he’s a lawyer. what do you expect? that is what they do. And somebody has got to do it.

Posted by: gijoe at January 21, 2004 03:26 PM

here we go it starts….

Not like Bush has a chance against Edwards or Kerry anyway. Let him bury himself.

Posted by: what2 at January 21, 2004 03:36 PM

Alan:

thanks for the context discussion & for putting some of the story on the extended read page. I think you must’ve been the City Desk editor at a metropolitan newspaper in an earlier life. (We need a few more conservative City Desk editors….)

On Edwards: $152 Million. sheez.

Posted by: nikita demosthenes at January 21, 2004 03:43 PM

ND -

No problem, and thanks. I sent you a note seperately as well.

And regarding my earlier life … nope, but my grandfather WAS, in fact, a newspaper editor.

Posted by: Alan at January 21, 2004 03:54 PM

Just what we need, a smooth talking trial-lawyer for a president.

The guy made a fortune by playing on people’s emotions and scamming the health care industry - probably for billions - therefore raising the cost of hospital visits for everyone, but as president, he’s going to ‘fix’ the problem of expensive health insurance in this country.

I wonder how he plans on pulling that off…

Posted by: jay at January 21, 2004 04:08 PM

He’s one slick coustomer, you gotta’ give him that much.

He spent his entire career using dubious legal tactics to make himself rich and in the process driving up the cost of healthcare for everyone else, and now he’s running for president promising to make healthcare more affordable.

So he’s going to solve the same problem that his greed drove him to help create in the first place.

Wonderful.

Posted by: jasper at January 21, 2004 04:14 PM

I cannot address how Edwards made his money, nor his tactics in the courtroom. But as a native of North Carolina I can say this: Edwards has from day one aimed at the White House. He was elected to represent the people of North Carolina, and he has basically ignored them as much as he could afford to. He has missed votes important to us, failed to be heard on issues important to us, and has spent more time in other states campaigning for the White House than in the state that elected him, acting as NC Senator.

I could quote chapter and verse, but it’s been on record for years. Is short, he has been a dishonest employee, who was hired to do a job for us and has not, used us as a step towards his own ends, working for himself on company time, while drawing a paycheck for a job he damned well hasn’t done.

Posted by: Jrm at January 21, 2004 04:40 PM

From the MRC site:
“The mission of the Media Research Center is to bring balance and responsibility to the news media. Leaders of America’s conservative movement have long believed that within the national news media a strident liberal bias existed that influenced the public’s understanding of critical issues. On October 1, 1987, a group of young determined conservatives set out to not only prove - through sound scientific research - that liberal bias in the media does exist and undermines traditional American values…”

Non-traditional or conservatively biased news outlet?

Posted by: left wing nut at January 21, 2004 06:22 PM

From the MRC site:
“The mission of the Media Research Center is to bring balance and responsibility to the news media. Leaders of America’s conservative movement have long believed that within the national news media a strident liberal bias existed that influenced the public’s understanding of critical issues. On October 1, 1987, a group of young determined conservatives set out to not only prove - through sound scientific research - that liberal bias in the media does exist and undermines traditional American values…”

Non-traditional or conservatively biased news outlet?

Posted by: left wing nut at January 21, 2004 06:23 PM

The defendants in these cases all had lawyers, correct?

It seems to me the blame should not be laid at the feet of John Edwards, who was only doing his job, but of the defense laywers who failed to effectively counter him.

I’m guessing the same people who are giving John Edwards such hell for being a “trial lawyer” (look for the horns and tail!) would be completely silent about multinational corporations which are able to squash legitimate lawsuits from individuals because of their deep pockets.

Posted by: Steve at January 21, 2004 06:42 PM

As a former editor-type person, here are some things that bother me with this piece:

1. “Edwards became one of America’s wealthiest trial lawyers…”

That’s an unsourced assertion. Are we just supposed to trust this reporter? Delete.

2. “Eldon L. Boisseau of the Kansas-based firm Turner and Boisseau, specializing in defending doctors’ insurance companies from medical malpractice lawsuits, agreed that physician-caused cerebral palsy “occurs only rarely.”

At the end of the day, I verily believe we will find [the cause of cerebral palsy is] all genetic,”

What are Mr. Boisseu’s credentials? Is he a scientist or a physician, or is he a lawyer? The second sentence appears to be making an assertion about the fundamental causes of cerebral palsy, rather than an assertion about the percentage of lawsuits involving cerebral palsy. In any case, this statement contradicts his statement in the previous sentence that physician-caused cerebral palsy occurs rarely. That’s impossible, if all cerebral palsy is genetic. Back for rewrite.

3. “According to the Center for Public Integrity, Edwards was able to win “more than $152 million…

Is this the total amount of the awards in all these lawsuits, or is this the amount that went into Edwards’ bank account? I suspect the former. (What’s the Center for Public Integrity and why are they tracking what lawyers win in court? Why aren’t we telling the readers who these folks are? ) Back for fact checking and rewrite.

4. The piece fails to make the case that Edwards’ won his cases on the basis of junk science. It cites a single case in which Edwards’ swayed a decision with an oratorical swirl. It cites a single “legal expert” (again, an assertion made without explanation or substantiation) who provides no information at all about “junk science” and whose unsubstantiated and unproven charge that trial lawyers are “getting away” with something is loaded unquestioninly into the story.

5. In sum, this piece appears to have been written by a reporter with a bias and a personal agenda who deliberately sought out and included quotes only if they supported that agenda. Please show me the names of any other people you interviewed for this and any quotes they made. I’m holding this story.

Editor hat off:

— “Edwards’ critics say that as a trial lawyer, he relied more on his verbal skills than the latest scientific evidence to persuade juries…

That’s why we hire lawyers when we sue someone, not research scientists.

Posted by: billg at January 21, 2004 07:37 PM

Billg: Thanks for that post.

Posted by: Alan at January 21, 2004 08:28 PM

It’s so easy to attack lawyers these days, but the truth of the matter is that when an individual is hurt by a corporation, lawyers are often the only ones willing to help.

In any case, attacking Edwards won’t get you people anywhere. Why don’t you instead talk about the close ties between the Bush and Bin Laden families? Now THAT is an interesting story.

Posted by: John at January 21, 2004 08:57 PM

As someone who may vote for Edwards…I am actually more interested in hearing about his popularity in the Carolinas…..What did he do?

Posted by: what2 at January 21, 2004 09:23 PM

WHILE we are talking about money…how about where Beano gets MUCH of his!!!

WHO’S BEHIND THE DEAN MONEY MACHINE?
By Cliff Kincaid
January 21, 2004

Those writing the political obituary of Howard Dean have ignored the fact that he continues to tap the wealthy homosexual community for millions of dollars after doing their bidding in his home state of Vermont.

Dean, who has raised over $40 million, started a political action committee (PAC) called “Fund for a Healthy America,” which received some of its largest contributions “from prominent leaders in the gay community,” according to Thomas Edsall of the Washington Post.

One was billionaire homosexual David Bohnett, who founded the Geocities website. Another was Tim Gill, who started Quark, Inc., a computer software company now worth $500 million, and founded his own Gill Foundation. These men fund all the major homosexual groups, including some in Vermont.

PAC records list Dean’s appearance at a Gill Foundation “Outgiving conference” on May 17, 2002, as well as appearances at dozens of homosexual-related events, including a Democratic National Committee Gay and Lesbian Leadership Council Chairman’s Dinner. One official left the Gill Foundation to become a Dean adviser on homosexual issues.

The major media have noted that Dean receives support from the homosexual movement and signed the first state “civil union” law extending marriage benefits to homosexuals. They don’t mention that the original version of the bill included an age of acceptance of only 14, meaning that pedophile “man-boy” relationships could have been sanctioned by the state under certain circumstances. This backdoor effort to put boys in the hands of adult male homosexuals was eventually derailed by Vermont activist Brian Pearl, who ran for governor against Dean and protested the pending legalization of the sexual abuse of minors. This protest forced legislators to change the original version of the bill by raising the age of consent for a homosexual union.

Another untold story involves David Ayer, the chairman of the Washington County (Vermont) Republican Party, and activist Robert Orleck, who tried to enter a conference designed to expose young people from the public schools to state-funded homosexual advocacy organizations and dangerous homosexual practices. When Ayer and Orleck demanded access to the conference and were threatened with arrest, “We said they should call the police because an illegal activity was occurring in the classroom with students.”

Outright Vermont, one of the Dean-supported organizations active in the schools, was the target of a demonstration in October 2000 by concerned Vermonters who objected to its “misuse of tax money to print pornography” and its luring of students as young as 14 to “safer-sex parties” and “weekend retreats” where they experimented with homosexuality.

Pearl, Ayer, and researcher-and-investigator Laura Snyder held a news conference to draw critical attention to state-funded “outreach” efforts in “public sex environments,” or PSEs. These are public parks, highway rest-stops, and family picnic areas where homosexuals go to have anonymous sex. The Vermont State Police said they received over 100 complaints about activity at the sites, including public sex acts by homosexuals, illegal drug transactions, and the use of pornography. Truckers complained about homosexuals soliciting them for sex, causing traffic problems and even accidents.

While pushing the homosexual agenda, Dean claims an excellent record on protecting children in Vermont from sexual abuse. But pro-family groups cited a growing number of cases of sexual abuse and child pornography in Vermont and exemptions in state statutes allowing certain individuals and institutions to possess child pornography for “educational” or artistic purposes.

Kenneth Wooden of the anti-child molestation group, Child Lures Prevention, complains that, despite several attempts, “I have regretfully been unable to get Child Lures Prevention efforts initiated in my beloved home state of Vermont.” Wooden stated, “While former Governor Dean’s administration touted its success in lowering the incidence of sexual abuse by 35 percent, that decline only holds true for children 0-3 years old. All other sexual abuse is actually on the rise…”

Some might say all of this is irrelevant because Dean is no longer governor and is finished as a presidential candidate. But the CBS Market Watch wire service notes that, since the 1970s, every candidate in either party with the most money going into the primary season has won the nomination. James Campbell, a University of Buffalo political scientist, said, “Dean is virtually unstoppable. There might be some bumps in a road as there have been for other frontrunners, but it is very difficult to envision a scenario where he is denied the nomination.”

That means that Dean may very well have an opportunity to do to America what he did to Vermont. This is a story that has to be told.

Cliff Kincaid is Editor of the AIM Report.
http://www.aim.org/publications/weekly_column/2004/01/21.html

Posted by: American_defender at January 21, 2004 09:52 PM

Alan, there’s more wrong with this story than I mentioned. For intance, the slur from the “political critic” who “did not want to be identified”. That could be a charge made by Edwards’ partner, by a guy in a sports bar, or something fabricated by this reporter/

Then there is the mysterious arrival in the following paragraph of “Goldstein”. Who is this person?

I neglected to mention the quotes from Dr. Freeman of John Hopkins. Freeman’s use of qualifiers such as “most cases” and “a great many” make it clear that the legitimacy of Edwards’ cerebral palsy suits is reasonable. Most drivers don’t run over people, but that won’t do you much good if someone sues you after your run over them.

Posted by: billg at January 21, 2004 11:39 PM

Even if he had scammed people, at least he would have worked for it. Imagine if he’d obtained millions simply by watching baseball. The MRC would have a field day.

Posted by: dirk strom at January 21, 2004 11:57 PM

This article is one of the most biased I have ever seen. Proving cerebral palsy was caused by physician malpractice is a difficult task.. but there is much medical evidence that actions of a physician, timely taken, can prevent this from occurring.

The truth of the matter is that most “junk science” claims come from the insurance industry…trying to sell people their master plan for financial success…lets just convince them purchased studies that crash tests prove you can’t really be injured in an auto accident.

That’s where most junk science comes into play….and it’s not trial lawyers than play the game..its the insurance companies….

Ed

Posted by: Ed Smith at January 22, 2004 05:46 AM

Hmm. All very good comments.

I still think the original article is important and relevant.

Bottom line: Edwards made a fortune spinning juries to make them pay for injuries that were probably not caused by the defendant in the case (i.e., the doctor). Just because a doctor is insured does not mean that the insurance policy should be treated like a lottery ticket if there was no actual negligence.

My fear is that Edwards would be very effective at treating the entire nation’s voting public like one more rapt jury pool - which he could cajole into a substantively-wrong verdict, i.e., that Edwards would be a wiser and more honest President than George W. Bush.

I would submit that both these propositions are false. And I would actually submit as Exhibit A the fact that GW Bush would probably make a lousy Plaintiff’s personal injury lawyer. I would submit that his honesty and good sense would make him reject this line of work first off - and would make a jury see through any attempt he made to mislead if attempted this line of work. Edwards, of course, was a master at this line of work.

Edwards was good at misleading juries for personal gain - I hope the nation’s voting public is not as gullible and malleable.

I’m an attorney. I don’t think misleading a jury - or anyone else - is right. Just because our system permits something doesn’t make it morally right.

Posted by: nikita demosthenes at January 22, 2004 12:20 PM

Perhaps this would put it in what I consider to be the correct context. John Edwards is the Democrats’ new Svengali.

This should give us pause because the Democrats’ old Svengali was Bill Clinton.

Both Bill Clinton and John Edwards were (and are) good at winning. But neither of them had (or has) a moral center.

We don’t need that again. GW Bush - whether you like him or not - clearly has a moral center, i.e., a personal moral and religious base from which he makes his decisions.

Posted by: nikita demosthenes at January 22, 2004 12:27 PM

Nikita,

What is your evidence that John Edwards doesn’t have a moral center? That’s quite an accusation to throw around without providing supporting evidence.

Posted by: Steve Ross at January 22, 2004 06:29 PM

Nikita, you don’t even bother to pretend to offer evidence in support of your assertions. At least the author of that article went to the trouble of attempting to pretend to be a real reporter. On the other hand, your are just busily fabricating.

Readers of this blog, hopefully, have smarts enough to know the difference between an article written by a professional reporter who makes an honest effort to present the facts as found, and an article by a propagandist who selects “experts” and marshals quotes to buttress a predetermined agenda.

Posted by: billg at January 22, 2004 09:27 PM

Steve Ross:

Didn’t you read the original article about which I posted?

It seems pretty clear from that article that John Edwards was spinning juries to get big judgements in cases where the doctor Defendant was not negligent.

John Edwards fibbing to a jury - for a living - to the tune of $153 Million = no moral center in my book.

If your rejoinder is “lots of personal injury Plaintiff’s counsel would have no problem with that,” my response would be that they have no moral center either. Just because society permits a thing does not make it morally right.

Bottom line, Steve: do you disagree with the scientific evidence discussed in the original story I posted? If so, what’s YOUR evidence?

• * *

billg:

you too seem to have failed to read the original article about which I posted.

So - for billg - do you disagree with the scientific evidence discussed in the original story I posted? If so, what’s YOUR evidence?

• * *

for BOTH Steve Ross and billg, see the below example (from the original article about which I posted above):

• * *

Dr. John Freeman, a professor of neurology and pediatrics at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, Md., also believes there is little obstetricians can do to prevent cerebral palsy during delivery. “Most cases of cerebral palsy are not due to asphyxia,” Freeman told CNSNews.com.

“A great many of these cases are due to subtle infections of the child before birth,” Freeman said. “That is the cause of the premature labor and the cause of the [brain] damage. There is little or no evidence that if you did a [caesarean] section a short time earlier you would prevent cerebral palsy,” he added.

• * *

There was more discussion in the article along these lines - that the experts in this field believe that the disability discussed is almost never - if ever - caused by doctor negligence.

So, Steve and billg - please - before you denigrate the integrity of the article or me - please show some actual evidence supporting your view. I have done so. You have not.

Posted by: nikita demosthenes at January 23, 2004 10:52 AM

one thing to keep in mind with this article - the VAST majority of these conclusions have been drawn VERY recently. also, theres the parts of these cases this article conveniently leaves out… like the fact that his law firm took on HMOs which refused to support physical therapy for a young child with cerebral palsy. in addition, he had doctors to testify in his cases.

its easy to blame edwards for making money off this stuff. but maybe someone should look at why edwards was brought in in the first place: the first case he took was brought to his attention because the family was blocked by hmo’s when trying to get their kid phsyical therapy. so his firm went after the doctor, (this was in 1985, before we knew quite as much about cerebral palsy as we do now) and the HMO.

think what you want about him… the families he worked for believed he cared for them. he may not have made his fortune on wall street or by inheriting it, you aren’t going to see someone who isn’t rich running for president.

the real question to me about edwards (other than can he possibly pull out a victory at this point) is whether or not he’s controlled by the special interest group that he once belonged to:trial lawyers.

Posted by: mav at March 1, 2004 04:17 AM

Just an FYI, the article writer is one of Rush Limbaughs guys. . . Read his bio here. . .

http://www.changingworldviews.com/GuestCommentaries/marcmoranocom.htm

Marc Morano is Senior Staff Writer for CNSNews.com and is previously known as Rush Limbaugh’s “Man in Washington,” as reporter and producer for the Rush Limbaugh Television Show, as well as a former correspondent and producer for American Investigator, the nationally syndicated TV newsmagazine. His reporting has made national news with appearances and coverage on The O’Reilly Factor, Special Report w/ Brit Hume, USA Today, The Washington Times, The Wall Street Journal, the American Spectator and Human Events, as well as online with National Review, Newsmax.com, WorldnetDaily, and the Drudge Report. Additionally, Marc has appeared on Politically Incorrect, NBC and ABC News and the McLaughlin Group, and has also reported for a wide variety of radio programs, including the Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Oliver North Shows. Mr. Morano has both White House and Capitol Hill press credentials; and as a side note…holds the distinction of being the first journalist in history to have his video camera seized by the Clinton White House while on assignment.

Posted by: Mike Harris at July 6, 2004 10:50 AM