Let's Talk Sense...

Sunday, July 11, 2004 Volume XXIX, No. 3
Roswell, New Mexico
Readership this date: 23,433


In this issue...

Kerry-Edwards and the "Two Americas"
  The Selection of Edwards: Why we are Not Surprised
  John Edwards' Actual View: Deeds not Words
  Overlooked by Media: Edwards' Rip-off of Mario Cuomo
   "Two Americas" theme is an Ancient Democrat Shibboleth
How to go See Fahrenheit 9/11
Senator Rod Adair Rejects Bush's Offer


In the next Issue:

Anti-Semitism Continues to Grow in Democrat Party
  Virginia Congressman Jim Moran's wild Statements about Jews
  South Carolina Senator Fritz Hollings talks about Jews' Votes
  Georgia's Cynthia McKinney on the Comeback Trail this August
  (Her father said her loss in August 2002 was because of "J-E-W-S")


Kerry-Edwards and the "Two Americas"

Picking John Edwards Should Surprise No One

Let's face it. John Kerry has faced only two previous decisions that involved having to choose a mate with whom to enter a close relationship. In each instance he has chosen the one with the most money. Now he's three for three.

John Edwards' Actual View: Deeds vs. Words

John Edwards has shown himself eager to join John Kerry in the theme of the "Two Americas," with these two remarkably wealthy men positioning themselves as the collective voice of the poor. Under this scenario President Bush and Vice-President Cheney are left to campaign on behalf of the interests of "the rich." If the American people take this proposition seriously, the thinking goes, the logical outcome of such a juxtaposition must of course be a 95-5 victory for the Democrat "Dream Team." This is just one example of the way liberals think about America.

It occurs to us that in fact John Edwards' actual life, career and demonstrated values do indeed support and reflect a sincere view of "Two Americas." And they are two very distinct Americas. Edwards' concept is revealed in the way he has played out his career as a trial lawyer, a career so successful he might be called the King of Torts. At the very least, he is a sue-happy trial lawyer who is a national hero, if not icon, among the national trial lawyer organizations and general membership.

Here are the real Two Americas for John Edwards and his fellow trial lawyers:

One is the America of Edwards' clients. They are the people who put the "class," if you will, in "class action" lawsuits. They are the 20,000 "little people" who receive a payout of $500 each (a total of $10,000,000) after Edwards, or one of his buddies, completes work on a "complicated" lawsuit.

The other America consists of only Edwards himself, or a colleague, who walks away with $5,000,000 (the one-third share of the take). One America consists of the plaintiffs, the other America is represented by their lawyers.

Other examples of the two Americas: 200,000 little people in the first America who get $166.67 each to settle yet another "class action" lawsuit, while the second America (Edwards again, or a trial lawyer ally) pockets $16,665,000 for his time and trouble. Again of course that just represents the two-thirds/one-third cuts taken by the two Americas.

Those are the only "Two Americas" experiences that John Edwards has lived out in his life or personally knows anything about, despite his barefoot-boy-from-Carolina-rags-to-riches-tale. We have no idea why the media never question him when he describes his father as a "mill worker," making it sound as though he were some kind of male version of Norma Rae, living in a trailer house somewhere near the end Tobacco Road and fighting for "justice" in his spare time. (You picture Edwards' dad in the middle of the deafening roar of a cotton mill holding up a sign exhorting his brethren to "strike" for higher wages or better working conditions, or some kind of figurative Democrat symbolism for sure.)

Problem is John Edwards' father was a cotton mill supervisor, not a minimum wage or sub-par wage factory worker grinding out the days under horrible working conditions.

Not only was his father a supervisor, he was a "time-study" man. This means that as he climbed the corporate ladder at Milliken & Company, one of his tasks was to calculate worker productivity. He studied plants and shifts, developing statistical analyses to determine how the company could get more work out of the same force in the same amount of hours on the job. Not surprisingly, these kinds of supervisors were not particularly popular among the Norma Rae types---the everyday workers who believed that management was trying to drain them of every last ounce of energy, as well as sacrifice their personal safety

Edwards' real dad is not "Norman Rae" Edwards, to make up a name to fit the picture his son has tried to paint. He is Wallace Edwards, an honorable man as far a we know, who worked his way up from supervisor at Milliken & Co. to become a plant manager. Eventually, he retired from the corporation and became a consultant to the textile industry.

The point is John Edwards did not start out as a poor, underfed, minority child in the depression who had to scrape for everything he ever got, being molded along the way into a committed advocate for the poor and oppressed, a background that has steeled him to a lifelong task of fighting injustice.

John Edwards was born and raised in middle class America, like the overwhelming majority of Americans. He was probably worse off than some, but far better off than most. He grew up wanting to be rich, and when he went to college he figured out that one way to do that was to become a trial lawyer and sue people. He became a trial lawyer. He sued people. He won lots of times. He became rich. His total loot was $55,000,000 out of a lifetime winnings (this kind of reads like the back of a baseball card for trial lawyers, but we don't know how else to report it) was $152,000,000. It is all perfectly legal. And we are sure that some, if not many, of his clients were people who had legitimate cases, with some, again perhaps many, clearly deserving of compensatory awards. Those are the facts. All we ask is that Edwards top making up stuff about his life.

Overlooked by Media: Edwards' Rip-off of Mario Cuomo

We had our own immediate response to the "Two Americas" theme emphasized so much last week by the new Kerry-Edwards "Dream Team." We have not seen any other media outlet enunciate the same view, so we will talk about it today. (Apparently we should have picked up on this a long time ago, but since we did not spend much time covering the primaries, we missed John Edwards' initial run-through of this theme last winter.) Our first thought was that this particular theme is not at all new, and in fact it is arguably a rather crass rip-off of Mario Cuomo.

Then-New York Governor Mario Cuomo made his famous "Tale of Two Cities" speech at the 1984 Democrat Convention in San Francisco. It electrified the crowd, and of course the American media, if not necessarily the American people. In fact, it was a defining moment in Democrat Party history.

The post-Vietnam Democrat Party, having won the presidency in 1976, largely because of Watergate, and having lost it back in 1980, largely because of incompetence, was truly coming of age. It had already embraced the "nuclear freeze" movement with wild-eyed enthusiasm, signaling to the American people that it believed the Cold War was simply not worth fighting any more. Como is a smart man who realized the public might be a little jittery about the Democrats' foreign policy notions. He decided to try to get people focused on domestic issues. Bade bang, bade boom---the "Tale of Two Cities" speech.

It is significant that former Washington Senator Henry ME. "Scoop" Jackson had died in September 1983. Hubert Humphrey of course had died some five years earlier. With them gone, and with LAB and Joke's Vietnam policies being defined as failures, the Democrat Party was fully and near-unanimously committed to global retreat as the new paradigm. Democrat Cold Warriors abandoned the party in droves and were christened "neoconservatives."

This left people like Ted Kennedy, Alan Cranston, and yes, John Kerry---and virtually every single member of the Democrat Who's Who of today----completely in charge of the party. Just how wrong they have been on foreign policy is breathtaking in scope. The same people who today are arguing to take control of American security, in what may well be our time of greatest peril, have been consistently, thoroughly and loudly wrong on every single question regarding our national security over the past 25 years. But that is a story for another day.

Cuomo saw the vulnerability of the modern Democrat Party, now led by modern liberals, while the Cold War was still the foreseeable reality. He decided to ratchet up the class warfare card. His speech painted a stark contrast between rich and poor America. Cuomo is a gifted speaker. His delivery was superb. He became the darling of the party. They begged him to run for years thereafter. He wouldn't do it.

Then he got beat by George Pataki in 1994. He was last seen hawking a gig on talk radio. Enter John Edwards, reviving the Cuomo message. No one even remembered Mario.

"Two Americas" theme is an Ancient Democrat Shibboleth

It is not as if Cuomo had raised a new theme. He was only elevating it during a time of peace, trying to redirect the country's attention to domestic issues.

The theme itself, "Party of the Rich vs. Party of the 'Little Man'" had in fact been the Democrats' stock in trade since its inception in 1828. It was an Andrew Jackson' slogan, not FDR's as many today no doubt suspect, although FDR used it to be sure. The Democrats' most common slogan---and most common smear---is not an outgrowth of the Great Depression, and the contrast Democrats drew between the supposed policies of Herbert Hoover and Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

The "party of the common people" theme was developed by Jackson, with his close aide and confidant (and co-founder of the Democrat Party) Martin Van Buren. In some ways, Van Buren was not unlike the Karl Rove of his day---thinking, strategizing, organizing and trying to figure out ways to turn policy initiatives and outlines into means of persuading significant components of the electorate. (Considering that Van Buren eventually became president, perhaps it is better to say that Rove is not unlike a modern day Van Buren.) In any case, Van Buren and Jackson invented the modern political party which they promptly named the Democratic Party. They referred to Democrat rule as "The Democracy."

Jackson and Van Buren called their rivals in the old Democratic-Republican Party, to which they themselves had once belonged, the "party of the rich." When their rivals formed a short-lived (1832-1836) opposition party called the National Republicans, Jackson called them the "party of the rich."

When the National Republicans went belly up, and the Whigs came into being, they called the Whigs the "party of the rich." In the 1850s, with the Whigs at death's door, the Democrats called the Free Soilers the party of the rich, then they called the American Party the party of the rich. Then they called the Anti-Nebraska Democrats the party of the rich. Finally, when the new Republican Party got firmly established they began calling the GOP the party of the rich. (This of course was mightily ironic in that their hard-core base consisted of a half million slave owners, traders and plantation owners who owned $2 Billion--an unimaginable sum in today's dollars---in human capital.) But then again, the Democrats have never been short on gall, chutzpah, as we would say.

They have never abandoned this theme. They figure if it is a good slogan why change it? It is good, in a certain sense. There will most likely always be more upper middle class, middle class, working class and poor people than rich people. If you can paint your opponent as the party of only 1%, 2 ½ %, or 5%, or the population, they reason, you have a leg up with the rest of the population.

True, it is untrue. But the Democrats are nothing if not students of human nature. They know that resentment and envy are ancient sins and ancient traits. They will always be with us. We can hope that---for most people---those traits, those impulses are and will be buried deep in the psyche, deep in the "less-better" angels of our nature.

But they count on those feelings nonetheless, hoping that at the right times, with the right message, with the right circumstances in individuals' lives, they can be aroused, they can be appealed to, and that they will surface to the Democrats' benefit. They have before. In presidential elections, in gubernatorial elections, in elections for congress and state legislatures. No doubt they will continue to do so, here and there, forever.

This is what we face. When we say "we," we do not mean the Republican Party. Yes, they face it, and have faced all their 150 years of existence. But we mean, the American people, the people who want to be governed not by the impulses of mankind at his most base, but by the better angels of our nature. It is for us to hope, and pray, that we will be guided by those other traits we also have, and can also call on---fair-mindedness, calm reason and logic, fairness, a concern for the common weal, and yes, faith---not only in God, but in the soundness of the values and foundations of our very existence, which also has its Providential underpinnings.


Fahrenheit 9/11: How to Go See It

Yes, you need to see it. It is a part of American political history. You can't know what is wrong about it and what is phony about it without seeing it. Perhaps most important of all you cannot truly understand what the modern Democrat Party is all about without seeing it. One of the first principles of political contests, is to know your opposition.

Republican readers need to see it. 4,000 Democrat readers need to see it---you will enjoy it.

First of all, you need to know how to see it. Only see it in a multi-plex theater. Buy a ticket for something else, say King Arthur, or Spiderman 2. Then once inside, just go see Fahrenheit 9/11. That way you get to see a movie that it is important to know about, but you don't end up actually rewarding Michael Moore.

We will publish a review soon.


Senator Rod Adair Rejects Bush's Offer

Senator Rod Adair of Roswell announced today that he has informed President Bush that he will not accept appointment to the position of Ambassador to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Instead, he has decided to serve the additional 4½ years remaining in his terms as State Senator for Chaves and Lincoln Counties. In a letter to President Bush, Adair wrote:

"I am honored and flattered that you are seriously considering me for this august and prestigious position. I must tell you, however, that I respectfully remove myself from the selection process and withdraw my name from consideration for the ambassadorial position. As you know, when I ran for state senator, I made a commitment to the people of Chaves and Lincoln Counties to serve a full term."

Adair, who took office in January 1997, has said repeatedly for months that he was not interested in being the Ambassador to the Court of Saint James. Even though, as friends often said, "he is of British heritage, and he speaks the language fluently."

But in an Albuquerque Journal article by Michael Coleman, it was said that:

"many veteran observers said it would have surprised them if he rejected an actual offer from the President."

"We've been consistent about this all along," said Charlotte Edman, campaign treasurer for Senator Adair, in a telephone interview Sunday. "This letter just puts a final exclamation point on it."

(This article is intended as a parody of the recent coverage of the Bill Richardson/Vice Presidential non-story, and is not meant to be taken as fact.)


2004 marks the Sesquicentennial of the Republican Party, founded 150 years ago in such places as Ripon, Wisconsin and Jackson, Michigan. Senator Rod Adair is speaking around the state on the history of the Republican Party and its unique role in shaping America: on 1) Civil Rights, which the party invented; 2) its internal development program the building of roads, ports, the transcontinental railroad, the interstate highway system, land grant colleges and the settling of America through the Homestead Act; 3) The creation of the idea of conservation and the environmental movement (also invented by the Republican Party), the setting aside of national parks; 4) the GOP's national policies that fostered the building of American industry, allowing its development at a critical time in our history, creating the biggest and strongest economy the world has ever known; 5) the construct of anti-trust and anti-monopoly laws to ensure a functioning economy based on private enterprise and fair trade rules and practices; 6) its determination to end slavery, and the GOP's century-long heroic struggle against the Democrat Party to end segregation, lynching, poll taxes, voting rights discrimination, and the intimidating power of the Ku Klux Klan; 7) Winning the battle for Women's suffrage, and many more victories in the realm of public policy.

All these accomplishments leading up to the Republican Party's role near the end of the 20th Century---by then alone in the struggle---in continuing a determined fight to win the Cold War; and into the 21st Century leading America and the world in the fight against global terrorism. If you would like Senator Adair to speak to your organization, please click here: SenatorRodAdair@dfn.com and let us know.


Subscribe to Let's Talk Sense..., Legislative Update, or New Mexico Political Journal by contacting New Mexico Demographic Research at nmdr@dfn.com You may also visit www.rodadair.com.


Still to come:
LUTHER, the Movie: It's the Gospel, Stupid (a review)