US Politics and the Convention Season: Part I. The Democrats

While on the topic of Mr. Edwards, four words seem to describe him perfectly: "ambulance chasing trial lawyer". His over-played "folksiness" may grow tiresome soon enough - especially when voters take note that he once won a multi-million dollar award from a jury by telling (and apparently convincing) the jurors that his efforts were based on instructions his deceased client continued to communicate to him. Credibility problem - or a new script for another version of "Crossing Over"? One thing is sure: If elected, Kerry/Edwards will do nothing to encourage tort reform.

'Voting and not Voting'

The two Democrats have one thing in common that does not reflect well on their image of public service: They both missed more than half the Senate votes while representing their respective states. When elected in 1998, Mr. Edwards did not win the votes in his so-called home town, and throughout North Carolina his negative poll ratings average approximately 70%. It is assumed Kerry/Edwards will not win North Carolina mainly because of Mr. Edwards's vast unpopularity there. The state Democrat Party basically told Mr. Edwards not to seek re-election and to stand aside for a more formidable candidate. Mr. Kerry has won so many terms in the Senate apparently because Massachutsetts voters dislike change. In neither case have the voters in either state been regularly and fully represented in the US Senate.

Voting is an essential part of the democratic process in any state with a republican form of government. Therefore it is vital that those eligible to do so weigh all the issues involved, gather all the substantive facts, then take their decision deliberatively and vote. True, there often are policy problems and points of disagreements with both candidates, but the only way to ensure the process takes the right course is by exercising the right to vote.

Go To Page: 1 2