How can liberals who once ripped Dan Quayle as underqualified for the Vice Presidency now consider John Edwards as qualified for the same office?

Quayle served four years in the House of Represenatatives and eight years in the Senate.  Edwards will have served only six years in the Senate.  Liberals criticized Quayle's wealth as a rich-versus-poor issue.  Edwards' massive personal wealth bankrolled his only election and now he's passing himself off as an advocate for the poor.  Come to think of it, Edwards is the perfect choice for John Kerry.

Copied from letters to the editor, OC Register, 7/7/04

And I will agree, he can't match Cheney for experience in scheming, swearing, lying to the American public, or corruption.

Never seen him holding an RPG the wrong way, though!  Or mispelling potato(e).

Seems a little young and wet to me, but that just shows you how eager I am to get that nimrod Bush out of office!  I wanted Clark, to make Foreign Policy Unassailable (except by you guys here), but I'll take what I get.

BTW, a person can have wealth and still have concerns for the less fortunate, especially if they were less fortunate and earned their wealth and not inherited it.  Since you're a Republican, you can't comprehend that concept because Republicans are only concerned about the wealthy and the issues that will benefit them.  Bush's tax cuts only added an additional $1 to my paycheck.  (Let me go out & stimulate that economy with that!!!).  Of course, that was when I had a paycheck.

I don't have a problem with a person using his own finances to try to attain office.  If political office is that important to them and they have the means to incur the enormous expense involved, more power to them.  It sure beats those $1,000 a plate or higher dinners the Republican windbags use to help fund their campaigns.  You think Dumbya took any money out of his own pockets for election or re-election purposes?  LMFAO!!!

Hey, Hey; Ho, Ho;
Dumbya Shrub has got to go!!!

Sing along everyone!!!

Many wealthy people who were born desparately poor or who were not born wealthy often have empathy for those less fortunate. There is something about the road that they travelled that cause them feel the way they do.  John Edwards was not born to a wealthy family, Dan Quayle was.  Just as Quayle's birth circumstances do not disqualify him as a person who can have empathy for the poor, John Edwards' earned wealth also does not disqualify him.
    Also, it is not the length of a person's service as a representative of the people of his state that distinguishes that person, it is the strength of that person's legislative record.  So once you present an unbiased comparison of the legislative records of Mr.Quayle and Mr.Edwards, anyone who wants to be informed should take your post at face value.

Edwards doesn't have one, not even one co-authored bill to his name, not trusted to chair even one sub-committee by his fellow democrats.

"In 1976, Mr. Quayle was elected to the U.S. Congress from Indiana's Fourth Congressional District, defeating an eight-term incumbent Democrat. He won reelection in 1978 by the greatest percentage margin ever achieved to that date in the northeast Indiana district. In 1980, at age 33, Mr. Quayle became the youngest person ever elected to the U.S. Senate from the State of Indiana, defeating three-term incumbent Democrat Birch Bayh. Making Indiana political history yet again, Mr. Quayle was reelected to the U.S. Senate in 1986 with the largest margin ever achieved to that date by a candidate in a statewide Indiana race.

During his tenure in the U.S. Senate, Mr. Quayle became widely known for his legislative work in the areas of defense, arms control, labor, and human resources. With his service on the Armed Services Committee, the Budget Committee, and the Labor and Human Resources Committee, he became an effective Senator, respected by colleagues on both sides of the aisle. In 1982, working with Senator Edward Kennedy, Mr. Quayle authored the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA), which has been called the most significant piece of social legislation passed during the Reagan presidency."

-- Modified on 7/7/2004 11:57:08 PM

The media didn't consider Quayle to be unqualified because he was stupid, or because of his resume, but because he was a Conservative.

Edwards is treated as qualified because he's a flaming Liberal.  That's the only qualification, for the so-called "mainstream" media.

And anyone who calls Edwards "self-made" is stretching it.  Edwards made his money by leeching off the productive, as a trial lawyer.

And if it was only $1 you have no business hobbying with that minimum wage income!

March 2003  Mocha Brown  $200.00
May 2003  Angela Rose  $325.00
May 2004  Jade   $240.00
May 2004  Sweet Blue   $400.00
June 2004  Tawnie   $175.00

Making up stuff about life to make a political point ....  PRICELESS!

BTW, what type of Lawyer are you?

I'll go stick my head in a shiny pile of dung.  Come on dude, I thought you were better than that, that post was, should I say? LAME!!!

I already replied to this a few threads down.  Remember accusing me of stealing from my non-existent wife, or did you bother to read it?

Once again, I'm not married, don't have any kids, and I'm not shacking up with anyone.  My expenses are 100% my own.

To set you straight, I was working in 2001, the year Shrub's tax cuts were passed.  Remember those special $300 checks everyone got later that year as part of the Tax Relief Act of 2001, which cost the government millions to generate?  Shrub's 2001 tax cuts only lowered my taxes each payday by $1, giving me an additional $1 per paycheck to go stimulate the economy with.  Why was my tax cut so miniscule?  Because I was in a low tax bracket, where the cuts were negligible.  I wasn't in the 39% Republican-friendly tax bracket that got the biggest cuts.

I lost my job in July, 2002, and my unemployment benefits ceased in May, 2003, and were not extended with Dumbya's unemployment extension he granted about that time.  I went a couple of weeks too long on the benefits I had in effect then to qualify for an extension.  I didn't even get a letter stating my benefits had ended.  My claims were just ignored.

When the unemployment ran out, I began using my savings and credit cards to pay my bills.  Up to this time, I had a clean credit record, so several credit card companies had approved me for credit years before this.  Most of them I hadn't even used in years.  I had one bank revoke a card and another drastically cut my credit limit because according to them, "I apparently had no need for credit at that time."  I even closed out one on my own because I wasn't using it, and didn't see the need to have it anymore.  I started using the ones I had, and once I started using credit, my credit card bills increased as well.  I wasn't getting the money for free.  When those advances ran out, I was forced to get more.  (See the spiral?)  I was able to keep going because the amount of unused credit I had available to me was more than double what my last salary was.  

I tried to avoid cashing in my modest mutual fund account and IRA due to the tax & penalty consequences that would be incurred, but when my credit limits were pretty much exhausted, I was forced to do so earlier this year to in order to keep afloat.  That money ran out last month.  I'm dreading the tax problem I've going to have next year.

You also apparently decided to overlook the large time gaps between my reviews.  At one point, I went close to a year between seeing anyone at all during my current unemployment.  This whole thing is a moot point.  You are in no position to insinuate how I should be living my life and using what finances I do have while without a job.  The only person I have to answer to is myself.  Seeing a provider on average once every 3-4 months these past two years had no bearing on my current economic situation.  That was about the same average I was seeing ladies before losing my job.  But to ease your mind over my hobbying activities, I won't be seeing anyone in the immediate future.  You should be spending your time covering your ass so that your wife doesn't catch you screwing around on her behind her back with providers.  If not, she just might end up stealing from you . . . IN DIVORCE COURT!!!

(Judge Mablean Ephriam, presiding)


-- Modified on 7/9/2004 4:59:46 AM

-- Modified on 7/10/2004 5:45:24 PM

so your intended attacks just roll off my back.

Now that you have looked for positive results from Edwards 6 years in the Senate and have come up empty, you deny Quayle's record based on the source of the information.  

-- Modified on 7/9/2004 4:09:34 PM

I suppose I'll do so specifically when you post your name and social[ist] security number.  On second thought, not even then.

Suffice it to say that its 501(c)(3) work, and I don't charge fees.  Unfortunately, you on the far Left define "public interest" as whatever advances your Socialist agenda.  That's not public interest; it's only ideological interest.

I can understand why you do not charge fees. It is in the interest of the publics well being? It may create more havoc in the court system if you did?

Do you believe that Corporations should be protected from legal judgements when their negligence results in the mutilation of infants and toddlers?  Because THAT's who Edwards sued, and beat, and made lots of money for his clients doing it (and, in the process, for himself as well).