TheAgitator.com
Questions for the Veeps
Wednesday, July 14th, 2004My new Fox column poses five questions each for vice presidential candidates John Edwards and Dick Cheney.
52 Responses to “Questions for the Veeps”
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial NoDerivs 2.5 License.
Good grief, what’s the expected return on effort expended in determining which of these guys would be the least bad Vice President? What good would it do anyone to know how they would answer these questions?
The expected return is probably to actually know a little something about the men who could very easily become president one day, either through tragedy or election after their higher-ups are finished. I’d be more than curious to hear how Edwards tries to weasel out of actually appearing to be the scum-sucking low life trial vulture that he is. I’d be mildly curious to hear about Cheney, but not quite as much so. Especially with the risk of terrorist attack being what it is, knowing and taking an interest in the vice presidency is not only important, but essential if one is serious about voting in an informed way.
It is not the exception but the rule that science exonerates(breast implants, cell phone, CP, etc) most of the usual reasons for lawsuits. Edwards as the smart guy he should be knows this.We can only conclude that he is what he is a blood sucking member of society. He made millions of dollars from the pain and suffering of american families affected by tragedy and likely tarnish the reputation of many fine doctors. Great guy!!!! It tells me all I need to know about the Democratic ticket.
I have a couple questions for Kerry/Edwards. The difference between mine and Radley’s is that not only are my question unanswerable, they will not be asked:
1. Kerry claims to support corporate responsiblity, but he wants to give a blanket amnesty to illegal aliens. Those thousands of corporations that have willfully violated our immigration laws for years or decades will be held responsible in what way?
2. The Kerry Amnesty will encourage millions more illegal aliens to come here in expectation of either being part of the first Kerry Amnesty (or the second, or the third…) Yet, Kerry tells us “Hispanic-American unemployment has soared more than 30% (and) 1.4 million Hispanic-Americans are out of work.” How does he expect that to get better when he’s encouraging millions of low-wage illegal alien workers to come here.
Let me know when Judy Woodruff et al. ask Edwards or Kerry those questions and make sure that they receive a real answer.
The expected return is probably to actually know a little something about the men who could very easily become president one day, either through tragedy or election after their higher-ups are finished.
So the expected return is that the answers might satisfy an idle curiousity?
You are kidding me. Edwards is the scum sucking one? Give me a break. Did you not read that Cheney is bending the rules of the government to make money by dealing with IRAN???? Home to known terrorists?? Unbelievable how people will just hear & read what they want to hear & read.
Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld, and Rice can all go. They’re all corrupt. We’ll read about it Colin Powell’s book some day…at least someone has integrity in that administration. He’s loyal to a fault, but he has integrity.
Another fine example of why I come to this blog daily.
Very nice Radley.
edwards vs. cheney
seriously.
Sorry Radley, but your third Edwards question doesn’t make any sense.
“You oppose a ban on late-term abortions, yet have sued doctors for errors made in delivering premature babies near or at the same age of gestation as a fetus would be during a late-term termination. Is it inconsistent to sue a doctor for millions of dollars for botching the delivery of a baby, but also vote to keep legal the termination of a fetus the same age?”
How about this: You oppose a ban on assisted suicides for terminally ill patients, yet have sued doctors for errors made treating patients with similar or identical conditions as a patient would be during an assisted suicide. Is it inconsistent to sue a doctor for millions of dollars for botching the treatment of a patient, but also vote to keep legal the assisted suicide of a patient in the same condition?
Or how about this: You oppose a ban on demolition derbys, yet have sued mechanics for errors made in performing repairs on cars of the same year and model as a car might be when it was entered in a derby. Is it inconsistent to sue a mechanic for thousands of dollars for botching the repair of a car, but also vote to keep legal the destruction of a car of the same type?
Michael-
How do you sue a doctor for harming a life you don’t think exists?
Cheney’s response.
1. the full faith and credit clause.
2. You said it, Sept. 11.
3. oil is the exception, if you dont like it, walk your ass to your starbucks for your frappy crappy mococcino.
4. (ok, not sure about how to answer this one).
and number 5’s answer is.
5. awww go fuck yourself.
i forgot to head up my last post:
answers that will never be given to questions that will never be asked.
and also, the answer to number 5 was in jest. dont take it personal.
Questioning the vp Candidates
Radley Balko has questions for both edwards and cheney. I’d certainly like to know their answers!…
michael,
you put too much thought into your answers… Cheney wouldn’t deign to provide responses to these or any other questions that might impugn his integrity or abilities. His answer to all five would be your response to the fifth question…
Those are very solid questions for both men. And they are both corrupt. Our current system requires one to be corrupt to reach any meaningful level in public service. Cleansing the corruption would mean starting at the grass roots level with campaign finance reform. Which will never happen because it would require a legislator to directly bite the hands that lifted him to a position of being able to introduce the legislation.
All this, Bush lied, Kerry lied…duh! Of course they have, the system requires it. Kerry flip flops, Bush flip flops…no kidding! Talking out of both sides of your mouth and walking the center line whenever possible is required or you will never get elected. Everyone knows this. Why are there streotypes about politicians, lawyers and used car salesman? because they have repeatedly proven them to be based in reality, and if there are a few of each that have integrity they are low level politicians, small time lawyers and the smallest used car lot in town.
You think Cheney is the first politician to make his private enterprise benefit from his public career? He invented it? get real! It was done by Dems and Reps that came before and will be done by those that come after. Until the system is changed to allow you to reach office with your integrity intact, no one in elected office will have it.
Powell was appointed, not elected. When he does run for elected office, he will get his hands dirty. And I totally repect the man.
I do wish everyone would drop the whole thing about what Cheney said to Leahy. It is childish. They are two grown men. Grown men do talk that way sometimes. Yes it happened on the floor. It was not part of formal proceedings. It was afterward. He wasn’t at the microphone on the podium…
“And finally my fellow Americans, my last piece of business to present before you today is to ask Mr. Leahy to go fuck himself. I move for a vote on this immediately!”
For those of you that keep harping on this, grow up. Men and women are dying and people are over here playing “Ah, he said a dirty word! He said a dirty word!”
Chris–It doesn’t bother me that Cheney said a bad word on the Senate floor, it bothers me that him and his ilk repeatedly talk about how we need to clean up America “for the children.” After all, what kind of example is this setting for our young children to see two such prominent people use a dirty word? A 5 year-old somewhere was probably scarred for life.
If you are a Bush supporter, Edwards is the scum sucking lawyer.
If you are a Bush basher, Cheney is the scum sucking corporate pig.
Now that we have established this, can either side look at Radley’s questions objectively? I would love to hear their answers. We probably never will. But at least, both sides should recognize that each one has their pluses and minuses.
For my own personal amusement, I get a kick out of Bush supporters slamming someone for making millions. Isn’t that the American Dream? Do you really believe Cheney made his millions all clean as well? Please, the hypocrisy is amazing.
Children did not “see” it or hear it. He said it to a grown man, in a room full of adults. If one could be said to “swear responsibly” he did. For the safety of the children. He did not yell it across the room. An aide (who usually stands real closeby) overheard it and made sure the press knew about it.
I disagree with much of the Reps stance on “cleaning up America” by trampling on free speech. But this was a comment between two men, face to face at a place where grown ups work. It is a sad commentary on the media in general, left and right, that t was ever reported on or discussed at all. It is not, and never was, news.
And like the filthy rich Hollywood types always bashing the republicans because they only care about the rich while they earn millions per movie. Are we supposed to believe that these rich primadonas really care or even relate to the “common” man?
“I once played a poor person in a movie, so I understand. Hey, this bottled water isn’t imported! Someone is getting fired! And I am supposed to have my OWN trailer! I am calling my agent! Oh, and vote Democrat.”
Bryan sez:
For my own personal amusement, I get a kick out of Bush supporters slamming someone for making millions. Isn’t that the American Dream? Do you really believe Cheney made his millions all clean as well? Please, the hypocrisy is amazing.
To free-market capitalist types, there is a huge difference between money made by producing and/or improving goods and services and money got through litigation. You are wrong to consider this hypocracy, because in the conservative mindset most litigation is outright theft.
No matter how ugly business gets, it still comes down to selling something for more than it cost you to produce. Litigation is basically looking for money and finding a way to take it. It doesn’t add to the GNP. It’s not an honest day’s work to a capitalist.
Just because you don’t see the distinction, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
Dear Radley:
On the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA), you would ask VP Cheney, “What has caused you to abandon the principles of federalism as they apply to this issue?”
INDEED. But I think we know what the answer is: Supporting the FMA curries much more favor with the religious conservatives who seem fixated on this one issue.
What I find dismaying is that President Bush refuses to offer any conciliatory gesture to Gay couples. Frankly, if the administration could just allow Gay couples to file joint tax returns and designate each other as beneficiaries under Social Security, I think most of the controversy over Gay marriage would simply evaporate.
Trial lawyers are to the county club set what police are to the ghetto dwellers: evil until they need one themselves…
Chuck,
I disagree with any constitutional amendment on the issue myself, but do you think there is any upside for Bush to make such a gesture? Even if he did, I don’t think he would pick up any of the gay vote, but he might lose some of the extreme right vote. If the administration cannot see any political gain from a gesture, they won’t do it.
Dear Chris:
It remains to be seen how much Bush stands to gain for supporting the FMA. It may give him Brownie points from religious conservatives, but it probably makes a lot of moderate Republicans a bit antsy. As someone who has become increasingly conservative with age (especially on economic and “law-and-order” issues), I could go along with Bush on a lot of things, but I wish he had just left this issue alone. And if he feels the FMA is necessary, at the very least he could have offered some kind of an olive branch to the Gay community. But apparently that is not to be. He won’t address the concept of civil unions. He steadfastly refuses even to use the word “Gay” in a speak, let alone “Gay couples.”
SPEECH (not “speak”). Oops.
Pinbot says:
“No matter how ugly business gets, it still comes down to selling something for more than it cost you to produce. Litigation is basically looking for money and finding a way to take it. It doesn’t add to the GNP. It’s not an honest day’s work to a capitalist.”
That is a pretty sweeping generalization. So all litigators do not put in an honest day’s work?
Just remember what Joe Sims said:
“Trial lawyers are to the country club set what police are to the ghetto dwellers: evil until they need one themselves…”
If there were no litigators, the common man would have no recourse to wrongs done against him/her. There would be no checks & balances, which is delicately intertwined in our constitution. To blanketly imply that they are all dishonest and that they steal other people’s money is to negate the majority who really believe in what they are doing is for the betterment of society. Don’t let your idealogy blind you to a necessary part of society.
Sounds like we agree totally. As the representative of the party that is supposed to be politically conservative, he should have stayed far away from suggesting a constitutional amendmendment. And it does make me antzy.
I’m concerned about the legal system getting carried away - it’s not right that doctors should be sued every time something goes wrong, regardless of the merits of the case. But after a few years living in Asia, I came to appreciate the protections of our legal system. We need to limit it so that it doesn’t go to extremes, but I don’t think any of us would want to do without it.
One example: I remember a TV news show in Hong Kong that tested children’s crayons being sold, and more than 90% of the crayons on the market had dangerous levels of something. The response of the manufacturers: the boxes are clearly labelled “do not eat”, so it’s OK.
Regarding medical science exonerating doctors in all cases of cerebral palsy, I know someone whose baby was cut off from oxygen for more than 10 hours. They had been monitoring her for 24 hours, but apparently the nurse doing the monitoring hadn’t been trained and didn’t notice that the readings called for an emergency C-section (for more than 10 hours!). Has science shown that having the brain starved of oxygen is OK? Wouldn’t you prefer to have your medical personnel read the equipment correctly, just in case?
I don’t like Edwards, but I’m not prepared to condemn him without even knowing the full details of the cases. And, it’s OK to ask what type of person would be drawn to a career as a trial lawyer, but I don’t think it’s fair to blame Edwards for the system simply because he functioned within it.
I hadn’t heard this part of the two Americas speech: âOne America that pays the taxes, another America that gets the tax breaks.â Since the wealthy are unquestionably in the first group, the second group must be the low-income people that no longer have to pay income taxes, thanks to the Bush taxcut.
Ann, that WAS sarcasm regarding the two Americas speech…yes?
Bryan:
Whether it’s needed or not, litigation does not constitute capitalist activity. It doesn’t add value. It doesn’t create wealth. It just moves wealth from one place to another. Often, in the process, it damages industries and increases production costs by resulting regulations.
I’m not saying it’s all bad (at this time anyway) and that there should be no regulation. However, it’s not hypocritical for a capitalist to view litigation as an inferior way to make your fortune. That was the point I was trying to make. Don’t go running somewhere else with it.
Pinbot,
Just out of curiosity, would a capitalist view dumping known carcinogens into your drinking water as a superior way to make a fortune? Or how about cutting corners on components of automobile seats, or large consumer appliances? After all, just because there are several thousand instances of automobile and appliance manufacturers concerned more with the bottom line than the safety of the purchasers of their inferior products, doesn’t take away from their ability to enrich their shareholders with money drenched with the blood of those they have harmed. But then again, they willingly recall faulty products already, without the prodding of the NHTSA or the CPSC, right?
I’m just wondering, how did people come across their hatred for trial lawyers, when they’ll let polluters and manufacturers of faulty products slide?
For those that think that lawyers like edwards(many other types are just fine) are examples of the american dream. Edwards is not an american dream example b/c he was completely unproductive. All he did was destroyed other peoples accomplishments to inrich himself. He does not produce anything not even intelectual property. Lying to 12 persons to hit the lottery and dismantle lifes, companies and increase insurence cost for the rest of us is very far from the american dream.
It is true that erros occur in medicine. And there are cases in which someone has been neglegent. But I can assure you that most lawsuits are without merrit. And Edwards had a choice to go after people that made true neglegent erros and those that did not. Just b/c the system is in place those not exonerate him. That is not an excuse.
You know that our system is broke when most cases do not go to trial just b/c of the cost. All that means is that lawyers making the law have created a system to blackmail the rest of america.
But do not take it the wrong way. irespective of what is wrong with our system. it is by far the best country in the world.
It’s all really about perspective isn’t it. Pure capitalists see trial lawyers as scum and pure consumer advocate / union types see big business as evil. Both groups have pretty equal shots at sainthood AS WELL as reserved seats in hell. Like many Americans, I have been on both sides of this fence depending on my circumstances. Having worked for Clearchannel for the last 4 and a half years, and renegotiating a new contract with this company, I have a new found appreciation for lawyers. MINE, not theirs. Some business men ARE honest. Not the ones I have dealt with. Those of you who have ever dealt with corporations with any labor issues probably know what I’m talking about. Yes, my lawyer WILL make money from me. But he IS providing me a valuable service in making sure that I have an advocate at the bargaining table as I face the corporate management and their lawyers. I can tell you that without good legal advice and sometimes necessary litigation, the average joe like me would be screwed by the greedy corporate bottom-liners. They have tried. They are still trying. Capitalism is fine, but there comes a point when profit margins are not just moving money from MY pockets to my bosses, but food, clothing and opportunity from my children to HIS jacuzzi and jaguar fund. That makes me angry. Crooked lawyers? sure… plenty of them. But how many times have you felt screwed by a car salesman, credit card company, phone company… heck even the neighbor boy who cuts your yard for an hour and expects 50 bucks for it? The are plenty of “business men” waiting to screw (a.k.a. capitilize) you.
Sorry for the long post. My first here. I promise to try and keep it pithy next time.
I echo Ken’s comments.
The unfortunate thing is that we have become so partisan that if you are a Bush Supporter, you are now against Trial lawyers, they are evil and the scum of the earth. But just like Ken said, you get screwed, who is going to help you.
BTW, what non-capitalist country has trial lawyers? North Korea and Cuba don’t have them. SInce business is controlled by the state and you can’t sue the state, you are pretty much sh*t out of luck. To say trial lawyers is against capitalists/capitalism ignores that they are a necessary product of capitalism, Pinbot.
So, tell me again where exactly the hypocrisy lies in a capitalist considering litigation a less moral way to make money Or am I just not allowed to try and get back to the point?
I didn’t think so. You claim that trial lawyers, presumably civil trial lawyers, are a necessary facet of capitalism. That’s assuming more parallelism exists than actually does.
First, you are operating on a false assumption that businesses are solely out to screw people. That’s not the case. Successful businesses give their customers what they want at a price they are happy with. If there were no civil courts, businesses would not suddenly unleash their wrath on their customers and employees. A business still has to convince people to buy their products and employees to work for them. If the civil courts suddenly vanished, you’d still have criminal courts and the marketplace to keep businesses honest. It just might not mean every problem results in huge payments from the business to the injured party. I don’t want to argue the morality of the traditional pay the victim fix, just that there are other possible ways to stop companies from doing bad business.
Second you make an attempt to equate the business of litigation as equal to that of capitalist business by saying that it only exists where capitalism flourishes. But lions and tigers only exist where there are lots of tasty animals to eat. Two simple questions:
Could litigation exist in a world without business making profits?
Could business making profits exist in a world without litigators?
It’s not parallel. Argue it any way you want, you need them more than they need you.
Pinbot said, “First, you are operating on a false assumption that businesses are solely out to screw people.”
Where did I say this? I didn’t even imply it. Talk about going off topic.
Banter all you want about the evils of trial lawyers, all I am saying is that you cannot say they represent everything against what capitalism means.
I will even state this just so you can calm down: Most business’ are solid business’ that work for the betterment of society and themselves. Just like most trial lawyers work for the betterment of society and themselves.
You appear very fidgety and quick to defend the capitalist system. You can calm down because I like it,as does most Americans. There is nothing wrong with making money. Now that is where my point is, capitalism is about making money, whether you are a trial lawyer or industrialist you are delivering your services for personal gain and to the continued betterment of society.
If you want to split hairs about who “steals money”, you are just revealing how partisan you have become. Both sides earn their money in legal ways, and some, and I will stress a minority, f*ck people over.
BTW, it is hypocritical for any capitalist to say who has the right and proper way of making money. period.
This kind of like democracy and why we have civil rights. It is hypocritical for a democratic society to say only a certain section of our citizens have the right to vote.
You simply don’t think trial lawyers earn their money fairly simply because you don’t like them. And most likely this has been stoked, by the appointment of Edwards, in opposition to your candidate. Fine. Get over it.
A laywer that negociates a contract is clearly different than the lawyer that goes out and sues companies and pleople regardles of the fact that there is ussualy evidence that there was no neglect(as is in most medical malpractice lawsuits). That includes most trial lawyers(including Edwards) not a few bad apples
Joe,
You can find examples that support the existance of trial lawyers but the reality is that most of them are going after people and companies that commited no neglegence. Always looking for a quick settlement at the expense of thruth and the rest of the world. Not to mention the countless times when their own clients are responsable
Samer,
I take it you are the authority on trial lawyers. I am not standing up for them, I am just against sweeping generalizations based on perception rather than cold hard facts.
Point me to a website that did a scientific study of trial lawyers where it is found that the majority of trial lawyers “go out and sue companies and pleople regardles of the fact that there is usually evidence that there was no neglect”
Don’t give me obvious examples, look at the whole. Statistically.
It should be pointed out that Trial Lawyers and Business men are not inherently evil as groups. I know decent business men and I know decent lawyers. It’s about the individual, not their chosen profession that determines their moral code. We all know this.
It’s no accident that conservatives will take the business side and progressives will take the tort side considerinng the candidates respective backgrounds.
We don’t like to admit our own bias, but it is everywhere and with everyone. Although many would deny it, if the professions were reversed but party affiliation were the same, you would likely have a different convenient opinion.
The whole concept of who is more important in a capitalistic society, capitalists or lawyers.. Seems a bit immature to me. What difference does it make to the substance of the discussion who is MORE important? They are BOTH important. If it is important to you that business men are more necessary than consumer advocates… fine.
But to the trial lawyer haters, I’d ask a question. (but I don’t expect an answer). If your wife or kids were killed in an automobile accident due to a faulty seatbelt that was installed by a car company cutting corners, would you want the VERY best lawyer money could buy? What would be the price that you’d consider a fair trade? Their greedy negligence cost you your family. What? A thousand dollars? 100 thousand? a million? No amount of money will replace your family. The sky is the limit. If they are going to be so greedy as to risk my families life, I have NO sympathy for that company. Talk to people who have NEEDED and USED trial lawyers for legitimate purposes and your perspective changes in a hurry.
“My question to Edwards would be,
“Mr. Edwards, you’ve had to endure much slanderous innuendo about how you’ve made your personal fortune in a rather unpopular industry. There have been claims that your natural sympathy towards this industry could cause you to unduly influence government regulation in order to benefit yourself and your colleagues. Your ties to a corporation(indeed you are chief executive officer of one)in this industry support these fears.
Yet so far not a single charge has ever been proven against you. Knowing what you know now about national politics and the elections process, DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS ABOUT THESE KINDS OF CHARGES BEING LEVELLED AGAINST DICK CHENEY AND WHAT WOULD YOU SAY TO HIS ACCUSERS?
Above Edwards question by Rocketman
Bryan -
On non-capitalist countries that have lawyers, a good example is China (which is a long way from being capitalist, although they’re flirting with it on the edges). Many Chinese will tell you that their system is just like ours, since there is a judge and lawyers for each side. But there are a few differences in what the defense lawyer can do: the lawyer for the accused cannot call witnesses, question prosecution witnesses, or meet with the defendant before or during the trial. The only role of the defense lawyer is to plead for clemency during the sentencing phase. This is for criminal, not civil, trials, but certainly the odds are not in the favor of anyone suing the government or local power (and most big companies are still owned by the government, one way or another).
But, Bryan, I have to disagree with this statement:
“BTW, it is hypocritical for any capitalist to say who has the right and proper way of making money. period.”
Or maybe I would just try to correct it, to: capitalists shouldn’t argue with any legal way to make money. If they disagree with a legal approach, then they should think of how to change the system. My view of capitalism is that it’s an incentive system to encourage people to create wealth for society. If people create wealth, they’ll get to keep a certain percentage of it (whereas communism relies entirely on the stick, with no carrot: create wealth, or we’ll kill you and perhaps your children).
Capitalism works beautifully for everyone, and is “fair” by most reasonable definitions, IF people are acquiring wealth by creating it through their physical labor, ideas or whatever. The wealth is shared (but those that created it keep a disproportionate share), and everyone is better off except those obsessed with the “income gap”, to the exclusion of all else.
The key problem is that some will try to simply steal the wealth rather than create it. If too much of this corruption is allowed, the system becomes less efficient and less fair (i.e. it starts to resemble communism, from a practical standpoint).
So, to make capitalism work, regulators need to try to set up the rules to encourage wealth creation while discouraging corruption and theft. Unfortunately, it’s hard to draw the line perfectly, and there tend to be trade-offs. The legal system faces the same trade-offs - the ability to sue in cases of legitimate malpractice is a crucial protection that we all need, whereas constant lawsuits due to baseless claims hurt everyone (especially innocent doctors). I tend to feel that insurance companies should be helping the system to work better by basing insurance rates on the legitimacy of claims (also not a perfect system, but more efficient than taking all claims at face value and settling, regardless of the merit).
Back to Edwards - trial lawyers are legal, and some play an important and productive role in society, but it’s fair to ask what his career choices say about his personality, integrity, etc.
I totally agree with Samer that this is the best country in the world. Living in Asia helped me to appreciate what we have here. The U.S. is the best partly because so many Americans keep working to make it better, by criticising the weak points in our system and looking for alternatives.
Ann,
Well written. To clarify, I never stated anything was perfect. I was just against broad sweeping generalizations. Nothing is perfect and we should always look to make things better. Unfortunately, people have become so partisan that they tend to quickly agree with broad statements without questioning. I think the buzzword is “groupthink”. Mentioned in a certain report….but I am not getting into that. The partisan dogs will come in so quick….
Bryan -
I forgot to mention that I was disagreeing with one interpretation of your statement but, at the time, wasn’t sure I was really disagreeing with what you meant (does that make sense?).
I hope that things will become less partisan after the election (or before, but that’s unlikely). There is so much energy going into partisan sniping that could be put into finding solutions.
Pro? Yes. Bono? No.
During his career of allegedly championing the helpless, Edwards took no pro bono cases. Maybe Balko could add this to his list of questions for Edwards.
xenical Xen-770009122-345566
viagra online ViaT8898111-01-01-22
car insurence car insurence