Showing posts with label John Edwards. Show all posts
Showing posts with label John Edwards. Show all posts
Sunday, August 10, 2008
The Power of the Media
I thought the reports of the media blacking out the John Edwards adultery story were exaggerated--until now. I just pulled up behind a 1995 Subaru wagon, and all traces of Edwards’s name had completely vanished from the faded Kerry/2004 bumper sticker!
Saturday, November 24, 2007
Springsteen on Rolling Stone's 40th: 'A Low Point in American History'
Unlike the Rolling Stone interview with Bono, which we discussed below, where Bono showed some capacity both for reason and individualism, the interview with Bruce Springsteen followed the Rolling Stone line--shall I say slavishly--with the result that my plummeting opinion of the man can plummet--geologically speaking--no farther.
The interviewer's very first lob to Bruce, “On the whole, are you optimistic or pessimistic about the future?” got this response:
I’m optimistic as far as people go and pessimistic as far as the government goes, for pretty clear reasons. In 2006, the American people said, “Throw these bums out!” They would have voted Bush out at that moment if they could have. There was a clear message about the war in Iraq, and yet we sit here today with no front-running presidential candidate on either side who’s going to take us out of there.
Of course, we may just get out of Iraq the best way, victoriously, leaving behind a stable, secure, non-terror supporting, friendly Iraq, But who the hell wants to write a song about that?
Aside from this, Springsteen has nothing concrete to say about the challenge this nation--the heartland of which he is credited with speaking for-- has faced since 9/11. For him, the key issues are “race and poverty,” which he thinks were lost to the national discourse, “not unintentionally through the use of other issues.” (The war against Islamic jihadism, presumably.)
Springsteen really seems stuck on the poverty issue this time. He seems to think LBJ's plan was a good one. Or John Edwards's. Well, at least Edwards's anti-poverty plan worked for him. Maybe Springsteen's concerns for the impoversihed are why he's always photographed with the same old Telecaster with the worn-off finish, and of course, the Levis and T-shirt--that means he's poor, too, I guess.
You see, Bruce explains, the big movement of the powers that be in this country "is towards a plutocracy” [??], a movement which in turn is pushing the critical conversation about race and poverty out of the national discussion. But, he says, that conversation can’t be stopped all together:
I’ll tell you when it wasn’t stopped--when a guy that doesn’t care that much about it had to say something about it. [He’s talking about Bush, of course]. When people turned on the television during Hurricane Katrina and said “Where did all those poor people come from?”
You wanna give us a break, here, Bruce? I may not have known just how poor New Orleans was, but I always knew there were lots of poor people in every big city, because I grew up in one, and I still live right next to one. Does that mean I’m not a plutocrat?
Or maybe Springsteen was only expressing his own surprise at all these poor folks in New Orleans, because none of those impoverished black folks on TV getting pulled off their roofs looked familiar from the last time he’d played the Superdome for $100 a cheap seat.
Springsteen credits Howard Zinn’s “A People’s History of the United States” with having an “enormous impact” on him, empowering him “to feel that in my small way, I had something to say, I could do something.” That something that he and the E Street Band can do, as we have note elsewhere, is to “sing.” To sing, and in 2004, to help raise money for that other working-class hero, and terror to plutocrats everywhere, John Heinz Kerry.
But for sheer historical myopia, nothing beats the response Sprinsgteen gave when he was aked how he thinks this time will be judged in 40 more years:
Many parts of it will be remembered with the same degree of shame as the Japanese internment camps are remembered --illegal wiretapping, rendition, the abuse of prisoners, cutting back our civil rights, no habeas corpus. I don’t think most people thought they’d ever see the country move far enough to the right to see those things happen here. And I don’t believe those are things that strengthen us. The moral authority to stand up and say, “We are the Americans,” is invaluable. It’s been deeply damaged, and it’s going to take quite a while to repair that damage, if we can.
This will be remembered as a low point in American history--as simple as that. People are going to go, “Was everybody sleeping?” But people get frightened, they get crazy. You wonder where political hysteria can take you--I think we’ve tasted some of that.
All I want to do is be one of the guys that says, “When that stuff was going down, I threw my hat in the ring and tried to stand on what I felt was the right side of history.” What can a poor boy do, except play in a rock & roll band?
Well,. Bruce, I'm not sleeping, but this kind of shit does make me crazy.
At least all this national darkness has given Bruce an excuse to update some of his old songs. I've even heard there's a new version of “Born to Run” the band's been playing around with in the studio:
Antiwar’s Way Too Much Fun
In the day I’m tryin’ to rhyme “habeas corpus” while I do my Nautilus routine
At night I preach ‘bout the last man to die and defective voting machines
Straight from the mean streets in John Kerry’s mind
"Rendition!" "Katrina!"
They’re clichés but I can’t change a line
Baby this stuff rips the soul from your rap
Sounds real dumb out loud, like rehashed Maureen Dowd
But those cheers make me feel I’m still young
So for chumps like us,
baby, antiwar’s way too much fun
Trendy set I’m in says they can’t be my friend
If I ain’t hawking the old sixties vision
It’s that iron hand in that velvet glove
That’s strangling all my good intentions
I tell myself, you gotta bust this trap
Gotta drop all this pap, can’t ya go back to just playin’ rock?
Singin’ platitudes makes my soul tired
But frankly I’m just a scared and lonely shaman
Who’s got a jones for the way that it feels
I gotta hear crowds go wild
So what if I don’t mean it for real?
At my shows each night mobs of middle-aged drones swoon when I say “times are dark”
I guess they live their lives in rearview mirrors
Because reality’s just too hard
The amusing thing's how we're getting paid to sing
Then get to brag we’re doing dissident work
I’d rather kid myself, baby, ‘neath these lights each night
Than admit I’m a political jerk!
Now the gossip shows glow with celebrity heroes all strugglin’ to stay alive
Every one of us knows that the Left’s in its throes
But there’s worse things than shuckin’ jive
The truth is we all hocked our brains away gladly
For a promise of more of that badly needed fame
Someday buddy I can’t say when
I’m gonna find my lost soul
The one that made all my old songs roll
even admit there’ve been victories won
But till then chumps like us
Think antiwar’s way too much fun
The interviewer's very first lob to Bruce, “On the whole, are you optimistic or pessimistic about the future?” got this response:
I’m optimistic as far as people go and pessimistic as far as the government goes, for pretty clear reasons. In 2006, the American people said, “Throw these bums out!” They would have voted Bush out at that moment if they could have. There was a clear message about the war in Iraq, and yet we sit here today with no front-running presidential candidate on either side who’s going to take us out of there.
Of course, we may just get out of Iraq the best way, victoriously, leaving behind a stable, secure, non-terror supporting, friendly Iraq, But who the hell wants to write a song about that?
Aside from this, Springsteen has nothing concrete to say about the challenge this nation--the heartland of which he is credited with speaking for-- has faced since 9/11. For him, the key issues are “race and poverty,” which he thinks were lost to the national discourse, “not unintentionally through the use of other issues.” (The war against Islamic jihadism, presumably.)
Springsteen really seems stuck on the poverty issue this time. He seems to think LBJ's plan was a good one. Or John Edwards's. Well, at least Edwards's anti-poverty plan worked for him. Maybe Springsteen's concerns for the impoversihed are why he's always photographed with the same old Telecaster with the worn-off finish, and of course, the Levis and T-shirt--that means he's poor, too, I guess.
You see, Bruce explains, the big movement of the powers that be in this country "is towards a plutocracy” [??], a movement which in turn is pushing the critical conversation about race and poverty out of the national discussion. But, he says, that conversation can’t be stopped all together:
I’ll tell you when it wasn’t stopped--when a guy that doesn’t care that much about it had to say something about it. [He’s talking about Bush, of course]. When people turned on the television during Hurricane Katrina and said “Where did all those poor people come from?”
You wanna give us a break, here, Bruce? I may not have known just how poor New Orleans was, but I always knew there were lots of poor people in every big city, because I grew up in one, and I still live right next to one. Does that mean I’m not a plutocrat?
Or maybe Springsteen was only expressing his own surprise at all these poor folks in New Orleans, because none of those impoverished black folks on TV getting pulled off their roofs looked familiar from the last time he’d played the Superdome for $100 a cheap seat.
Springsteen credits Howard Zinn’s “A People’s History of the United States” with having an “enormous impact” on him, empowering him “to feel that in my small way, I had something to say, I could do something.” That something that he and the E Street Band can do, as we have note elsewhere, is to “sing.” To sing, and in 2004, to help raise money for that other working-class hero, and terror to plutocrats everywhere, John Heinz Kerry.
But for sheer historical myopia, nothing beats the response Sprinsgteen gave when he was aked how he thinks this time will be judged in 40 more years:
Many parts of it will be remembered with the same degree of shame as the Japanese internment camps are remembered --illegal wiretapping, rendition, the abuse of prisoners, cutting back our civil rights, no habeas corpus. I don’t think most people thought they’d ever see the country move far enough to the right to see those things happen here. And I don’t believe those are things that strengthen us. The moral authority to stand up and say, “We are the Americans,” is invaluable. It’s been deeply damaged, and it’s going to take quite a while to repair that damage, if we can.
This will be remembered as a low point in American history--as simple as that. People are going to go, “Was everybody sleeping?” But people get frightened, they get crazy. You wonder where political hysteria can take you--I think we’ve tasted some of that.
All I want to do is be one of the guys that says, “When that stuff was going down, I threw my hat in the ring and tried to stand on what I felt was the right side of history.” What can a poor boy do, except play in a rock & roll band?
Well,. Bruce, I'm not sleeping, but this kind of shit does make me crazy.
At least all this national darkness has given Bruce an excuse to update some of his old songs. I've even heard there's a new version of “Born to Run” the band's been playing around with in the studio:
Antiwar’s Way Too Much Fun
In the day I’m tryin’ to rhyme “habeas corpus” while I do my Nautilus routine
At night I preach ‘bout the last man to die and defective voting machines
Straight from the mean streets in John Kerry’s mind
"Rendition!" "Katrina!"
They’re clichés but I can’t change a line
Baby this stuff rips the soul from your rap
Sounds real dumb out loud, like rehashed Maureen Dowd
But those cheers make me feel I’m still young
So for chumps like us,
baby, antiwar’s way too much fun
Trendy set I’m in says they can’t be my friend
If I ain’t hawking the old sixties vision
It’s that iron hand in that velvet glove
That’s strangling all my good intentions
I tell myself, you gotta bust this trap
Gotta drop all this pap, can’t ya go back to just playin’ rock?
Singin’ platitudes makes my soul tired
But frankly I’m just a scared and lonely shaman
Who’s got a jones for the way that it feels
I gotta hear crowds go wild
So what if I don’t mean it for real?
At my shows each night mobs of middle-aged drones swoon when I say “times are dark”
I guess they live their lives in rearview mirrors
Because reality’s just too hard
The amusing thing's how we're getting paid to sing
Then get to brag we’re doing dissident work
I’d rather kid myself, baby, ‘neath these lights each night
Than admit I’m a political jerk!
Now the gossip shows glow with celebrity heroes all strugglin’ to stay alive
Every one of us knows that the Left’s in its throes
But there’s worse things than shuckin’ jive
The truth is we all hocked our brains away gladly
For a promise of more of that badly needed fame
Someday buddy I can’t say when
I’m gonna find my lost soul
The one that made all my old songs roll
even admit there’ve been victories won
But till then chumps like us
Think antiwar’s way too much fun
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Now That's a Dark Horse of a Different Color
We see from Debbie Schlussel’s blog, and Niraj Warikoo at the Detroit Free Press, (“Event focuses on defending Constitution”), that last week’s Arab American Institute conference in Dearborn was co-sponsored by, among other businesses, Talil Chaine’s La Shish restaurant chain.
As we’ve noted a lot recently, (“LaShish: More Than Just a Restaurant, It's a Hezbollah Soap Opera"), Chahine is a fugitive from justice believed to be hiding out in Lebanon. He got in trouble for being a major money-launderer and fund-raiser for Hezbollah. The legend is that an angel of the Lord came to him in a dream and warned him to flee into Southern Lebanon just as the feds were closing in on him.
We’ve got no reason to believe Chahine’s still handling the day-to-day any more at his old restaurants, and his poor wife probably isn’t, either, as she’s gone off to jail. ("Chahine's Wife To Be Sentenced for Tax Evasion").
So we also have no reason to believe that any of the La Shish staff were required to attend the AAI event--the way, say, they were formerly required to participate in other after-hours duties, like helping Chahine skim receipts that he then sent to Hezbollah, or participate in green-card marriages, or bear Chahine’s love child. ("La Shish: More Than Just a Restaurant, It's a Hezbollah Soap Opera").
I was also struck, but not surprised by, the press’s helpful coverage of the conference in a way heavily weighted to suggest that the Democratic Party is the answer to the political aspirations of Arab Americans.
James Zogby is the big dog at AAI, its founder, and although he claims that AAI is non-partisan, he’s been described as “Arab American in Chief: - And a big Democrat, too", sitting “atop Arab American politics -- and ... trying to make sure as many Democrats as possible join him there.”
Zogby has also helpfully condemned the Israelis as "Nazis," and refused to call either Arafat or Hezbollah "terrorists."
I get a kick out of how loyally sympathetic reporters lend themselves to the cause of, in this case, selling the idea that the Democrats are the saviors of persecuted Arab Americans--and Republicans may as well just keep away. Here is Gregg Krupa at the Detroit News:
DEARBORN -- Arab-Americans said Sunday they are feeling estranged from the Republican presidential field because the GOP's policies are hostile to them, and just one candidate, dark horse Ron Paul, attended their three-day national leadership convention.
None of the top three Democratic candidates for the White House attended in person.
"On the Republican side it says that their debate is moving in such a negative direction that they simply are not, most of them, in a position to come before this audience," said James Zogby, founder and president of the American Arab Institute, which sponsored the National Leadership Conference in Dearborn.
“They have been building themselves up rhetorically and politically in such a hostile direction on these issues that I think it would be difficult.” (“Some candidates court Arab-American vote”).
So we have three paragraphs, in fact, the entire article, pointing out how Republicans are dissing Dearborn’s Arabs and can’t be bothered coming to what is, in reality, a Democratic pep rally, and then these “14 words” are quietly slipped in:
“None of the top three Democratic candidates for the White House attended in person.”
Elsewhere Krupa calls the two Dems who showed up live-- New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson and U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio--“both dark horse candidates.” (“Dem presidential candidates promise Iraq troop pullout”).
I guess two Democratic dark horses are worth more than one Republican dark horse. (Although I think Ron Paul’s candidacy qualifies more as “dark matter.” ).
The beauty of this is that the Democrats who showed up live, Kucinich, or on video, Obama and Edwards, (with the exception of Richardson), all bragged about how they were going to get dynamic results in the Middle East by drastically doing the opposite of everything the Bush administration has ever done, or ever considered doing. To wit:
Kucinich is going to get America “out of the Middle East and stop trying to dominate the politics of the region”;
Obama said, “Our neglect of the Middle East peace process has spurred despair and fueled terrorism”;
John Edwards reportedly said, “instead of spending billions on war in the region, as president, he would invest millions to establish public school systems throughout the region… I want to be the president who is going return America as keeper of peace in the region,’ Edwards said. ‘America needs to return to the position in which it is the moral leader in the world.’”
Just what the Middle East needs. More dropouts.
But in spite of all the tough talk, we already know the real reasons Obama and Edwards weren’t there. As Krupa reports:
Zogby and others said the Democratic presidential candidates felt they were caught in a cross-fire between the state Democratic Party and national party officials. While they were granted waivers by the national Democratic Party to appear in Michigan, which has run afoul of national party rules by scheduling a Jan. 15 primary, the candidates were concerned that coming here would send the wrong message to Democrats beyond Michigan. "The front-runners were busy looking over their shoulders at whether one would come and whether they'd take potshots for coming," Zogby said. "We heard that from a number of them."
And as we all know, achieving peace in the Middle East will require a hell of a lot less brass than standing up to Howard Dean. Sending the wrong message to Democrats beyond Michigan, or having to look over their shoulders, getting caught in a crossfire or wondering all the time if they’ll take potshots for coming to Michigan, takes a lot more courage and leadership than the cakewalk that, once in the White House, every Democrat politician knows handling Syria and Lebanon and Hamas and Iran is going to be.
None of this path-of-least-resistance stuff for these guys; not for them the easy road the Bush administration has been taking since 9/11.
And these are the candidates who are going to bring us peace in our time?
Except I don't believe for a second that the Democratic Party will keep its promises any better to Arab Americans than it did to African Americans. You may recall that the Democratic candidates, even without a fatwah from the national Party, refused to participate in a debate in Detroit sponsored by the Congressional Black Caucus because it was being run by Fox News Channel, and they weren’t willing to be asked tough questions by known hard guys like Brit Hume and Wendell Goler. ("Why Buy the Cow When You Can Milk it for Free?").
Why bother? Special discount on African American voters this year. Anr Democrats are hoping to get the Arab Americans for the same deep, deep, discount.
Republicans have nothing to be ashamed of when it comes to Arab Americans.
Since September 2001, a Republican administration and majority in Congress made possible the liberation of 27 million Iraqis, 32 million Afghanis, and has contributed to the revival of democracy in Lebanon, meanwhile throwing fear and trembling into dictators in Syria, Iran, Egypt, Libya, and Saudi Arabia, and reversing 30 years of Western appeasement of fascistic religious extremism plunging scores of millions of Arabs into despair.
At the same time, Democrat policies have not freed one innocent Arabic person. The closest they've gotten is cheering the acquittal of indicted Arab terrorists, and demanding the freeing of the world’s most barbaric terrorists from Guantanamo Bay.
If I were an Arab American, I'd think twice about letting John Edwards tell me he's got my best interests in mind.
As we’ve noted a lot recently, (“LaShish: More Than Just a Restaurant, It's a Hezbollah Soap Opera"), Chahine is a fugitive from justice believed to be hiding out in Lebanon. He got in trouble for being a major money-launderer and fund-raiser for Hezbollah. The legend is that an angel of the Lord came to him in a dream and warned him to flee into Southern Lebanon just as the feds were closing in on him.
We’ve got no reason to believe Chahine’s still handling the day-to-day any more at his old restaurants, and his poor wife probably isn’t, either, as she’s gone off to jail. ("Chahine's Wife To Be Sentenced for Tax Evasion").
So we also have no reason to believe that any of the La Shish staff were required to attend the AAI event--the way, say, they were formerly required to participate in other after-hours duties, like helping Chahine skim receipts that he then sent to Hezbollah, or participate in green-card marriages, or bear Chahine’s love child. ("La Shish: More Than Just a Restaurant, It's a Hezbollah Soap Opera").
I was also struck, but not surprised by, the press’s helpful coverage of the conference in a way heavily weighted to suggest that the Democratic Party is the answer to the political aspirations of Arab Americans.
James Zogby is the big dog at AAI, its founder, and although he claims that AAI is non-partisan, he’s been described as “Arab American in Chief: - And a big Democrat, too", sitting “atop Arab American politics -- and ... trying to make sure as many Democrats as possible join him there.”
Zogby has also helpfully condemned the Israelis as "Nazis," and refused to call either Arafat or Hezbollah "terrorists."
I get a kick out of how loyally sympathetic reporters lend themselves to the cause of, in this case, selling the idea that the Democrats are the saviors of persecuted Arab Americans--and Republicans may as well just keep away. Here is Gregg Krupa at the Detroit News:
DEARBORN -- Arab-Americans said Sunday they are feeling estranged from the Republican presidential field because the GOP's policies are hostile to them, and just one candidate, dark horse Ron Paul, attended their three-day national leadership convention.
None of the top three Democratic candidates for the White House attended in person.
"On the Republican side it says that their debate is moving in such a negative direction that they simply are not, most of them, in a position to come before this audience," said James Zogby, founder and president of the American Arab Institute, which sponsored the National Leadership Conference in Dearborn.
“They have been building themselves up rhetorically and politically in such a hostile direction on these issues that I think it would be difficult.” (“Some candidates court Arab-American vote”).
So we have three paragraphs, in fact, the entire article, pointing out how Republicans are dissing Dearborn’s Arabs and can’t be bothered coming to what is, in reality, a Democratic pep rally, and then these “14 words” are quietly slipped in:
“None of the top three Democratic candidates for the White House attended in person.”
Elsewhere Krupa calls the two Dems who showed up live-- New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson and U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio--“both dark horse candidates.” (“Dem presidential candidates promise Iraq troop pullout”).
I guess two Democratic dark horses are worth more than one Republican dark horse. (Although I think Ron Paul’s candidacy qualifies more as “dark matter.” ).
The beauty of this is that the Democrats who showed up live, Kucinich, or on video, Obama and Edwards, (with the exception of Richardson), all bragged about how they were going to get dynamic results in the Middle East by drastically doing the opposite of everything the Bush administration has ever done, or ever considered doing. To wit:
Kucinich is going to get America “out of the Middle East and stop trying to dominate the politics of the region”;
Obama said, “Our neglect of the Middle East peace process has spurred despair and fueled terrorism”;
John Edwards reportedly said, “instead of spending billions on war in the region, as president, he would invest millions to establish public school systems throughout the region… I want to be the president who is going return America as keeper of peace in the region,’ Edwards said. ‘America needs to return to the position in which it is the moral leader in the world.’”
Just what the Middle East needs. More dropouts.
But in spite of all the tough talk, we already know the real reasons Obama and Edwards weren’t there. As Krupa reports:
Zogby and others said the Democratic presidential candidates felt they were caught in a cross-fire between the state Democratic Party and national party officials. While they were granted waivers by the national Democratic Party to appear in Michigan, which has run afoul of national party rules by scheduling a Jan. 15 primary, the candidates were concerned that coming here would send the wrong message to Democrats beyond Michigan. "The front-runners were busy looking over their shoulders at whether one would come and whether they'd take potshots for coming," Zogby said. "We heard that from a number of them."
And as we all know, achieving peace in the Middle East will require a hell of a lot less brass than standing up to Howard Dean. Sending the wrong message to Democrats beyond Michigan, or having to look over their shoulders, getting caught in a crossfire or wondering all the time if they’ll take potshots for coming to Michigan, takes a lot more courage and leadership than the cakewalk that, once in the White House, every Democrat politician knows handling Syria and Lebanon and Hamas and Iran is going to be.
None of this path-of-least-resistance stuff for these guys; not for them the easy road the Bush administration has been taking since 9/11.
And these are the candidates who are going to bring us peace in our time?
Except I don't believe for a second that the Democratic Party will keep its promises any better to Arab Americans than it did to African Americans. You may recall that the Democratic candidates, even without a fatwah from the national Party, refused to participate in a debate in Detroit sponsored by the Congressional Black Caucus because it was being run by Fox News Channel, and they weren’t willing to be asked tough questions by known hard guys like Brit Hume and Wendell Goler. ("Why Buy the Cow When You Can Milk it for Free?").
Why bother? Special discount on African American voters this year. Anr Democrats are hoping to get the Arab Americans for the same deep, deep, discount.
Republicans have nothing to be ashamed of when it comes to Arab Americans.
Since September 2001, a Republican administration and majority in Congress made possible the liberation of 27 million Iraqis, 32 million Afghanis, and has contributed to the revival of democracy in Lebanon, meanwhile throwing fear and trembling into dictators in Syria, Iran, Egypt, Libya, and Saudi Arabia, and reversing 30 years of Western appeasement of fascistic religious extremism plunging scores of millions of Arabs into despair.
At the same time, Democrat policies have not freed one innocent Arabic person. The closest they've gotten is cheering the acquittal of indicted Arab terrorists, and demanding the freeing of the world’s most barbaric terrorists from Guantanamo Bay.
If I were an Arab American, I'd think twice about letting John Edwards tell me he's got my best interests in mind.
Ohio Supreme Court Michigan Lawyer: 'Fieger Go Home'
It’s a bit off our usual subject matter, but I feel it's worth mentioning that last week Michigan’s most disgraceful lawyer and one-time Democratic nominee for governor, Geoffrey Fieger, had another gigantic medical malpractice verdict thrown out: this time for $30 million, and this time by the Ohio Supreme Court. The verdict, which would have been Ohio’s largest-ever medical malpractice award, was tossed out because the Supreme Court agreed with the trial judge that the jury was unfairly influenced by Fieger’s antics in the courtroom.
Most Americans who recognize Fieger’s name do so because of his widely-publicized defense a few years ago of convicted murderer Jack "Dr. Death" Kevorkian. But pretending to be a criminal lawyer was just a sideline for Fieger, (and a hunt for publicity), because he made his fortune as a medical-malpractice trial lawyer.
He also kept himself in the public eye by doing things like referring on a radio appearance to an appellate panel that had overturned another of his verdicts as “three jackass court of appeals judges,” and “Nazis.” I forever lost what few shreds of respect I may have had for the Michigan Democratic Party when they nominated this clown to run against Governor John Engler in 1998. Engler stomped him in a 62% to 38% blow-out.
Then, this August Fieger was indicted “by a federal grand jury on criminal charges of conspiracy, obstruction of justice, making illegal campaign contributions and causing false statements” related to exceeding limits on campaign contributions to John Edwards during the 2004 presidential campaign.
As trial lawyers, Edwarda and Fieger are two of a kind, and trial lawyers are just about their only conceivable constituency.
Both Edwards and Fieger have won verdicts in birth-trauma cases with their supernatural ability to channel fetal testimony directly into their closing arguments. Edwards established his reputation in 1985 by beating $6.5 out of an obstetrician in a cerebral palsy case by telling the jury the unborn child: “’ speaks to you through me,’ the lawyer went on in his closing argument. ‘And I have to tell you right now — I didn't plan to talk about this — right now I feel her. I feel her presence. She's inside me, and she's talking to you.’” (“In Trial Work, Edwards Left a Trademark”).
Fieger used the same type of theatrics in the Ohio case, assuming
“client Walter Hollins’ character in his mother’s womb, his brain deprived of oxygen as he waited to be delivered.
‘Doctors, nurses, I'm suffocating. Please help me to be born,’ Fieger told the jury. ‘I want to play baseball. I want to hug my mother. I want to tell her that I love her. Help me.’” (“Ohio Supreme Court tosses out $30M verdict in Fieger case”).
For those of you who think the case may otherwise have merit, you can read the opinion for yourselves, here. You should also keep in mind that the overturned verdict was not a ruling on the merits of the case, but on the courtroom demerits of the trial lawyer, the Über-brat Geoff Fieger; in the hands of more competent counsel, plaintiffs may well have won a more reasonable award and been done with it.
The thing of it is, even before he ever gave his summation, Fieger had already been at work with his trademark tricks of crass discourtesy to the court and to opposing counsel and witnesses, misleading statements about the evidence, and a general disregard for the due-process rights of his opponents. The Ohio justices referred to Fieger’s “discourtesy, accusing witnesses of lying, and for his frequent interruptions of opposing lawyers. They cited Fieger for misstating evidence, wrongfully accusing defendants of covering up evidence and inappropriately injecting race and poverty into the trial.”
This is the way Fieger tries cases. As often as not, Michigan trial judges are too scared of him to admonish him, so he gets away with it. In this case, even the Ohio trial judge later admitted that he'd made errors in allowing Fieger to force inadmissible testimony to be heard by the jury. In the end, the Ohio Supreme Court didn’t even have to rely on Fieger’s phony impersonation of a pleading fetus to uphold the trial court’s ruling that the defendants deserved a new trial, citing instead his numerous other instances of unfair trial practices.
The Supreme Court ruled 6-1 against him. Fieger, naturally, has blamed the ruling on Republican “operatives.” (“Fetus-channeling case overturned by Ohio supreme court”). (He blamed his federal indictment for illegal campaign contributions on Alberto Gonzales and Karl Rove).
But even the dissenting justice in the case, who would have denied a new trial, while reducing the award to $10 million, said that before there is a new trial, “it would be wise for the trial judge to deny any motion for admission pro hac vice filed on behalf of Mr. Fieger.”
In other words, "Don't come back." When a lawyer from one state wants to try a case in a state where he's not admitted to the bar, he asks permission of the trial court by filing a pro hac vice motion, a type of motion usually freely granted for the duration of the case. By advising the future Ohio trial court in advance to deny such a motion to Fieger, even the dissenting justice is essentially saying, “Geoff Fieger, we don't need your kind in Ohio.”
Most Americans who recognize Fieger’s name do so because of his widely-publicized defense a few years ago of convicted murderer Jack "Dr. Death" Kevorkian. But pretending to be a criminal lawyer was just a sideline for Fieger, (and a hunt for publicity), because he made his fortune as a medical-malpractice trial lawyer.
He also kept himself in the public eye by doing things like referring on a radio appearance to an appellate panel that had overturned another of his verdicts as “three jackass court of appeals judges,” and “Nazis.” I forever lost what few shreds of respect I may have had for the Michigan Democratic Party when they nominated this clown to run against Governor John Engler in 1998. Engler stomped him in a 62% to 38% blow-out.
Then, this August Fieger was indicted “by a federal grand jury on criminal charges of conspiracy, obstruction of justice, making illegal campaign contributions and causing false statements” related to exceeding limits on campaign contributions to John Edwards during the 2004 presidential campaign.
As trial lawyers, Edwarda and Fieger are two of a kind, and trial lawyers are just about their only conceivable constituency.
Both Edwards and Fieger have won verdicts in birth-trauma cases with their supernatural ability to channel fetal testimony directly into their closing arguments. Edwards established his reputation in 1985 by beating $6.5 out of an obstetrician in a cerebral palsy case by telling the jury the unborn child: “’ speaks to you through me,’ the lawyer went on in his closing argument. ‘And I have to tell you right now — I didn't plan to talk about this — right now I feel her. I feel her presence. She's inside me, and she's talking to you.’” (“In Trial Work, Edwards Left a Trademark”).
Fieger used the same type of theatrics in the Ohio case, assuming
“client Walter Hollins’ character in his mother’s womb, his brain deprived of oxygen as he waited to be delivered.
‘Doctors, nurses, I'm suffocating. Please help me to be born,’ Fieger told the jury. ‘I want to play baseball. I want to hug my mother. I want to tell her that I love her. Help me.’” (“Ohio Supreme Court tosses out $30M verdict in Fieger case”).
For those of you who think the case may otherwise have merit, you can read the opinion for yourselves, here. You should also keep in mind that the overturned verdict was not a ruling on the merits of the case, but on the courtroom demerits of the trial lawyer, the Über-brat Geoff Fieger; in the hands of more competent counsel, plaintiffs may well have won a more reasonable award and been done with it.
The thing of it is, even before he ever gave his summation, Fieger had already been at work with his trademark tricks of crass discourtesy to the court and to opposing counsel and witnesses, misleading statements about the evidence, and a general disregard for the due-process rights of his opponents. The Ohio justices referred to Fieger’s “discourtesy, accusing witnesses of lying, and for his frequent interruptions of opposing lawyers. They cited Fieger for misstating evidence, wrongfully accusing defendants of covering up evidence and inappropriately injecting race and poverty into the trial.”
This is the way Fieger tries cases. As often as not, Michigan trial judges are too scared of him to admonish him, so he gets away with it. In this case, even the Ohio trial judge later admitted that he'd made errors in allowing Fieger to force inadmissible testimony to be heard by the jury. In the end, the Ohio Supreme Court didn’t even have to rely on Fieger’s phony impersonation of a pleading fetus to uphold the trial court’s ruling that the defendants deserved a new trial, citing instead his numerous other instances of unfair trial practices.
The Supreme Court ruled 6-1 against him. Fieger, naturally, has blamed the ruling on Republican “operatives.” (“Fetus-channeling case overturned by Ohio supreme court”). (He blamed his federal indictment for illegal campaign contributions on Alberto Gonzales and Karl Rove).
But even the dissenting justice in the case, who would have denied a new trial, while reducing the award to $10 million, said that before there is a new trial, “it would be wise for the trial judge to deny any motion for admission pro hac vice filed on behalf of Mr. Fieger.”
In other words, "Don't come back." When a lawyer from one state wants to try a case in a state where he's not admitted to the bar, he asks permission of the trial court by filing a pro hac vice motion, a type of motion usually freely granted for the duration of the case. By advising the future Ohio trial court in advance to deny such a motion to Fieger, even the dissenting justice is essentially saying, “Geoff Fieger, we don't need your kind in Ohio.”
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
They Don't Send Us Flowers Any More
What is it with the Democratic Party and Michigan voters? Is it ingratitude? Is it that they're so confident Michigan is so “safe” a Democratic state they can take Michigan voters for granted? (If so, I wonder what Michigan Democrats have ever done to deserve that kind of treatment?)
Or is it that Michigan’s problems are too real, and too complex, to just throw slogans at, the way Democrats loving throwing slogans around about “health care,” and “climate change,” and “energy alternatives.”
First, in May, John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, Bill Richardson, Chris Dodd, and Barack Obama, all dropped out of September’s Democratic candidates’ debate in Detroit, for the highly-principled reason that it was being broadcast by Fox News, and moderated by the notorious right-wing bombthrower, Brit Hume. (“Why Buy the Cow When You Can Milk It for Free?”).
Now, we learn today that “Democratic presidential candidates Barack Obama, John Edwards, Joe Biden and Bill Richardson are withdrawing from Michigan's Jan. 15 primary ballot, dealing a blow to this state's hopes of having Michigan's issues heard in both sides of the 2008 race.” (“Clinton stays, four Dems quit Michigan presidential race”).
As the headline says, Senator Clinton is the only major candidate to keep her name in. The four candidates say they “are pulling out because Michigan, like Florida, has violated national Democratic Party rules by moving up its primary date in a challenge to the traditional monopoly on early voting held by Iowa and New Hampshire.”
Barack Obama’s spokesman, Ben LaBolt, said “This is an extension of the pledge we made, based on the rules that the DNC laid out…We still hope that Michigan Democrats can adopt a process that meets DNC rules and, if so, look forward to fighting for the votes of men and women across the state.”
Got to follow those rules, guys. Can't go against the party leadership. Especially if you want to job of leader of the free world, proving to the UN and the World Court and foreign dictatorships that you’re no one to be trifled with.
Then the News reports this astounding bit:
Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick agrees that it's a dangerous strategy, his spokesman said. He said Clinton's decision to stay on the ballot recognizes Michigan's importance in the national campaign.
But he disagrees with the decision by the others to withdraw.
“We aren't just going to stand with Democrats just to be Democrats,” said spokesman Matt Allen. “Given the position the state is in we definitely need to hear from both parities.
“If the Democratic candidates choose not to address the issues facing Michigan, it could be a big win for the Republicans.”
Did we readthat right? Democrats treating Michigan as flyover country could actually make Democrats wake up and vote for the other party? (Are you hearing this, Republicans?)
Even reporter Gordon Trowbridge gets a little bit edgy when he talks about the attitude the Edwards campaign :
Edwards' manager David Bonior, who was a long-time Michigan congressman, defended his campaign's decision to boycott Michigan.
“Michigan is a great state with some of the finest Democrats in the nation, but it's important we respect the role that the four early states play in the nominating process,” Bonior said in a prepared statement issued by the campaign.
“In Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada voters can look their candidate in the eye and determine who is best to bring about real change in America. In these early states issues matter more than money, celebrity and advertisements.
“Voters want and deserve a candidate who represents real people, not corporate special interests, and this primary process will help ensure that's exactly what the American people get.”
It was unclear to whom his criticism was intended -- the Republicans, Clinton or another target.
Except it’s not unclear at all, Mr. Trowbridge. Bonior's target was Michigan Democrats, his former constituents, who have no stake in “real change,” because so many of them happen to work, (or used to) for “corporate interests,” (or what we around here call, “the auto industry”). Edwards has much bigger "real problems" fish to fry, like delivering the White House to the American trial lawyers, and seeing how fast he can get the US out of Iraq. But when it comes to tackling real problems of real productive industries, like we have in Michigan, it's no secret that the Democratic Party doesn't know jack squat. So, say Edwards and Bonior, Michigan voters just need to shut up and let the Mommy Party talk grown-up business with the man at the door.
Those of you from outside our state may remember David Bonior, Michigan’s own “Lord Haw Haw”. One of the last official acts of former Rep. Bonior, was, along with Rep. Jim McDermott, to travel to Baghdad in 2003 as a last ditch effort to protect the Iraqi dictator from inspections, (“Baghdad Bonior”), or otherwise accounting for his unaccounted WMD (I know, I know: but if you can’t tell us where they are, please don’t repeat where they aren’t: they had to go somewhere, or are you one of those who rejects science in favor of blind faith?).
Bonior’s feelings before we invaded Iraq were, ``I think you have to take the Iraqis on their value--at their face value.” But, he had no hesitation saying he thought the American president, “would mislead the American people.”
We are so lucky to have him as one of our former Congressmen.
And we’re not sure why Bonior’s promised talk show on Al-Jazeera fell through. But since he was already so close to the bottom, it was an easy career move for Bonior to attach himself to the campaign of John Edwards.
As is becoming more apparent here in Michigan day by day, (literally), Democratic solutions don’t hold any promise for Michigan’s “real people” and real problems, (e.g., rising taxes, wrecked school systems, fleeing businesses). Republican solutions, like lower taxes, business-friendly policies, school vouchers, could transform Michigan, if Republicans could ever figure out how to reach dissatisfied Democratic voters.
We noted last May that the Democratic candidates were treating Michigan voters as if they were safe, predictable, and could be counted on to vote Democratic in November 2008 regardless of how bad the party treats them. I still think that’s the case, and I still think Michigan voters will turn out for the Democratic candidate. There is just too much party loyalty, especially in the cities and amongst government employees.
But when even a party creature like Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick implies the state could end up voting against the Democrats, things are getting serious.
Or is it that Michigan’s problems are too real, and too complex, to just throw slogans at, the way Democrats loving throwing slogans around about “health care,” and “climate change,” and “energy alternatives.”
First, in May, John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, Bill Richardson, Chris Dodd, and Barack Obama, all dropped out of September’s Democratic candidates’ debate in Detroit, for the highly-principled reason that it was being broadcast by Fox News, and moderated by the notorious right-wing bombthrower, Brit Hume. (“Why Buy the Cow When You Can Milk It for Free?”).
Now, we learn today that “Democratic presidential candidates Barack Obama, John Edwards, Joe Biden and Bill Richardson are withdrawing from Michigan's Jan. 15 primary ballot, dealing a blow to this state's hopes of having Michigan's issues heard in both sides of the 2008 race.” (“Clinton stays, four Dems quit Michigan presidential race”).
As the headline says, Senator Clinton is the only major candidate to keep her name in. The four candidates say they “are pulling out because Michigan, like Florida, has violated national Democratic Party rules by moving up its primary date in a challenge to the traditional monopoly on early voting held by Iowa and New Hampshire.”
Barack Obama’s spokesman, Ben LaBolt, said “This is an extension of the pledge we made, based on the rules that the DNC laid out…We still hope that Michigan Democrats can adopt a process that meets DNC rules and, if so, look forward to fighting for the votes of men and women across the state.”
Got to follow those rules, guys. Can't go against the party leadership. Especially if you want to job of leader of the free world, proving to the UN and the World Court and foreign dictatorships that you’re no one to be trifled with.
Then the News reports this astounding bit:
Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick agrees that it's a dangerous strategy, his spokesman said. He said Clinton's decision to stay on the ballot recognizes Michigan's importance in the national campaign.
But he disagrees with the decision by the others to withdraw.
“We aren't just going to stand with Democrats just to be Democrats,” said spokesman Matt Allen. “Given the position the state is in we definitely need to hear from both parities.
“If the Democratic candidates choose not to address the issues facing Michigan, it could be a big win for the Republicans.”
Did we readthat right? Democrats treating Michigan as flyover country could actually make Democrats wake up and vote for the other party? (Are you hearing this, Republicans?)
Even reporter Gordon Trowbridge gets a little bit edgy when he talks about the attitude the Edwards campaign :
Edwards' manager David Bonior, who was a long-time Michigan congressman, defended his campaign's decision to boycott Michigan.
“Michigan is a great state with some of the finest Democrats in the nation, but it's important we respect the role that the four early states play in the nominating process,” Bonior said in a prepared statement issued by the campaign.
“In Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada voters can look their candidate in the eye and determine who is best to bring about real change in America. In these early states issues matter more than money, celebrity and advertisements.
“Voters want and deserve a candidate who represents real people, not corporate special interests, and this primary process will help ensure that's exactly what the American people get.”
It was unclear to whom his criticism was intended -- the Republicans, Clinton or another target.
Except it’s not unclear at all, Mr. Trowbridge. Bonior's target was Michigan Democrats, his former constituents, who have no stake in “real change,” because so many of them happen to work, (or used to) for “corporate interests,” (or what we around here call, “the auto industry”). Edwards has much bigger "real problems" fish to fry, like delivering the White House to the American trial lawyers, and seeing how fast he can get the US out of Iraq. But when it comes to tackling real problems of real productive industries, like we have in Michigan, it's no secret that the Democratic Party doesn't know jack squat. So, say Edwards and Bonior, Michigan voters just need to shut up and let the Mommy Party talk grown-up business with the man at the door.
Those of you from outside our state may remember David Bonior, Michigan’s own “Lord Haw Haw”. One of the last official acts of former Rep. Bonior, was, along with Rep. Jim McDermott, to travel to Baghdad in 2003 as a last ditch effort to protect the Iraqi dictator from inspections, (“Baghdad Bonior”), or otherwise accounting for his unaccounted WMD (I know, I know: but if you can’t tell us where they are, please don’t repeat where they aren’t: they had to go somewhere, or are you one of those who rejects science in favor of blind faith?).
Bonior’s feelings before we invaded Iraq were, ``I think you have to take the Iraqis on their value--at their face value.” But, he had no hesitation saying he thought the American president, “would mislead the American people.”
We are so lucky to have him as one of our former Congressmen.
And we’re not sure why Bonior’s promised talk show on Al-Jazeera fell through. But since he was already so close to the bottom, it was an easy career move for Bonior to attach himself to the campaign of John Edwards.
As is becoming more apparent here in Michigan day by day, (literally), Democratic solutions don’t hold any promise for Michigan’s “real people” and real problems, (e.g., rising taxes, wrecked school systems, fleeing businesses). Republican solutions, like lower taxes, business-friendly policies, school vouchers, could transform Michigan, if Republicans could ever figure out how to reach dissatisfied Democratic voters.
We noted last May that the Democratic candidates were treating Michigan voters as if they were safe, predictable, and could be counted on to vote Democratic in November 2008 regardless of how bad the party treats them. I still think that’s the case, and I still think Michigan voters will turn out for the Democratic candidate. There is just too much party loyalty, especially in the cities and amongst government employees.
But when even a party creature like Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick implies the state could end up voting against the Democrats, things are getting serious.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
