producing the biggest deficit in the history of the United States? You support a man who is spending more on the military than all the other nations of the world combined? You support a man who asks soldiers in the field to pray for him? You support a man who wants to re-unite church and state? You support a man who would rather drill for oil in a wildlife refuge than seek ways to reduce our need for the resource? Seriously, Rimnoj, just how is it that Bush turns your crank? Give us some real good reasons to give Bush a thumbs up.

>>>he and his fellows purport to represent the interests of the "little guy" when in fact they are only interested in themselves, and are parasites on the backs of the their supposed clients

Very well, simple solution - take away the big payday. Make it illegal for the lawyers to get anything from the settlement except payment for their hours billed. And cap the billable hourly rate (for settlement purposes) by basing it upon the average for the area where the suit is taking place. All of a sudden those lawyers have a LOT less incentive to sue.

Of course I'm not stupid enough to believe anything even remotely similar to that will ever happen, because it's lawyers who make all the laws...

I wonder if Sen. Kerry will walk the walk like Sen. Bob Dole did when he was running for President and resign as a senator, or will he just talk the talk?

Why, Roadglide, because if he doesn't then that makes Bush the better man? Beeeeg deeeel!

Rimnoj writes "(Bush) "has done and will continue to do what is best for the security of the USA"

Gee, you don't put much stock in the bipartisan conclusions of the 9/11 commission do you? During what the commission deemed the 'summer of threat' your hero was enjoying the longest presidential vacation in 32 years. Despite receiving the now infamous "Bin Laden Determined to Attack in U.S" intelligence alert he remained away from Washington for another 27 days.

To quote from the report "the domestic agencies never mobilized in response to the threat. They did not have the direction, and did not have a plan to institute. The borders were not hardened. Transportation systems were not fortified. Electronic surveillance was not targeted against a domestic threat. State and local law enforcement were not marshaled to augment the FBI's efforts. The public was not warned."

"Very well, simple solution - take away the big payday. Make it illegal for the lawyers to get anything from the settlement except payment for their hours billed. And cap the hVery well, simple solution - take away the big payday. Make it illegal for the lawyers to get anything from the settlement except payment for their hours billed. And cap the billable hourly rate (for settlement purposes) by basing it upon the average for the area where the suit is taking place. All of a sudden those lawyers have a LOT less incentive to sue. "

The lawyers who want to sue are only half the problem. The other half of the problem is when you get injured or otherwise harmed by some corporation, you try to sue them, and their armies of corporate lawyers simply wear you down. Unless you are very wealthy, the only way you have only hope to win a lawsuit against a corporation is by hiring a lawyer on contingency.

So, unless you want to impinge on your own rights, attacking the trial lawyers will bite you in the butt, because the corporate lawyers are just as bad - actually worse from my perspective.

Kerry did delivery a good speech, if only because he spoke quickly. He can't back it up or make it fit together , however.
When the hell was the fifty years of peace he’s talking about? Truth his #1 priority LOL! Judge me by my record! Ha, what an ASS! We have been! He insults civilians and Military alike by saying we were fooled into going to war. The situation demanded it. Anything else would have been foolhardy. The only frustration the boots in the field have is that so many at home still do not get it. He implies we didn’t have enough troops to do the job, I absolutely guarantee you we could have done a shit load more with a forth the bodies, providing the muzzle is removed. Next time, if we have to. We don’t all hide in the weeds.

I imagine he has smoked and snorted his share btw, he can't be that much a stiff.

Bush serving in the Guard isn’t dodging the draft. I have been to a few guardsman’s funerals. Too bad Kerry couldn't handle all those switches and dials on the planes, maybe they would have found a place for the guy.

Vets do not wish to disparage a man who enlisted (well, went as an officer) , but it is getting tough to remain silent. The majority of those who served with Kerry do NOT support him. Remember the flack over showing the photos?
Gardner rode in 44 boat with Kerry. This guy spent 4 years in the jungle, not Kerry's 4 months. There is a lot of blood yet to spill on his record. It’s tough to get these guys to open up, but it is coming.

Kerry was sure to get drafted. He made a good move and enlisted, picking the Navy. Look at the stats, compare them to the Marines, Army and Air force. He rode out time in college, finding the war still there when he graduated. He floated on the big boat and got near the action, was smitten by the PT looking swift boats. Wanted to be JFK. Good for him. These putters at the time had "easy" duty patrolling the ports and Ocean Bays. Good duty for a guy that wants to be C'Pan. The MOS got sour a year later when he got his boat. The duty was changed to search/destroy - draw fire so large squads and even companies don't get surprised running up river. Oops-not the plan.
This guy went to areas he KNEW to be safe as to not engage. One of those guys on the stage tonight admits that. He calls it smart. I call it dereliction of Duty. That’s why I can not possibly support him.

Again, the Doonesbury cartoons of the era are hilarious and will come out. They mock his calculations of serving. He spent time in sick bay insisting he had pneumonia. He made numerous trips to safe port for ridiculous reasons. He immediately split when he could, and took six of his current supporters with him! Six months early -of course they groove on him now. He used duty as a prop. He was aggressive in getting his Purple hearts, two of which are an outright embarrassment. His third was his ticket home. He didn’t wait, he didn’t bother to finish his enlistment, but rushed home to disparage those still there. Fucker.
There is plenty of lead coming on this. Keep an open mind.

Dripper,

I can understand and respect a concern for the danger of having someone who would put the interests of a small group of trial lawyers in front of the the good of the American people, I don't think anyone here, Democrat or Republican, would want that to happen. But IMHO it is a manufactured and false image repeated over and over by the far right in an attempt to portray the Democratic challengers as extremists, in part to cover the Bush Administrations veering to the right. It's not a far stretch by conservative logic, Bush and crew have put the interests of defense contractors and energy companies in front of the interests of the American people, why wouldn't Kerry and Edwards do the same for some of their supporters?

I don't presume I could convince you or Republicans that Kerry and Edwards would not bankrupt companies with concessions to trial lawyers just as you could probably not convince me nor Democrats that they would. Changing minds is not the point of this post. But for those that do not strictly follow either ideological perspective, I would ask that one consider the possibilities: is Edwards a greedy, company-busting trial lawyer of the extreme left or is that just a misleading caricature created by the right to win an election? I'm confident that it's the latter.

Regardless of our disagreement, you argue your points in a reasonable and intelligent manner.

One thing I find ironic, though, is that you bring up the context of where this discussion is taking place. It appears as though you haven't paid close attention to the concerns of the adult entertainment community which I assume this site to be a part of. If Bush and Ashcroft get four more years we may well not be having these conversations any longer, at least not on "morally incorrect" sites such as this.

Rimjob's 7:14 post translation:

President Bush represents [those that agree with him], and has done and will continue to do [what the neocons tell him to do].

Drip points to integrity/intentions in Edwards. As I watched [Edwards] speak yesterday, I wondered [why he doesn't sound like Fox news says he is].
The punk [is smarter and wiser than Bush, but not qualified for Vice President]. I feel better than ever about this election now.

Finally, [some loser] is speaking again about Kerry. [Despite the testimonials of all the other men serving with Kerry, I believe all the drivel this guy says because it was on Fox]

I can't wait till the Doonesbury cartoons pop back up [because I am clueless regarding Trudeau's thoughts on Bush and the War and don't know the three day series in Oct 21-23,1971 does not back my position]

[I am very angry so I will spout off meaningless Kerry attacks]

He will blow it tonight, rest assured [until I actually see the speech and disagree with myself, but don't worry, I'll quickly attempt to explain around it].

Here are the awe-inspiring Doonesbury zippers on Kerry (sarcasm)! http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/kerry_faq.html

...and Trudeau's thoughts on the war and Bush (see questions #5, #7-8): http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/faqs/faq_sl.html

...and Trudeau making fun of the Right's "with us or against us logic": http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html?uc_full_date=20040503

Yes, Kerry did "delivery" well.

He can't back it up or make it fit together
Kind of like this post...

He insults civilians....We don’t all hide in the weeds.
Still confused about al Qaeda and Iraq, still confused about toppling Saddam and restoring peace...

Bush serving in the Guard isn’t dodging the draft...I call it dereliction of Duty
If you and Fox keep explaining this version of how Bush used family connections to evade combat duty for Guard duty that no documents can prove he fulfilled several thousand more times, maybe you'll convince a few gullible Independents or Democrats. Then you can try to convince them that Kerry's real combat experience and injuries were less noteworthy than Bush's "service" that still can't be proven with a few thousands more repetitions.

Again, the Doonesbury cartoons of the era...but rushed home to disparage those still there.
Are you making this up yourself or did someone make this stuff up for you? If you have sources, I would love to see them so I know who else I can laugh at.

Keep an open mind.
"He will blow it tonight, rest assured." - Rimjob 7/29/04 7:14pm
"Kerry did delivery a good speech, if only because he spoke quickly." - Rimjob 7/29/04 10:40pm

Rimnoj says:

"Bush serving in the Guard isn’t dodging the draft. I have been to a few guardsman’s funerals. "

I don't what planet you were on during the Vietnam War, but the rest of know that the National Guard was impossible to get into during the war, precisely because virtually no guardsmen were sent to the Vietnam. In fact, a former Vice President, Dan Quayle, was famous attacked because his dad pulled lots of strings to get Quayle into the Indiana National Guard. It turns out that Bush's dad was in Congress when Bush passed over 200 other guys to get a slot in the Texas National Guard.

Today, the Guard *is* often assigned to combat, but that was not the case in Vietnam. Please do not confuse combat duty today with the Vietnam era Guard simply to win debating points or to malke yourself feel better about George Bush.

Getting back on topic. Is the argument being made that a lawyer should NEVER be put in a position of leadership in our government? Edwards has already made the US Senate. What damage has he already done to the country since he is both in a position of power and also a trial lawyer?

He's baaaaaaaack!

John E. O'Neill was assigned by Richard Nixon in 1971 to publicly oppose John Kerry, who was publicly attacking Nixon's Vietnam policies (this was ultimately proved by the Nixon tapes which contain recordings of Nixon meeting with O'Neill in the Oval Office). Now, O'Neill is releasing a book that derides Kerry's war record, although O'Neill didn't know Kerry during the war.

O'Neill has made a living getting paid by Republicans to go after Kerry, so I guess his stock is rising these days.

D'Art.: Thanks for your post. You make an excellent point that it is unlikely (and unhappily so) that we're are probably not changing any minds by this discussion. And unfortunately, folks tend to look past the statements to the supposed motives for making them, and thus the statements never get seriously considered. The critique of the plaintiffs' personal injury bar (and by that I mean the same group who brought you the phony breast implant litigation, the Bendectin litigation, the DPT litigation, the recent attack on the use of thimersol (sp?) in vaccine litigation, among others) is not a distraction from the conservative inclinations of the present Administration, and indeed the "junk science" thesis dates from the late '80s and reached its zenith in the '90s when the Supreme Court completely changed the rules of the admissibility of novel scientific evidence. Ask the parent who now pays $35 for innoculations, when in the '70s it cost only five; ask the pregnant woman who now has to terminate her unborn child because she can't tolerate morning sickness; ask the countless women with silicone breast implant who were scared into multiple augmentations and explantations because lawyers terrified them without any scientific basis that their implants were poisoning them. The issue is not that this critique is good for Republicans (Orin Hatch was a trial lawyer, for example) but rather that it is bad for the country.

As to the "adult" industry issue: no supporter of a candidate is obliged to agree on every issue in order to support the candidate. I disagree with the Administration on its adult entertainment stance, but on balance I think the Administration has met unprecedented challenges, waged a war that we were not ready for (as a consequence of miscalculation by many administration, Democratic and Republican alike, and accurately predicted that its economic policies would turn the economy around. The Republicans have new ideas of combatting old, entrenched problems. The Democrats rely on the same tired formula: government should intervene and drive the economy, and drive one's life. The Republicans want to break out of that mold, and I think that is very attractive.

You're a gentleman, and I'm happy to exchange these thoughts with you.

Bluestraveller: Thanks for your question. The most immediate damage Edwards has done in the Senate is that he is one of the most intransigent opponents of the bill that would make the manufacture of 25 million doses of vaccine for anthrax available. The manufacturers won't make it unless they are given immunity from lawsuits, because they see what is happening right now with thimersol in vaccine, and what happened with DPT litigation. Edwards has clearly put the interests of the plaintiffs' trial bar ahead of national security.

Concerning the breast implant issue, I know a woman who was infected by a bad implant, this was long before the trial lawyers were involved, she was in really bad shape, so I have to take issue with your views on this.

Concerning unemployed workers in America:

"Why don't they get new jobs if they're unhappy -- or go on Prozac?" said Susan Sheybani, an assistant to Bush campaign spokesman Terry Holt.

<http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=615&u=/nm/20040729/pl_nm/campaign_jobs_dc_1&printer=1>

Gee, I'm surprised she didn't say "Let them eat cake."