The return of the ambulance chaser.

Filed under: Yawn.

One line sticks out in that article on John Edwards: >Edwards' handsome, youthful appearance also gave him a measure of star quality. Those were among the qualities that led Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry to select him as a running mate.

You see folks? That's how liberal minds (childISH minds) see success. SURFACE ONLY. NO DEPTH TO
CHARACTER. How do spell superficial?

p.s. - considering the thought of Mr. Edwards that he would (like his friend J. Kerry) cut and run from Iraq and that he favors legalizing marijuana...perhaps Mr. Edwards should run with the motto "a pot - for every chicken." (heh heh)

McCain-Thompson or McCain-Pawlenty sounds like a winning ticket.

Thompson-Ensign would be even better but I just don't see Thompson winning this thing.

Given that in five entries on this thread, I've heard Edwards referred to as the "Breck girl" and as an "ambulance chaser", I'd be a little more cagey about equating liberalism with childishness, ba.

For better or for worse, star power and name recognition are a huge factor in picking a president. Reference Reagan, Ronald; and Kennedy, John Fitzgerald.

rb, Ronald Reagan won by a LANDSLIDE (by both Republicans and Democrats) Reagan's win came
because he could speak well on all issues and of course, he was running against Pres. Carter (who allowed Americans to remain the hostage of Iranians for 444 days, the economy under Carter was in a bad recession, and well...believe me; the American public ain't dumb.)

JFK was elected President in 1960 in one of the closest elections in American history.

rb, Ronald Reagan won by a landslide by Republicans and Democrats - in part because he came after the Carter years when America has the worst economic conditions and Americans were stuck as hostages in Iran for 444 days. Also because Mr. Reagan spoke intelligently on issues.

JFK won the presidency in 1960 in the closest election in US history.

Don't disagree with either point, ba. Mine was that star power doesn't hurt. Elections are rarely one issue things. Reagan won due to bad economic conditions, a very unpopular incumbent, fractions among the Democrats, the Iranian crisis, a third party challenger sniping at Carter allowing him to keep his hands clean, his ability to articulate a clear, nice sounding message and yes, star power. He wasn't called the Great Communicator for nothing. He could argue something that you totally disagreed with and you'd still see his point.

Kennedy was indeed elected by an extremely close election. As a president, he was wholly overrated - he was a womanizing inexperienced and unfocused leader whose beligerence brought the world to the edge of nuclear war. His assassination has certainly mythologized him to a certain extent, but even when he was in office, his approval never once dipped below 70%. That is star power.

The point being that focusing on it isn't a childish thing, and childishness is hardly a liberal domain. It's a stereotype I find highly offensive.

Don't disagree with either point, ba. Mine was that star power doesn't hurt. Elections are rarely one issue things. Reagan won due to bad economic conditions, a very unpopular incumbent, fractions among the Democrats, the Iranian crisis, a third party challenger sniping at Carter allowing him to keep his hands clean, his ability to articulate a clear, nice sounding message and yes, star power. He wasn't called the Great Communicator for nothing. He could argue something that you totally disagreed with and you'd still see his point.

Kennedy was indeed elected by an extremely close election. As a president, he was wholly overrated - he was a womanizing inexperienced and unfocused leader whose beligerence brought the world to the edge of nuclear war. His assassination has certainly mythologized him to a certain extent, but even when he was in office, his approval never once dipped below 70%. That is star power.

The point being that focusing on it isn't a childish thing, and childishness is hardly a liberal domain. It's a stereotype I find highly offensive.

rb, did you repeat your post because I did? I repeated my post twice because I wasn't sure that I had submitted the post button. So I did it again. (and then found out I duplicated myself) Why did you repeat yourself?

Sorry, I don't follow, you state that star power and name are huge factors in selecting a President and then reference 2 as examples to prove the point. Yet, you agree with me, Reagan was not elected because of his star power but by his ability to communicate. Kennedy (democrat) may have had a name - but he just about got elected (against Nixon) But, that was then. Now, seems to me it is the people in general (yes, sometimes Republicans as well) want the President to be entertaining. You are correct, childishness is not limited to those calling themselves liberal. To be of a mature spirit is
to live for others. ALL others in respect to a common good. That means marriage is more than just an action done, good health doesn't come from an insurance policy, no one owes anyone a living, schools teach, it's up to the person and the family of the person to educate, maturity listens and thinks of what was said before responding (self control it was once called)
maturity also remains humble, with understanding that I am mortal as are all other humans. Don't take all human words as truth; but bring all human words to objective truth. (does it match with the Spirit of Truth's words and actions)

Actually, I repeated the post by accident, by the looks of it, for much the same reason you did. Put it down to a lousy connection.

I agree with your comments on the definition of maturity. Mine was that there are many factors in determining who will win an election and that star power is one of them, and an important one at that. And Reagan did have star power. That in itself wasn't enough for him to get elected, but it certainly didn't hurt. As for Kennedy, his star power helped push him over the finish against the much more experienced and probably much more qualified Nixon, and it made him spectacularly popular while he was president. There was almost a cult of personality around the man.

Where you and I disagree is that the article was being superficial by mentioning John Edwards' star qualities and appearance. Firstly, I resented you using what was very much an aside paragraph to take a baseless swipe at liberals; secondly, it was an aside and hardly the focus of the paragraph.

ok rb, I got your point. My apologies if I offended you somehow.

However, you say: 'I resented you using what was very much an aside paragraph to take a baseless swipe at liberals.' rb, if my comment was indeed baseless; why respond to it? THAT'S what I mean by self control no longer active in the world at large. How one responds gives the one 'rattling' more evidence to use. Everyone tries to 'rattle the cage' of someone. Conservatives, don't fall for it. remember self control. A gift of the Holy Spirit. Generally speaking conservatives (if you know any) are quiet people and that's what makes the liberal mind think they need to get them/I think it's sort of a carry over from the childhood days when if the child could get mom or dad upset in some way; just enough to 'weaken' them; expectations are lessened.