Wingnut Versus Wingnut

Infighting sure is fun! John McCain hates capitalism, and Mark Steyn's inspired to almost touch an anti-militarist note:

Well, Kathryn, since most of the gang seems to have turned in early (too demoralized to opine?), I might as well chip in. I'm getting a bit tired of Senator McCain's anti-business shtick. The line about serving "for patriotism, not for profit" is pathetic. America spends more on its military than the next 35-40 biggest military spenders on the planet combined: Where does he think the money for that comes from?

To me what's galling here is that it's not as if McCain took some kind of vow of poverty. When he divorces his first wife he "gave her a generous settlement, including houses in Virginia and Florida and financial support for her ongoing medical treatments" before marrying a wealthy heiress. Nobody's running around disparaging McCain's military service; there doesn't seem to me a need for him to disparage the life choice of people who got their money by earning it.

Comments

is that how Rommney got his money?

Posted by berger | January 31, 2008 8:40 AM

"Nobody's running around disparaging McCain's military service; .."

Only in the sense that you could ask how a military career that consisted of dropping ordinance on people from 10,000 ft. gives you any real appreciation of the human costs of war. McCain in fact has an antiseptic view of the warfare that he seems to be such an enthusiast for.

Posted by bob h | January 31, 2008 8:50 AM

Couldn't one say the same think about John Edwards? He talks so passionately about the poor but is very rich himself. For all we know McCain might have been attracted to his wife (primarily) for her looks, not her money.

Anyway I just can't understand why McCain is supposed to be the more formidable candidate in November. I think he is one trick pony (war, war) and he is loosing his mojo with age. I think either Hillary or Obama could easily defeat him.

Posted by 2cynicalbyhalf | January 31, 2008 9:06 AM

America spends more on its military than the next 35-40 biggest military spenders on the planet combined: Where does he think the money for that comes from?

God knows where McCain (or for that mattter, Steyn) thinks the money comes from, but the truth is, we borrow it from China.

Posted by rea | January 31, 2008 9:30 AM

My father lives in Arizona, where, notably, McCain is just not an overwhelmingly popular figure. One reason I can offer by way of prediction: We will find out soon enough that John McCain has no end of contempt for all kinds of people. So many different kinds of people, in fact, that most of us belong in that category on any given day.

Posted by elle loco | January 31, 2008 9:37 AM

While reading the wikipedia entry that was linked to in MY's blurb, I noticed the phrase "By now it was clear that McCain's naval career was stalled; he would never be promoted to admiral as his grandfather and father had been."

Any idea why that happened? The rest of his biography doens't particularly read like someone's whose career should obviously have stalled.

Posted by msmackle | January 31, 2008 9:43 AM

Believe me, I've no love for McCain, but I don't think it's right to call hypocricy here. It rubbed me the wrong way when the Right called Edwards a hypocrite because he claimed to care about poor people but dared to have a nice house. Same thing when they went bat-shit crazy because Al Gore says he cares about the environment but it turns out he drives in a car sometimes. It could very well be a legitimate reflection of his priorities. We can argue that those priorities are misplaced, or naive, or what have you. But I don't think they're necessarily inconsistent with the fact that he has money. Unlike most of his campaign possitions, this seems to be something he actually believes.

Posted by Mac | January 31, 2008 9:45 AM

Look, I could dredge up some quotes from Romney about Iraq being a central front in an "existential" war. I could also point you back to his interview with townhall.com where he says that Harry Reid made the ghosts of Churchill and Washington cry because he said the war was "lost".
Put these all together, with the fact that the Romney family of five military aged sons is more focused on profits than winning an "existential" war, and I think McCain could actually have a good argument if he sharpened up his criticism and made it a little more personal to the chickenhawks.
What if McCain came out and asked how Churchill and Washington would feel about a guy running around preaching "existential" war while his sons obviously don't feel it is existential?

Posted by flounder | January 31, 2008 9:48 AM

berger, yes, that's how Romney got (most of) his money.

Posted by Thomas | January 31, 2008 9:55 AM

It seems McCain thinks there are more important personal and political priorities than generating profit, but he has some money himself. This seems loke John Edwards and his big house to me. Seriously MY, there is nothing here from the Mark Steyn perspective. Should McCain say "Yes Mitt Romney, widgetless financial capitalism is just as heroic as military service and should not be disturbed by government and civil society at all"?

Posted by Moral Panicker | January 31, 2008 9:59 AM

more Steyn:

"If greed is to be punishable, why doesn't he [McCain] start with a pilot program applied to, say, the United States Senate and report back to us in five years how that's going?"

Posted by Ralph Phelan | January 31, 2008 10:09 AM

OMG, that Steyn post is awful. When he refers to the subprime crisis, he puts the word "crisis" is quotation marks. He mumbles something about Hillary Clinton taking out Elizabeth Edwards with a tire iron.

Posted by Ronnie Pudding | January 31, 2008 10:13 AM

One of the more depressing things about our politicians is how frequently they have acquired their fortunes without having built an organization which employed large numbers of people, or without having built an organization which made large profits by providing a service or good which consumers expressed preference for. This is an old tradition, or course; the club includes the likes of LBJ and George W. Bush, John Edwards, John McCain, John Kerry, the Clintons, Reagan, Kennedys, etc., etc..

The interesting thing is to look at the Forbes 500, and see how many fortunes were made by entreprenurial activity, either from the ground up, or by building a small fortune into a huge one, and then reflect on seldom such people choose a political career. It's a shame really; the act of actually risking one's wealth on venture, and meeting a payroll, is extremely important to our society, and our political institutions would be better if they included more people who had done so.

Posted by Will Allen | January 31, 2008 10:27 AM

It's not the next 30-40 nations combined-- if you include Iraq war spending, it's more than ALL of the other 193 nations combined.

Posted by Anthony Damiani | January 31, 2008 10:32 AM

Married an heiress as a second wife? Isn't it the done thing for those types to ruin a liberal magazine?

Posted by otto | January 31, 2008 10:47 AM

Couldn't one say the same think about John Edwards? He talks so passionately about the poor but is very rich himself.

No, because John Edwards grew up poor and earned his money by educating himself and working hard. He's a self-made man. He talks so passionately about the poor because he knows what it's like to be poor.

For all we know McCain might have been attracted to his wife (primarily) for her looks, not her money.

Yeah, he was attraced to her because she was seventeen years younger than him and slept with him the night he picked her up at a cocktail party, while his wife and children were safely at home. You're right, that does make it better....

Posted by Stefan | January 31, 2008 11:02 AM

Should McCain say "Yes Mitt Romney, widgetless financial capitalism is just as heroic as military service...

Yes, McCain should, because that is essentially the Republican party platform. Personally, I think Romney should start firing salvos at McCain for being a parasite who hated free enterprise and the free market by spending his whole life in government and couldn't even deign to serve the American capitalist enterprise as seriously as Romney was able to after McCain left the military.

McCain is being a bit disingenuous here, being a member of a party that rails against government while making a career out of serving in it and criticizing Romney for following the path that is basically held up as the idealized career for a Republican.

Will Allen, not to put too much of a point on it, but private-practice lawyers need to generate income and meet payroll. Firms don't run themselves, you know.

Posted by Tyro | January 31, 2008 11:03 AM

I read that John "fucking" McCain has been reading "the Wealth of Nations".

I've been reading the New Testament.

Do you think I can be pope?

Posted by Linus | January 31, 2008 11:03 AM

"It seems McCain thinks there are more important personal and political priorities than generating profit"

It seems to me that this is a legitimate point to make in a Republican Party that talks about how much it appreciates things like military service, but really only genuflects before the altar of the almighty dollar. There's nothing wrong with making money, but the guy who makes millions of dollars for himself manufacturing tanks is not the moral equal to the man who risks his life driving a tank onto the battlefield.

I think what McCain is getting at is the concept of sacrifice. McCain has devoted his life to serving his country and has been willing to sacrifice his life for that cause. Mitt's been willing to sacrifice, what, other folks' jobs to enhance his own wealth? It kind of loops back into President Bush asking Americans to go shopping after 9/11. The idea that some things really are are more important than money is something McCain wants to say and folks like Steyn don't want to think about.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | January 31, 2008 11:07 AM

That supposed John Kerry - John McCain ticket always did make a certain amount of sense. Politics aside, the two had something fundamental in common. Both made their money the old-fashioned way: they married it.

Posted by Sarge6 | January 31, 2008 11:08 AM

Will Allen, not to put too much of a point on it, but private-practice lawyers need to generate income and meet payroll. Firms don't run themselves, you know.

Quite true. When you get to partner level, you can often spend as much time on hiring, personnel issues, billing, client relations, office space, etc. as you do on actual law itself. You have to constantly be on the search for new clients (i.e. customers) while working to keep your current clients happy. My own firm, for example, was built from the ground up, employs large numbers of people, and makes large profits by providing a service which our clients express a preference for.

Posted by Stefan | January 31, 2008 11:11 AM

When a good chunk of your fortune was made by making empirically false claims to juries about the causes of cerebral palsy, well, you really aren't any better than a guy who got rich via abusive eminent domain and taxpayer subsidies. People who went to Texas Ranger games expressed a preference as well, but that doesn't make George W. Bush like Sam Walton.

Posted by Will Allen | January 31, 2008 11:19 AM

Will, would you mind moving those goalposts back down here? I'm having a hard time getting the ball there since you keep picking them up and shifting them downfield whenever the argument doesn't go your way.

Posted by Stefan | January 31, 2008 11:35 AM

The irony abounds. The narrative is the privileged, cosseted child of riches Romney vs. poor John McCain, who cares nothing for money, just serving his country. Who despises people of unearned wealth and people that

McCain was born into big, old money through his father's side's Mississippi land holdings, and his mother was an heiress from a very wealthy South Carolina family. She was in upper Southern society, and inherited stakes in real estate and business. And McCain's Daddy and Grandaddy were professional military Southerners where officering, then due consideration to get "deals&favors" in business and lobbying in retirement...is considered a traditional vocation of Southern nobility. They were 4-Stars that helped his career along and got him out of trouble for two jets he crashed from pilot error and some incidents of personal conduct unbecoming an officer....Then he married into additional significant wealth with his trophy wife, a beer distributor heiress.

Whereas Romney was born into family of Mormons who came from near-poverty, to a Dad who lacked a college degree who had just made it into the upper middle class by proving his executive leadership during WWII in helping organize Detroit for war supplies. Romney grew up in a "thrifty Mormon" household - and was expected to do a range of chores and do summers working. Then do 2 1/2 years of missionary work that were done in near-poverty, no dating allowed. Then he started an arc of success in life that was independent of his father's success. If his Dad had been a plumber, Romney would have still been at Harvard or another prestigious grad school on sheer brilliance, according to some of his surviving Harvard Law, MBA Profs who were interviewed about what part "privilege' played in Romney's time there. None. And every cent Romney has is from his own doing. He found himself making more money in a year than George Romney had built up over a lifetime and asked his parents to give his portion of any inheritance they had planned to the LDS Church and to secular, sectarian charities.

McCain is worth 10s of millions, mostly through inheritance and his 2nd marriage. His "class envy" of Romney, who is one generation removed from a hungry refugee of the Mexican Civil War who started out doing farmwork for food as a boy and was the only governor, when he served, without a college degree?? A mother who was a beautiful secretary his Dad stole away from an MGM film contract with confidence he & she would somehow really make it in America?

McCains class envy and stated scorn of those who exist outside the small world of professional military families with old money is completely repellant and ludicrous.

Posted by Chris Ford | January 31, 2008 11:40 AM

Also, who do you think is hurt the most when juries are convinced to award large amounts after hearing empirically false claims regarding the causes of cerebral palsy? Here is a hint; it isn't doctors or insurance companies.

Yes, one must have a vigorous tort system, or very heavy regulation, in order to compensate people who have been wrongly damaged, or to inhibit behavior which causes such damage. That doesn't mean that it should not be acknowledged that their are people who profit enormously in such a tort system while causing still more damage to society. Making a lot of money by convincing juries of false claims isn't any better than a corporation making a ton of money while successfully lobbying the legislature to exempt it from paying damages to people it has harmed by exposing them to externalities. It's all legal, and it all sucks.

Posted by Will Allen | January 31, 2008 11:46 AM

Stefan, how are goalposts moved by noting that both the Texas Rangers and John Edwards' law firm had paying customers, and that making profit by eminent domain and taxpayer subsidies, or by making false claims to juries, is fundamentally different than making a profit by selling items that people want at a lower price than one's competition?

Posted by Will Allen | January 31, 2008 11:51 AM

Will, you only claimed that Edwards was lacking in creating a business in which he had to find customers, generate profits, and make payroll. Certainly that isn't the case for am independent lawyer, and when this was pointed out to you, you were forced to move the goalposts elsewhere.

Edwards was a small businessman in a way that Bush and plenty of other politicians never were. You should have simply said, "yes, that's a good point about Edwards" instead of babbling about other stuff when you were caught.

Posted by Tyro | January 31, 2008 11:58 AM

"McCains class envy and stated scorn of those who exist outside the small world of professional military families with old money is completely repellant and ludicrous."

I think in vomiting up the PR version of Romney's life story and comparing it to McCain's there's something you missed. But what could it have been? It's right there on the tip of my tongue...oh, right.

John McCain put his life on the line to defend his country. His sacrificed years of his life and his physical health in a stinking prison for his country. But I supposed Mit not being able to have sex for 2 and a half years was just as big a sacrifice.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | January 31, 2008 12:00 PM

Stefan, how are goalposts moved by noting that both the Texas Rangers and John Edwards' law firm had paying customers, and that making profit by eminent domain and taxpayer subsidies, or by making false claims to juries, is fundamentally different than making a profit by selling items that people want at a lower price than one's competition?

You bemoaned the fact that relatively few politicians "have acquired their fortunes without having built an organization which employed large numbers of people, or without having built an organization which made large profits by providing a service or good which consumers expressed preference for." I pointed out that John Edwards was the exception to that claim by having indeed built from scratch such an entrepreneurial organization.

Now, you may now assert that what you were really talking about was "making a profit by selling items that people want at a lower price than one's competition", but again, that's besides the point. The issue of whether the claims advanced at litigation were "false" is beside the point -- obviously, neither the judge nor jury nor the various appeals courts thought they were false or he wouldn't have won and wouldn't have made any money, money which enabled him to pay his employees.

And Edwards did indeed make a profit by selling items -- in this case, legal representation -- at a lower price than his competition -- in his case, by representing poor clients on a contingency basis, which meant that if he lost he would have earned nothing. By your own standards he was someone who "risked his own wealth on a venture" -- can't get more entrepreneurial than that.

Your previous argument seemed to be championing entrepreneurship -- now you seem to shifting to championing "making a profit by selling items that people want at a lower price than one's competition". But that's not entrepreneurship -- that's just business, what practically any business in the world does. That's what GM and IBM do.

Posted by Stefan | January 31, 2008 12:08 PM

Well, yes, tyro, and George W. Bush hired people and made a payroll. George W. Bush's Texas Rangers generated a profit as well, which is why the club was able to be sold for multiples of what Bush's partnership paid for it. The point was how the profit was generated. The Texas Ranger partnership did so by obtaining government subsidies, which provided no net benefit to society. Edwards' law firm made a good chunk of profits by making false claims to juries, which is positively damaging to society.

Such "capitalists" should not be put in the same category as people who make a fortune by indentifying a product or service that people desire, and finding a superior way to form an organization which delivers it, and in doing so convince people to willingly part with the money needed to grow that organization.

Posted by Will Allen | January 31, 2008 12:11 PM

Put these all together, with the fact that the Romney family of five military aged sons is more focused on profits than winning an "existential" war, and I think McCain could actually have a good argument if he sharpened up his criticism and made it a little more personal to the chickenhawks.

I'd watch the chickenhawk argument, flounder, because the end product is not everyone tarred with hypocrisy if they support any military action unless they and every family member served in the military, and they all must have seen combat...and other stupid Lefty maxims of "moral standing".
The end product is a member of a military aristocracy, like McCain, that despises all civilians as morally inferior to a Hero Who SERVED!!!

In the military, and as an officer I saw some, some good some bad, that consider themselves a seperate elite because they have a long military lineage. Many had scorn and contempt for not just "mere civilians who lacked the patriotism to serve", but fellow soldiers whose Daddy was "just a ROTC puke" or "who never stepped up" like their Lifer Daddy did..

Why didn't any of the Romney kids or Mitt or his Dad serve? The Mormons are different in that they are intensely patriotic, lead America in volunteer rates for various do-gooder project time, but enlist at a lower frequency in the volunteer military because one of the highest tenets of LDS is young men will do missionary work as an act of faith. And if possible, they will have a religious preference for what is generally a tough, monastic existence with grueling hours and a subsistance-to - lower middle class lifetstyle than going in the military. But Mormons when Drafted have excelled in military service. And despite the lower volunteer rate (still well above other groups like Jews, New Englanders, Chinese-Americans) they excel in the military when they do come in because a certain segment isn't thrilled with being an impoverished missionary, are introverts, or not that religious. The ones I served with made absolutely superb airmen, airwomen, and officers. No better Americans...

In the Romney's case, George Romney and the 5 sons came of age when there were no major wars, but a peacetime, volunteer military, which was shrinking for most of their prime military age years. Mitt was in the Vietnam period and the LDS Church gave him one of the deferrals the State of Utah assigned the Church for religious exceptions. He got it because they found Mitt highly religious and deeply committed to doing missionary service, his Dad George had missed his own missionary opportunity due to family poverty, and that Mitt came with the potential to be an exceptional young leader (correctly since he was among the 1st non-Elders ever to be promoted and be trusted to be Head of a major overseas mission when the Elder Director was badly injured in a car accident)

Posted by Chris Ford | January 31, 2008 12:13 PM

Only in the sense that you could ask how a military career that consisted of dropping ordinance on people from 10,000 ft. gives you any real appreciation of the human costs of war. McCain in fact has an antiseptic view of the warfare that he seems to be such an enthusiast for.

I'm no fan of McCain, but this is crap. Between the Forrestal incident, getting shot down, and being a POW, McCain certainly witnessed first-hand the human costs of war. His service was anything but antiseptic.

Posted by Royko | January 31, 2008 12:13 PM

Well, yes, Stefan, and Lucky Luciano had a very strong entreprenurial flair, but it wasn't the type of entreprenurial flair that one is normally looking for in public servants. I apologize for not writing clearly. I'll restate: it would be preferable if more of our politicians were entreprenuers who had made their fortunes by building organizations which had succeeded by providing a good or service in such a superior fashion that the profits were generated solely by satisfied customers and investors, and not via manipulating the coercive powers of the state.

Frankly, this is why Ross Perot was always a less than ideal capitalist vying for public office as well, having made his fortune in large part off of assisting the federal government in managing the Social Security system. I suppose the CEO of Blackwater Security has demonstrated some entreprenurial skill as well, but it is not of the type that we need in our politicians, any more than John Edwards' or George W. Bush's.

Posted by Will Allen | January 31, 2008 12:29 PM

No, because John Edwards grew up poor and earned his money by educating himself and working hard. He's a self-made man. He talks so passionately about the poor because he knows what it's like to be poor

I agree. You misunderstood my point. I'm saying that just because McCain either inherited or married into wealth, does not mean that he cannot contrast his relatively selfless service in the military with Mitt's business record. A lot of critics have contrasted Edwards' concern for the poor verses his own wealth ($400 haircut et. all). And I completely echo your point that his wealth is irrelevant; he understands and wants to stand up for the poor, and that is a good thing.

Yeah, he was attraced to her because she was seventeen years younger than him and slept with him the night he picked her up at a cocktail party, while his wife and children were safely at home. You're right, that does make it better.

Please spare me the morality sermon. That was not the point again. All I was saying is that he could have married his second wife for her youth and looks, rather than her money.

Posted by 2cynicalbyhalf | January 31, 2008 12:35 PM

Again, how do you suppose one is "standing up for the poor" by working for large monetary awards via false claims made to juries regarding the causes of cerebral palsy? Again, does one really believe that doctors or insurance companies suffer the most from such actions?

The notion of a tort lawyer with Edwards' track record being a champion of the poor has been one one the more noxious elements of Edwards' public image.

Posted by Will Allen | January 31, 2008 12:45 PM

Will, in certain broad strokes, I understand your point, but the truth is that people who have spent their lives running successful pizza restaurants, a chain of laundromats, and corner stores are typically uninterested in the hard work of running for office, working the party machine, and policymaking.

The closest we tend to get are lawyers with experience in a small-scale firm (Edwards) and a few people who were self-employed (Tom Delay in his exterminator days). People with entrepenurial attitudes either parlay their public service into lucrative opportunities after they leave or simply sick with their business enterprises. Why? Because career changes almost invariably force you to work from the ground up, and few people who were successful business owners have any interest in working within the local party apparatus and running for a seat in the state house. Even Edwards decided, after leaving law, to go straight to running for Senate.

Posted by Tyro | January 31, 2008 12:52 PM

Will, you disingenuously started babbling about Edwards after you got nailed by claiming that lawyers don't have to generate profits, meet payrolls, etc. The appropriate response is to backtrack, not move the goalposts and start babbling like you are.

And if you're accusing Edwards of lying in court, you're accusing him of a crime and I suggest you start contacting the NC attorney general right now. As I said, your best recourse is to say, "that's a good point. my mistake with respect to edwards."

Posted by Tyro | January 31, 2008 12:56 PM

"Mitt was in the Vietnam period and the LDS Church gave him one of the deferrals the State of Utah assigned the Church for religious exceptions. He got it because they found Mitt highly religious and deeply committed to doing missionary service, his Dad George had missed his own missionary opportunity due to family poverty"

I think folks might find your Mitt-pimping a bit more persuasive if you could occasionally nod in the direction of reality. Such as Mitt desperately not wanting to get his ass shot off in a jungle as one of the big reasons he and his Dad, no doubt, did everything but sacrifice a goat to get him that deferral. Gee, I wonder what happened to that poor Mormon kid who went in Mitt's place.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | January 31, 2008 12:59 PM

"Again, how do you suppose one is "standing up for the poor" by working for large monetary awards via false claims made to juries regarding the causes of cerebral palsy?"

And your expertise in the science of cerebral palsy is what again, "doctor"?

Mike

Posted by MBunge | January 31, 2008 1:01 PM

Tyro: Considering a law office as a small business, you've got a point with regards to the "administrative experience" issue.

But if you look at this from a Calvin Coolidge "the business of America is business"/Randian "Atlas Shrugged" perspective, Romney is the only guy in the race with any history of being a net producer rather than a net consumer of wealth.

Posted by Ralph Phelan | January 31, 2008 1:01 PM

But if you look at this from a Calvin Coolidge "the business of America is business"/Randian "Atlas Shrugged" perspective, Romney is the only guy in the race with any history of being a net producer rather than a net consumer of wealth.

Well, first of all, I would never look at it from that perspective in the first palce. Both Coolidge and Ayn Rand came from a perspective of idolizing the wealthy "innovative" industrialist rather than the entrepeneur. To a degree, thinking that this translates into political leadership has a creepy association of public servants not as representatives of the people but as people whose place in life is to "lead." Next, while your statement is well and good, but that is hardly the point that Will Allen was making, even though he eventually had to move in that direction.

The doctor and the lawyer who bootstrap their own practices are much more of the entrepeneur who has to put an organization together and meet payroll than an investment banker who went from BigFirm to Private Equity Partner. But from the perspective you outline, the doctor and the lawyer are somehow "consumers" of wealth.

Posted by Tyro | January 31, 2008 1:14 PM

from the perspective you outline, the doctor and the lawyer are somehow "consumers" of wealth.
Not exactly.

The doctor who gives treatments that his patients consider worth paying because they really make them healthier is a producer of wealth.

The lawyer who uses the power of the state to extract money from doctors, keep 33% of it for himself and give the rest to people who the doctors didn't really harm, while writing the textbook on "Junk Science for Fun and Profit" is a consumer of wealth.

Posted by Ralph Phelan | January 31, 2008 1:25 PM

I love the redirecting of McCain's stupidity by some commenters.

"Hey quick! Look over there! Romney and Edwards are often morons/bad people too!"

Posted by AJ | January 31, 2008 1:26 PM

No, Tyro, you are disingenuously babbling by failing to note that people like George W. Bush generated profits, met payroills, etc., as well, so there is nothing disingenuous in placing people like George W. Bush and John Edwards in the same category. I did restate my position more clearly, so will you please stop babbling so pointlessly?

Also, will you please work on your literacy while you are at it? I stated that Edwards made empirically false claims to juries regarding the causes of cerebral palsy. He did. Can you grasp that making an empirically false claim to a jury regarding the cause of cerebal palsy is not the same as the crime of lying in court? Or is that beyond your intellect?

Now, in response to the post in which you did not choose to adopt a insipidly insulting tone, yes I understand why so few successful entreprenuers of the ilk I describe choose to run for office, but that doesn't mean we are not worse off for it. Also, there are exceptions. I belive Bob Kerrey, for instance, made a small fortune in the restaurant and health club business before running for governor in Nebraska. I always remember how George McGovern, a very honorable if somewhat foolish man who spent a lifetime in politics, wrote an op-ed, upon attempting to run a small business after leaving the Senate, in whch he described how astonished he was regarding the burdens placed upon small employers by government. All I could say to myself was "No shit, Sherlock, and how nice it is of you to acquire a clue, after decades of ignorance wedded to great power.".

A substantial percentage of our politicians and pundits are dolts, rather like two olds who are trying to handle Easter ducklings, only to crush them because they don't understand their own power in relationship to what they are handling. Another substantial percentage do understand it, but are merely venal jackals trying to feed off the public. That doesn't leave too many to actually serve the public good.

Posted by Will Allen | January 31, 2008 1:26 PM

It's funny, Ralph, I regard investment bankers who make money by taking a "cut" of a merger deal for themselves as "consumers" of wealth, also.

I think that, if you thought about it in economic terms rather than the hyped up emotionalism about malpractice suits you've been conditioned to express, you would see that a lawsuit actually recovers the value lost by the plaintiff that was taken from him by the defendant. The malpractice situation is a bit of a negative-sum game because the profit gained by the doctor from the procedure was likely smaller than the cost to the victim of malpractice. Recovering those costs leaves the patient slightly better off than he was before the malpractice suit but leaves both parties worse off than they were before the medical procedure was performed in the first place. The lawyer receives his fee for faciliating the transaction that leveled the playing field between malefactor and victim.

The key point you're missing is that negative sum game is not the lawsuit itself but the original malfeasance that precipitated the lawsuit.

Once again, though, if you have evidence that Edwards ever brought forth a suit based on medical evidence he knew was incorrect and thus engaged in a scheme to defraud the court system, I suggest you submit this evidence to the NC Bar and the attorney general forthwith.

Posted by Tyro | January 31, 2008 1:34 PM

"The doctor who gives treatments that his patients consider worth paying because they really make them healthier is a producer of wealth."

How in the world is that producing wealth? By that standard a teacher produces wealth, a personal trainer produces wealth, an actor produces wealth. In fact, anyone who offers any service that benefits people produces wealth. Which would include lawyers who get huge settlements for their clients.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | January 31, 2008 1:34 PM

MBunge, on does not need to be a doctor to accurately state that the theories espoused regarding the causes of cerebral palsy by Edwards to juries were false, any more than one needs to be an evolutionary expert to accurately state that theories of the earth being 6000 years old are a crock. There are plenty of cites on the web available establishing the falsity of those theories that Edwards put forth. If you don't wish look them up, I really don't care.

Posted by Will Allen | January 31, 2008 1:34 PM

"There are plenty of cites on the web available establishing the falsity of those theories that Edwards put forth."

So, if a bunch of "cites of the web" contend that Will Allen likes to fuck goats...that establishes the validity of that statement?

By the way, here's a refresher course on how reasonable, logical argument is conducted. If one person makes a claim, that person is required to offer evidence of that claim. It is not anyone else's responsibility to disprove that claim.

So, once again. What "false claims" did Edwards make in cerebral palsy lawsuits? How are those claims to be judged false? And when was the supposed falsity of those claims established?

Mike

Posted by MBunge | January 31, 2008 1:42 PM

MBunge, I will try to help you out here. A personal trainer who told a client to become healthier by sitting on the couch and eating potato chips while watching t.v. would not be producing wealth, even if the client was getting reimbursed by an employer who did not oversee the advice. Similarly, when an attorney makes empirically false claims to a jury, and thus convinces the jury to force an insurance company to pay someone damages that were not caused by a doctor, no wealth has been produced.

Posted by Will Allen | January 31, 2008 1:44 PM

By that standard a teacher produces wealth, a personal trainer produces wealth, an actor produces wealth. In fact, anyone who offers any service that benefits people produces wealth.

Make it "service that people voluntarily use, and believe is worth the price" and yes, that's precisely true.

Which would include lawyers who get huge settlements for their clients.

Lawsuits tend to also involve a party who'd rather not be involved. Unlike the purely voluntary transactions above, it ultimately involves an armed agent of the state enforcing a judgement by taking away someone's property. In a way it's a branch of law enforcement - a necessary social function, but not a source of wealth any more than a company's quality control department can ever be a profit center.

And like law enforcement it's got its both honest cops and Philip Vannatter, honest prosecutors and Mike Nifong, honest plaintifs' attorneys and John Edwards....

Posted by Ralph Phelan | January 31, 2008 1:47 PM

MBunge, would I need to provide the cites for you to establish that the earth is not 6000 years old, in order to be reasonable? At what point am I not expected to expend effort to relieve you of your ignorance, for fear of being thought unreasonable?

Posted by Will Allen | January 31, 2008 1:59 PM

"Lawsuits tend to also involve a party who'd rather not be involved. Unlike the purely voluntary transactions above, it ultimately involves an armed agent of the state enforcing a judgement by taking away someone's property."

How is voluntarily taking peoples' property or money any different than involuntarily taking it, when it comes to the concept of creating wealth? How does paying a personal trainer create wealth, but buying a cheeseburger does not?

Mike

Posted by MBunge | January 31, 2008 2:16 PM

"MBunge, would I need to provide the cites for you to establish that the earth is not 6000 years old, in order to be reasonable?"

Idiot, I'm not challenging the age of the Earth. Though if I did, wouldn't it be more fun and more productive to offer up real evidence of the planet's age and watch me try and weasel around that data? What, exactly, has prevented you from offering a single link to one of these "cites on the web" that prove Edwards made false claims in a court of law?

And the personal trainer/cheesburger reference was directed at yet another of Will Allen's stupid posts, not Ralph Phelan's intelligible response.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | January 31, 2008 2:22 PM

"How is voluntarily taking peoples' property or money any different than involuntarily taking it, when it comes to the concept of creating wealth? "

It's the difference between mutually beneficial trade and robbery.

Say Joe owns item A, and Mary owns item B. Joe wants B more than A, and Mary wants A more than B.

Now suppose Joe and Mary arrange to trade A for B. They both walk away happier than they were, and the world is on the whole a better place.

Now say Joe hits Mary in the head with a rock and takes item C. How does that impact the world's net satisfaction?

Posted by Ralph Phelan | January 31, 2008 2:35 PM

MBunge, apparently you are too stupid tho grasp the meaning of the words your write, such as when you post...

"If one person makes a claim, that person is required to offer evidence of that claim. It is not anyone else's responsibility to disprove that claim."

Look, let me know when you can grasp the meaning of what you post, and then I'll decide whether I wish to spend any more energy relieving you of your ignorance. No, I don't consider it fun to provide url adresses to you.

Finally, moron, buying a cheeseburger does provide wealth, assuming that the person has not been told, for instance, that the cheeseburger will cure his dementia. Sorry, Mike, but your excursions to Wendy's haven't helped you in that regard.

Posted by Will Allen | January 31, 2008 2:38 PM

"How does paying a personal trainer create wealth, but buying a cheeseburger does not?"

Both create wealth.

Having someone else hire a personal trainer to give you bad advice (eat cheeseburgers) does not. Which is why so many government programs don't do the good they're supposed to: people tend to be less careful of the quality of what they're getting when they're buying something they're not going to use themselves with money that isn't theirs anyway.

Posted by Ralph Phelan | January 31, 2008 2:39 PM

"Nobody's running around disparaging McCain's military service..."

You underestimate the inimitable Steve Sailer, the most un-PC person on Earth:

Will McCain, who finished 894th out of 899 at the Naval Academy and who lost five jets, return competence to the White House?

Posted by Ralph Phelan | January 31, 2008 3:39 PM

I stated that Edwards made empirically false claims to juries regarding the causes of cerebral palsy. He did.

So you stated, but you provide no evidence to back up that claim. Now watch me: I state that Edwards did not make empirically false claims to juries regarding the causes of cerebral palsy. He did not.

The juries which were presented with weeks if not months of evidence obviously didn't find it was empirically false, nor did the trial judges, nor the various appeals courts who upheld them. At every step of the way the plaintiffs and their teams of highly paid lawyers had multiple chances to prove that these cerebral palsy claims were false, and at every step of the way they failed to prove their claims by a preponderance of the evidence.

(Oh, and by the way, lawyers generally don't make claims, since they don't testify in court. They interview witnesses and those witnesses make the claims).

Posted by Stefan | January 31, 2008 3:40 PM

Yes, Stefan, and O.J. Simpson was acquitted of murder. That does not change the fact that O.J. Simpson, did, in fact, cut his wife's head off.

Similarly, John Edwards won many, many, lawsuits in which he put forth experts who claimed that failure to deliver a baby surgically resulted in cerebral palsy. Meanwhile, surgical deliveries have increased fivefold, while the incidence of cp hasn't budged. The odds that every one of the clients that Edwards took on developed cp as a result failure to deliver surgically is vanishingly small. The odds that Edwards has put forth, or has put on the stand experts who put forth, empirically false claims regarding the cause of cerebral palsy, is extremely high.

I accept the necessity of a tort system and the necessity of people like Edwards zealously, and successfully, arguing for their clients, just like I accept the necessity of people like Barry Scheck zealously, and successfully, defending people who cut their spouse's head's off. That doesn't mean it can't be recognized that it is harmful in those instances when the client has in fact cut his wife's head off, or when the client's cp was not, in fact, the result of failure to deliver surgically.

Posted by Will Allen | January 31, 2008 4:14 PM

Chris Ford: "I'd watch the chickenhawk argument, flounder, because the end product is not everyone tarred with hypocrisy if they support any military action unless they and every family member served in the military, ..."

Apparently reading comprehension is a problem. Let me state it more clearly:

1) Mitt has painted the USA as being in an existential conflict for our very existance and freedom. Like WWII, but more seriously. He's demanded more powers for the president, and has indicated that he'd out George George, if elected.

2) Mitt has five perfectly good sons loafing at home, rather than killing commies ^H^H^H^H gooks ^H^H^H^H jihadists in Iraq.

*If Mitt believed in what he's saying*, he'd have told them to sign up or get the f*ck out from under his roof. Not only has he not done either, but he's excused their lack of service by claiming that they are serving their country by serving in his campaign.

There are words for that, and 'dishonest wh*reson' is the least of them.

Posted by Barry | January 31, 2008 5:06 PM

Will Allen: "Yes, Stefan, and O.J. Simpson was acquitted of murder. That does not change the fact that O.J. Simpson, did, in fact, cut his wife's head off. "

Shorter Will Allen - I've made a sh*tload of accusations, and can't back them up.

Posted by Barry | January 31, 2008 5:09 PM

Shorter Barry-I can't comprehend the meaning of a five-fold increase in surgical deliveries without any change in incidence of cerebral palsy.

Posted by Will Allen | January 31, 2008 5:14 PM

Will Allen, just b/c the cerebral palsy claims appear to be empirically false NOW doesn't mean anyone knew they were THEN. I mean Edwards has been out of trial lawyerin' for what, at least 10 years now?

Posted by bob | January 31, 2008 5:58 PM

I wish Romney actually made the argument Matt did. He looked so inept up there, and McCain so smug and self-righteous over his total BS.

Posted by bob | January 31, 2008 6:00 PM

bob, prior to 1989, it may have been credible to claim that the scientific consensus was closely divided on whether failure to deliver surgically was a cause of cerebral palsy. From then on, however, it has become increasingly clear that this theory is extremely dubious. Edwards was making big money on this stuff up until 1995.

However, my point was never that Edwards was knowingly defraduing insurance companies and doctors. My larger point was that although an adversarial tort system is on the whole a good thing, it is not without it's significant drawbacks. One of the drawbacks is that it can tolerate large awards being made on empirically false claims, knowingly or not, and when this occurs great harm is done, and not always primarily to defendents.

False claims regarding the causes of cerebral palsy have done great harm to poor people, in terms of driving up the cost of medicine through uneeded surgical deliveries and higher insurance costs, since poor people are much less likely to have insurance through their employer which will fully cover these increased costs. Also, these increased costs have reduced the numbers of of ob/gyns who deliver babies, which also hurts poor people most of all. I won't even address the harm done to women via uneeded surgical procedures which were encouraged by lawsuits containing empirically false claims.

I can't look into Edwards' soul, and thus determine to what degree he decided to take cases based purely on his honest estimate that the client was harmed by not being delivered surgically, and like I said, I understand the need for an adversarial tort system. I can say, however, that Edwards' actions, in regard to cerebral palsy torts, did a positive harm to poor people.

Posted by Will Allen | January 31, 2008 6:27 PM

Will Allen, mega-mergers of the sort that combined RJR and Nabisco were considered good business in the 1980s. Nevertheless, you, Will, still consider investment bankers to be election-worthy. Unless you can prove that they were dishonest or incompetent, you have no argument. Certain medical procedures, even, were later not shown to be efficacious in double-bind trials. Doesn't mean that those surgeons were incompetent or bad people.

By all accounts, Edwards was very good at what he did. Not only that, but you claimed, falsely, that he had no experience running a business and generating revenue when in fact he did so, having been a partner in a small firm that he sold for many millions of dollars. When you got called out for your false claims, you had to retreat to, "Edwards won cases making medical arguments that many years later were shown to be false!" Slow clap, Will. Slow clap.

Seriously, the furious moving of goalposts on your part is really embarassing. You went from wishing that candidates had more experience dealing with business financials to a diahrrea of the fingers repeating "palsy.... palsy... palsy." You failed on your own argumentative standards. You don't get to retreat to another argument when you get called out as the ignoramus you are. You apologize and say, "excuse me. you're right when it comes to Edwards."

Posted by Tyro | January 31, 2008 10:00 PM

"slept with him the night he picked her up at a cocktail party,"

My kind of woman.

Wait, maybe not:

"In 1989, Cindy McCain became addicted to painkillers such as Percocet and Vicodin.[19] She later attributed her addiction to pain following two spinal surgeries for ruptured discs[20][21] as well as emotional stress during her husband's entanglement in the Keating Five scandal of that time,[19] which also involved her role as a bookkeeper who had difficulty finding receipts of Keating-related expenses.[13] The addiction progressed to the point where she resorted to stealing drugs from her own AVMT.[20] During 1992, Tom Gosinski, the director of government and international affairs for AVMT, discovered her drug theft.[22] Subsequently in 1992, McCain's parents staged an intervention to force her to get help;[13] she told her husband about her problem, attended a drug treament facility, began outpatient sessions, and ended her three years of addiction;[19] a hysterectomy in 1993 resolved her back pain.[19][21] In January 1993, McCain terminated Gosinski's employment on grounds of budgetary reasons.[22] In spring 1993, Gosinski tipped off the Drug Enforcement Administration to investigate McCain's drug theft.[22] Her activities violated federal statutes, so a federal investigation was conducted. McCain's defense team, led by noted Washington lawyer John Dowd,[22] secured an agreement with the U.S. Attorney's office that limited her punishment to financial restitution and enrollment in a diversion program, [4][22] without anything being made public.

Meanwhile, in early 1994 Gosinski filed a wrongful termination lawsuit against McCain, which he told her he would settle for $250,000. In April 1994, Dowd requested that Maricopa County officials investigate Gosinski for extortion.[22] At this point, the Phoenix New Times was preparing a negatively-cast story about the whole affair and about to publish it.[22][19] Cindy McCain pre-empted this[19] by publicly revealing her past addiction, stating she hoped it would give fellow drug addicts courage in their struggles: "Although my conduct did not result in compromising any missions of AVMT, my actions were wrong, and I regret them."[4] A flurry of press attention followed, including charges by Gosinski that she had asked him to lie concerning her drug use when the McCains were applying to adopt their baby from Bangladesh[19] and statements by past AVMT employees that Gosinski had once threatened to blackmail her. A few weeks after her announcement, the Variety Club of Arizona canceled its Humanitarian of the Year award dinner in her honor citing poor ticket sales.[4] In the end, both Gosinski's lawsuit and the extortion investigation against him were dropped.[19] AVMT concluded its activities in 1995.[11]"

"She states that the American public wants a First Lady of the United States who will tend toward a traditional role in that position.[26]"

Right - traditional role...

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | February 1, 2008 12:31 AM

Romney was a typical MBA who "fattened bottom lines" by downsizing workers and stripping assets (oh, excuse ME, "cutting costs"), in order to inflate apparent short term profit.

That's not what I'd call "earning" his money.

Posted by Kevin Carson | February 1, 2008 3:11 AM

I'll restate: it would be preferable if more of our politicians were entreprenuers who had made their fortunes by building organizations which had succeeded by providing a good or service in such a superior fashion that the profits were generated solely by satisfied customers and investors, and not via manipulating the coercive powers of the state.

Umm, all businesses manipulate the coercive power of the state: that's how they enter into contracts, for example. One business contracts with another or with its customers for goods and/or services, and if one of the parties breaches its promise the other sues them in the court system and uses state power to enforce a monetary judgment and/or specific performance. If they didn't rely on the state to enforce their deals, they'd have to rely on their own force, a la the Mafia.

Moreover, at base all corporations are artificial entities which depend for their existence on a charter from a state, a state which also enforces various tax, regulatory etc. requirements on how that business operates, provides a monetary system, regulates interest rates and the securities exchange, punishes fraud, enforces patent, copyright, etc. All businesses rely on the coercive power of the state simply in order to do business.

Frankly, by the standard you set I cannot think of a single business -- outside of organized crime -- that does not manipulate "the coercive power of the state." Got an example?

Posted by Stefan | February 1, 2008 10:27 AM

Stefan, it somehow has escaped you that parties enter into contracts voluntarily. Please show me a party which volunteered to have the state transfer their wealth via empirically false claims made against it. Yes, all manner of business is done by honorable people who never rely on the state to enforce their contracts. Hell, in some industries, there is no time to write up formal contracts, and business is commonly done with verbal contracts which are essentially unenforceable.

Yes, Tyro, Edwards was very good at making empirically false claims to juries, which then took actions which caused society great harm. Congratulations to him. Also, everything that Edwards did, which you falsely claim proves that I moved the goalposts, is an activity that George W. Bush engaged in as well, and I put both in the same category. Was I moving the goalposts with him?

Finally, please point me to an investment banker who made empirically false claims in a proceeding called by the state, which then forced parties to participate in a deal against their will. You are an embarassing, gibbering, imbecile.

Posted by Will Allen | February 1, 2008 2:04 PM

Finally, please point me to an investment banker who made empirically false claims in a proceeding called by the state, which then forced parties to participate in a deal against their will.

You're kidding, right? This happens EVERY SINGLE DAY. Businessperson makes false claims about the solidity of an investment, counterparty enters into contract based on such representation, claim is found to be false, counterparty sues, business is then forced to pay damages and/or specifically perform. Does the name Enron, for example, ring a bell? Michael Milken?

Here, for example, just to toss of one (very) recent example, of one company suing another to force it to complete a deal against its will based on a claim that the company was making false claims:

Alliance Data Sues Blackstone to Complete Buyout
January 30, 2008, 12:12 pm

For Alliance Data Systems, the time for niceties is over. The credit card processor sued the Blackstone Group on Wednesday, seeking to compel the private equity giant to complete its $6.4 billion purchase of the company. The lawsuit, filed in Delaware’s Court of Chancery, marks the latest instance of struggles over a faltering buyout moving into the legal arena...

In its complaint, the comptroller asked Blackstone to guarantee Alliance Data’s credit card bank, the World Financial Network National Bank, for up to $400 million in capital....

But Blackstone balked at being on the hook for any amount, the company charged. Alliance Data argued in its complaint that Blackstone and its outside counsel, Simpson Thacher and Bartlett, should have known that the comptroller would require the buyer to guarantee the internal bank’s capital....

Posted by Stefan | February 1, 2008 3:54 PM

Yes, all manner of business is done by honorable people who never rely on the state to enforce their contracts.

Uh no, it's not. Not any kind of real business, anyway. Maybe a handshake contract between neighbors, but if any kind of real business (the kind you were talking about when you talked about a "large organization") gets into trouble, they'll sue.

Hell, in some industries, there is no time to write up formal contracts, and business is commonly done with verbal contracts which are essentially unenforceable.

Verbal contracts (with some exceptions re types of deals and depending on state law) are enforceable. They are harder to prove given lack of documentation, but they are enforceable. Which industries specifically are you talking about?

Posted by Stefan | February 1, 2008 4:00 PM

Also, everything that Edwards did, which you falsely claim proves that I moved the goalposts, is an activity that George W. Bush engaged in as well, and I put both in the same category.

The point about Edwards was that he founded his own successful company which he built from the ground up. Did Bush found the Texas Rangers? No, he came in later as part of a sweetheart deal. It's a complete apples to oranges comparison.

Posted by Stefan | February 1, 2008 4:22 PM

Stefan, in a previous enterprise, I have personally traded, on a near-daily basis, in tens of thousands of dollars in used telecommunications and computer equipment, often
with nothing more to go on than a brief phone conversation, with little to no documentation regarding the nature of conversation. When you are driving a car in heavy traffic, it can be pretty tough to even make notes on a legal pad.
It is simply false to claim that all businesses use the power of the state to enforce their agreements.

Yes, some verbal contracts are enforeceable, which is precisely why I wrote "essentially unenforceable". It's pretty hard to enforce a verbal contract without a shred of documentation. In any case, the margins on a single deal were
usually thin enough where it would have been nonsensical to spend resources trying to enforce a thinly documented verbal agreement, despite the fact thet the business as a whole was quite profitable. In any case I never had a serious dispute, over a multi-year period, because people in the industry recognized that if one gained a reputation as someone who had been part of multiple disputes as to what was agreed on over the phone, doing business would become exceedingly difficult. Who knows? Maybe several million dollars in equipment bought and sold isn't a "real" business.

Also, let me be more clear. Point me to an investment banker who hauled people,
with whom he had never had contact previously,
into court, made empirtically false claims, and thus manipulated the court into forcing the party into a deal which the party had never expressed interest in.

The point about Edwards' business is that a very large chunk of it's success was built upon empirically false claims made in court, which resulted in significant harm being done to society. For some unfathomable reason, you believe this is the type of business experience which is valuable to have in a public servant. I differ.

Posted by Will Allen | February 1, 2008 5:11 PM

Stefan, in a previous enterprise, I have personally traded, on a near-daily basis, in tens of thousands of dollars in used telecommunications and computer equipment, often
with nothing more to go on than a brief phone conversation, with little to no documentation regarding the nature of conversation. When you are driving a car in heavy traffic, it can be pretty tough to even make notes on a legal pad.
It is simply false to claim that all businesses use the power of the state to enforce their agreements.

And if, on the basis of that deal, someone failed to pay you for tens of thousands of dollars on the deal and failed to come through on their part of the deal, or similarly defrauded you, you would have done...what, exactly? Laughed it off and taken the loss? Gone to their house and beat it out of them? Or would you have gone to court and sued (or, in your words, manipulated the coercive powers of the state) in order to have your contract enforced?

Yes, you can make verbal contracts. But at bottom a contract is only worth something if it can be enforced, and in a civilized society we rely on the state, through the mechanism of courts or other regulatory bodies, to enforce them.

Posted by Stefan | February 1, 2008 5:42 PM

Stefan, I don't know how to write it in a way that you will read it. If they had reneged, I would have done nothing, because the effort to enforce it would have exceeded the value of the deal, or been close enough to the value of the deal, to make using the legal system nonsensical, especially since I also knew that a party who acted in that manner with any regularity would soon enough face greater sanction than what a court would have achieved; namely, that others in the industry would stop doing business with him.

Among truly civilized people, formal, legally enforceable contracts are sometimes not needed.

Posted by Will Allen | February 1, 2008 6:31 PM

If they had reneged, I would have done nothing,

In that case, can I interest you in an investment? It's a great money-making opportunity. You can't lose!

Among truly civilized people, formal, legally enforceable contracts are sometimes not needed.

Well, thank god we're all truly civilized then, especially in the world of business. I'm sure my hedge fund, investment bank and private equity clients, all truly civilized people, will be thrilled when I advise them that formal, legally enforceable contracts will no longer be needed. I'm sure their investors and/or shareholders will similarly be thrilled that we can risk hundreds of millions of dollars worth of their equity on the basis of handshakes and good intentions.

Posted by Stefan | February 1, 2008 6:46 PM

Stefan, for someone with your background, it surprises me that you are too illiterate to note the implications of the word "sometimes". Look, you were the one that stated that any business needed to rely on state enforcement of contracts in order to exist or thrive. That simply isn't true, and is no reason for you to get all huffy.

I do have to note, however, that if you are the sort of attorney who truly believes that a lawsuit is warranted whenever one has been wronged, well, you are a prime example of the economic ignorance that attorneys often display, or you are the sort of billable hour maximizer that gives your profession a very bad name. Truly, are you really the sort of attorney who would make a blanket recommendation for a truly
wronged party to file suit over $10,000 worth of economic losses?

Sheesh, and people in the profession wonder how it is their calling got a bad name!

Posted by Will Allen | February 1, 2008 8:25 PM