This contains out and out slander, lies, and flip flops from the White
House about John Edwards. Note that even a fellow republican wants the
drivel from BushCo to stop. From the Progress Center: Oh, and Calif
Bill, again, just like SFGate, it's not copyrighted, so don't ask to
show it.

Sen. John Edwards (D-NC) is scheduled to address the Democratic
Convention tonight, bringing his "Two Americas" theme that propelled
him to such a strong primary showing. While wealthy elites on Wall
Street, well-paid pundits and the Bush White House try to deny the
economic chasm that divides America, Edwards has given voice to
millions of Americans left behind by the Bush administration's
policies. As the Minneapolis Star-Tribune notes, Edwards has "blended
tales of his working-class roots with passionate denunciations of 'two
Americas' and a down-home brand of economic populism." With wages
stagnating, few Americans feeling any tax relief, and the Bush
administration pushing policies that would squeeze working America
even more, Edwards' message appears to be resonating. And the only
thing his critics seem to come up with is the fact that he was a trial
lawyer – an attack that allows Edwards to talk about his experience
representing average people against the corporate interests that fund
the Bush campaign.

CONSUMER CONFIDENCE SHOWS THE TWO AMERICAS: Slate's Daniel Gross puts
some numbers behind Edwards' Two Americas theme. In the past,
different income groups have generally trended the same direction in
terms of consumer confidence. And if the economy were undergoing a
broad-based expansion, if a rising tide were lifting all boats
equally, you might expect that trend to continue. But under President
Bush, that has changed. Today, the over-$50,000 and under-$50,000
groups are moving in opposite directions: between December 2003 and
June 2004, confidence in the over-$50,000 set rose from 99.3 to 104.1.
In the under-$50,000 set, it fell from 87.4 to 85.5." As Gross notes,
"the growing pessimism of the poor and the growing optimism of the
rich—suggest the economy's improvement isn't helping everyone."

WHITE HOUSE ATTACKS INEFFECTIVE: The White House has unleashed a
series of vicious attacks on Edwards for his experience representing
average Americans in court. The problem with this tactic, however, is
that Edwards can counter with all the stories of how he helped average
people defend themselves against corporate abuse. As one Republican
lawyer asked, "If the rap on Edwards is that he is the friend of
personal-injury trial lawyers, where does this leave the Republican
National Committee? Is the RNC the friend of the drunken driver?"

EDWARDS' DEFINING MOMENT IS AN ASSET, NOT AN ALBATROSS: As the "trial
lawyer" attacks continue, the Washington Monthly reports, "the
defining case in Edwards' legal career" occurred in 1993, when a
five-year-old girl "became caught in an uncovered drain so forcefully
that the suction pulled out most of her intestines." Edwards filed
suit on the Lakeys' behalf against Sta-Rite Industries, and soon
discovered that 12 other children had suffered similar injuries from
Sta-Rite drains. Attorneys "describe his handling of the case as a
virtuoso example of a trial layer bringing a negligent corporation to
heel."

THE HYPOCRISY OF THE TRIAL LAWYER ATTACKS: The dirty little secret of
the White House's trial lawyer attacks is that a cadre of key
Republican Senators started their careers as trial lawyers. Sen. Orrin
Hatch (R-UT), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, is a former
trial lawyer. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) was a trial lawyer "in a state
where juries have awarded numerous multimillion-dollar verdicts in
plaintiffs' cases." And Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) said, "I have a
number of trial lawyers that support me personally – they are friends
of mine...I don't look at ATLA or trial lawyers as an enemy by any
means."

REPUBLICAN SENATOR DEMANDS WHITE HOUSE STOP ITS ATTACKS: Earlier this
month, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), a former trial lawyer, went on
national television and told the White House to stop its baseless
attacks on Edwards' legal career. Calling Edwards a "great guy,"
Graham told ABC's This Week on 7/11/04 that "people in my party beat
on John Edwards for being a trial lawyer. As far as I know John made
his money honestly. I used to represent people in courts in the south.
So I wish we'd get off that." Two weeks later, Vice President Cheney
said "Lindsey Graham is doing a great job for the people of South
Carolina," though moments later he delivered another diatribe against
lawyers.

TRIAL LAWYER ATTACK WON'T FLY IN FLORIDA: The Gainsville, Florida Sun
reports that the White House is trying to take its trial lawyer
attacks to Florida, but may find some stiff resistance. While Gov. Jeb
Bush has been outspoken in his criticism of the profession, promising
''to whack'' the trial lawyers, "even some Republicans say making
trial lawyers the 'boogeymen' of this year's election may prove
difficult." The leading GOP contender is former Bush Cabinet Secretary
Mel Martinez, a successful trial lawyer who was president of the
Academy of Florida Trial Lawyers. Similarly, the president of the
state trial lawyers' association is a lifelong Republican, whose
father once ran for governor.

Edwards managed to get through his entire speech without mentioning George Bush
by name.

Raises the bar pretty high.

Let's see if Kerry can also rise above attack politics here on out.

If he does, the nation will notice the contrast when the R's use their
convention to badmouth and smear Kerry and Edwards. The technique is likely to
backfire on the side using it- if the other side doesn't reciprocate.

If we're finally to the point where the electorate will respond to a positive
message rather than to "my opponent sucks, my opponent sucks, my opponent
sucks" hope may indeed be on the way. :-)

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Edwards managed to get through his entire speech without mentioning George
Bush
by name.

Raises the bar pretty high.

Let's see if Kerry can also rise above attack politics here on out.

If he does, the nation will notice the contrast when the R's use their
convention to badmouth and smear Kerry and Edwards. The technique is
likely to
backfire on the side using it- if the other side doesn't reciprocate.



Giving your partisan crystal ball a go at it again. Too bad it is giving
you false outlooks.

Want to wager?

(Gould 0738) wrote in message ...
Edwards managed to get through his entire speech without mentioning George Bush
by name.

Raises the bar pretty high.

Let's see if Kerry can also rise above attack politics here on out.

If he does, the nation will notice the contrast when the R's use their
convention to badmouth and smear Kerry and Edwards. The technique is likely to
backfire on the side using it- if the other side doesn't reciprocate.

If we're finally to the point where the electorate will respond to a positive
message rather than to "my opponent sucks, my opponent sucks, my opponent
sucks" hope may indeed be on the way. :-)

Yes, what I like is that the republicans, because they listen to, and
believe anything that BushCo says, say that the democrats or the party
of hate. Jeez, I wonder why BushCo has spent $14 million on ads that
are nothing but negative lies and mistruths about Kerry?

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Edwards managed to get through his entire speech without mentioning George
Bush
by name.

Raises the bar pretty high.

When the bar is already on the floor it is not difficult to raise it.

Let's see if Kerry can also rise above attack politics here on out.

A political campaign for political office is by nature a fourm for attack
politics. How else are you going to point out the other guys failings.

If he does, the nation will notice the contrast when the R's use their
convention to badmouth and smear Kerry and Edwards. The technique is
likely to
backfire on the side using it- if the other side doesn't reciprocate.

It politics, stupid!

If we're finally to the point where the electorate will respond to a
positive
message rather than to "my opponent sucks, my opponent sucks, my opponent
sucks" hope may indeed be on the way. :-)

And this is where Bush wins. Kerry has spent so many years in the US Senate
and has done a damn thing but run his mouth.

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Edwards managed to get through his entire speech without mentioning
George
Bush
by name.

Raises the bar pretty high.

When the bar is already on the floor it is not difficult to raise it.

Let's see if Kerry can also rise above attack politics here on out.

A political campaign for political office is by nature a fourm for attack
politics. How else are you going to point out the other guys failings.

If he does, the nation will notice the contrast when the R's use their
convention to badmouth and smear Kerry and Edwards. The technique is
likely to
backfire on the side using it- if the other side doesn't reciprocate.

It politics, stupid!

If we're finally to the point where the electorate will respond to a
positive
message rather than to "my opponent sucks, my opponent sucks, my
opponent
sucks" hope may indeed be on the way. :-)

And this is where Bush wins. Kerry has spent so many years in the US
Senate
and has done a damn thing but run his mouth.


3 months of heroic service in Viet Nam....over 240 months of worthless flip
flop service in the Senate.

And now he says he will *define* himself tonight. I guess those 240 months
in the Senate are not the way he wants to define himself.

Bert Robbins wrote:



If we're finally to the point where the electorate will respond to a
positive
message rather than to "my opponent sucks, my opponent sucks, my opponent
sucks" hope may indeed be on the way. :-)

And this is where Bush wins. Kerry has spent so many years in the US Senate
and has done a damn thing but run his mouth.


Bush has had nearly four years in office, and has come damned close to
destroying the United States.
We are far worse off as a nation now, compared to four years ago, in
dozens of ways.

We are NO SAFER now after spending hundreds of billions of dollars on
Bush's war in Iraq or on his unPatriotic Act or on Homeland inSecurity.
Under normal circumstances, the proof of the pudding is in the eating,
but the fact that we haven't had another massive attack on US soil since
9-11 doesn't mean we can enjoy the pudding. Anyone with a brain knows
there are thousands and thousands and thousands of terrorists out there
who are NOT and never have been in Iraq.

Did you follow the news on that incident with the Syrian musicians on
the airliner? That was bad enough, but whar was really horrific is this:
the various governmental agencies involved DID NOT KNOW the procedures
for resolving and following up the visa issues involving possible
terrorists, THREE YEARS AFTER 9-11. Shove THAT up your butt, Tom Ridge
and George W. Bush.


We pretty much shot our military wad in Iraq. We'll be there for a long
time, and we don't have the resources available to chase al Qaeda or
other organizations that want to destroy us.

Additionally, we have taken no serious diplomatic steps to patch things
up with our traditional allies.

And, most important, the dumb****s currently controlling our government
have made NO SERIOUS EFFORT to settle the dispute between the Israelis
and the so-called Palestinians, and they haven't since they presumed
office.

Bush and his misAdministration are absolute, total, complete failures.
They have done virutally nothing right in four years. But they sure are
terrific at dividing Americans and forcing wedge issues, eh?

George W. Bush is the dumbest foch to ever occupy the Oval Office, and
possiblly the most dangerous. But not to terrorists. To Americans.

If we don't get Bush out of there and replace him with someone with a
working brain, we're doomed.





--
"There's an old saying in Tennessee - I know it's in Texas, probably in
Tennessee - that says, fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me -
you can't get fooled again." -George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept.
17, 2002

I want Carter back.

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Edwards managed to get through his entire speech without mentioning George
Bush
by name.

Raises the bar pretty high.

Let's see if Kerry can also rise above attack politics here on out.

If he does, the nation will notice the contrast when the R's use their
convention to badmouth and smear Kerry and Edwards. The technique is
likely to
backfire on the side using it- if the other side doesn't reciprocate.

If we're finally to the point where the electorate will respond to a
positive
message rather than to "my opponent sucks, my opponent sucks, my opponent
sucks" hope may indeed be on the way. :-)

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Edwards managed to get through his entire speech without mentioning
George
Bush
by name.

Raises the bar pretty high.

When the bar is already on the floor it is not difficult to raise it.

Let's see if Kerry can also rise above attack politics here on out.

A political campaign for political office is by nature a fourm for attack
politics. How else are you going to point out the other guys failings.

If he does, the nation will notice the contrast when the R's use their
convention to badmouth and smear Kerry and Edwards. The technique is
likely to
backfire on the side using it- if the other side doesn't reciprocate.

It politics, stupid!

If we're finally to the point where the electorate will respond to a
positive
message rather than to "my opponent sucks, my opponent sucks, my
opponent
sucks" hope may indeed be on the way. :-)

And this is where Bush wins. Kerry has spent so many years in the US
Senate
and has done a damn thing but run his mouth.



Really? Please provide complete details on his voting record, as well as his
commentary on why he voted certain ways. You can probably just google for
something like "kahngrechinal voating rekids".

Giving your partisan crystal ball a go at it again. Too bad it is giving
you false outlooks.

Want to wager?



Wager what? That GWB and or Cheney will smear Kerry/Edwards at the Republican
convention?

What stakes did you have in mind?

Some Washington salmon vs whatever-it-is-you have back there?
I'd be up for something along that line.