The cheap talk of Trial Lawyers being "ambulance chasers" is getting tiring. My son is a top Los Angeles trial lawyer, and I can tell you that, without exception, the top trial lawyers are flooded with pleas to take cases. They take only those cases that are worthy and that they strongly believe deserve representation. As one letter writer wisely pointed out: Just wait until you or one of your loved ones has been damaged by money-driven corporate types, and you will understand the great value of these fine lawyers. Edwards' cases have shown him to have been an exemplary example of the best trial lawyers. Beyond that, he is one remarkable human being with deep love of this country. And he and his equally remarkable wife have both proven they are willing to give everything to help our troubled country. I say godspeed!

Trial lawyers take cases for contingency fees. If you have been wronged, but your case doesn't involve big-money damages, top trial lawyers won't take your call or give you the time of day. Top trial lawyers don't do pro bono work, and they don't do landlord-tenant cases. They don't work on people's Social Security benefit claims, and they don't handle probate estates.

Here is what they do. Some of them, like John Edwards, take on cases for so-called 'birth trauma vicitms.' Those cases typically involve babies born with cerebral palsy, which is rarely associated with any kind of true 'birth trauma' or 'perinatal asphysxia.' The way Edwards settled and/or won those cases was with the help of lying hired-gun 'experts.' And Edwards made many, many millions doing it. Very much like the lawyers who pooled together thousands of 'asbestos victims,' some of whom had earlier been plaintiffs as 'silicosis victims.' Whatever you got as defendants, they want it as plaintiffs. And don't forget about the Bill Leraches of the world. Who gave us the whole class of million (billion)-dollar lawsuits over the decline of stock prices in a series of sleazy deals that brought his former firm into a criminal investigation.

These are world-class liars and cheats. "Ambulance-chasing" seems almost quaint as a descriptor of what thse good ol' boys are doing.

Anybody got a tally on how much money the national tobacco "settlement" brokered through a flock of Democrat state attorneys general has generated for the plaintiff lawyers (most of them former asbestos lawyers)? And how many of those millions were returned to the Democrat party in the form of donations?

Hello folks,

When posting previously, I wrote a couple of things which need to be corrected and clarified:

1) As announced on mainstream news, it was between 2003-2005 when 143,000 National Security Letters (Patriot Act subpoenas) were issued. That's 993 such summons per week, during that time period alone. Further, according to former FBI agent Mike German who now is counsel to the ACLU, of those NSL's 53% were issued for Americans (born and naturalized alike), and only one terrorist has been caught to date as a result of the Patriot Act and NSL letters.

2) According to the Congressional scorecard as posted to the ACLU's website, it was 2/3 of the House which voted "yes" for the Patriot Act, and only 1/3 which stood firm and "Just said no".

3) I note with interest that senator Barbara Boxer, D-CA,uses the same rhetoric concerning her vote for the Patriot Act as does John Edwards: She says that the "need" For increased FBI/CIA/police communications necessitated a "yes" vote. SHe also, like Edwards, references her greatest concern as being the library sneak-and-peek previews. Why are they both saying the same thing? Who planted that in the Democratic circles? What would Edwards's own PERSONAL response be to his "yes" vote for the Patriot Act?

4) In light of the fact that the Patriot Act gives the word "terrorist" a broad definition (Which, according to the written auto-response of Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-CA, has enabled the crack-down on peace and activist groups) one has to wonder: What is the purpose of this increased FBI/CIA/police communication, under the Patriot Act?

And what do warrantless arrests, wiretapping without evidence of wrong-doing, lack of due process, and capital punishment in the absence of Congressional oversight have to do with increased FBI/police/CIA communication?

Nothing.

Therefore, what is the motive of Congress in passing the unconstitutional Patriot Act into law? Is it possible that they all are in cohoots to convert the USA to a dictatorship? After all, democracy demands that politicians give a listening ear to so many different points of view: Dictatorship is a lot easier. FOr a politician, that is. Not for the people, however.

Is it possible that John Edwards, too, wants to see America going in the direction of dictatorship? My analysis of this could be wrong, but I at least do have to wonder.

Again, the fact that he stands for paper ballot voting and for tossing the computerized election system out (according to the Washington Spectator), is very much to Edwards's credit. That would earn him my vote. Cautiously and with concerns, however.

I hope that other voters will PLEASE check the Congressional voting record of any Candidate you are considering voting for. PLEASE also check into the analysis of bills the Candidate voted for: DOn't just take things for granted at surface level. The Patriot ACt, for example, uses the word "terrorist" and would appear to be cracking down on terrorists. Yet that is just not true. Remember: The word "terrorist" is given a broad definition in the Patriot Act (according to the ACLU), allowing for peace groups and religious organizations to be dubbed "terrorists". 850 Guantanamo detainees were proven innocent, according to the ACLU's movie "Stop the Abuse of Power". So don't be fooled: Please check into the facts very carefully, reading the analysis of any organization you happen to trust. For me, that would be the ACLU and the Center for Constitutional Rights. But follow your own path....but do it, PLEASE, before you go to vote.

Thank you.

from the article: <<Elizabeth has announced that you plan to hire a tutor to help home-school your two youngest children, Emma Claire and Jack, in the fall so the family can be together on the campaign trail. Have you realized how many

conservative votes you could get if you play up your plans for home schooling?

I hadn't thought about that.

I assume that evolution will not be part of the curriculum.

It'll be part of our curriculum. >>

How can Salon and Mr. Shapiro be so ignorant about homeschooling? “Homeschoolers are no longer an easily defined segment of the population” [Education Policy Analysis Archives, 1999]. “There are instead at least a million American children—the real figure is probably twice that number—whose families want them to learn at home for many reasons, often having little to do with religion or politics” [Washington Post, June 2004].

Betsy Kocsis