John Edwards — will the real one please stand up
Gerard Jackson
The anointment of John Edwards as Kerry's running mate put the media into instant hyperdrive. These loyal lapdogs of the Democratic Party almost trampled each other to death in the stamped to tell Americans how lucky they are to have such a "talented", experienced", "fresh-faced", " folksy", "positive" blah, blah, blah, candidate in John Edwards.
As Brookes tirelessly points out, it is what the left, including America's partisan media, omits that counts. It reveals a great deal about these bigoted journalists that someone who accumulated a $50 to $70 million fortune practising law is a hero while rich businessmen are treated as villains, unless they are Democrats who make hefty donations to the Party.
But is John Edwards a real son of the soil, a genuine product of the laboring class who lifted himself out of poverty by fighting tooth and nail for "the little guy" against ruthless corporations?
If journalists say he is, then you damn well know he isn't. In fact, Edwards' father (a lifelong Republican) did very well for himself, being first promoted to a time-and-study man and then plant manager, finally becoming a self-employed consultant to the textile industry.
Considering his father's highly commendable progress one can scarcely call John Edwards' rise as a "rags to riches" story. But then I don't work for the partisan media. Of course, this is not to say that some journalists will not draw attention to Edwards' comfortable childhood, only that the overwhelming response of the media will be to distort it, as they are already doing.
John Edwards' reputation as a crusading lawyer defending the little people against ruthless corporate behemoths does not withstand scrutiny. I am not suggesting that all of his cases were without merit, merely that it is tacky if not downright suspicious for any lawyer to flaunt hard cases in defense of his other court actions in an effort to divert attention from the consequences of what he has done.
For instance, John Edwards won huge damages for Jennifer Campbell who was born with cerebral palsy. Edwards managed to convince the jury that the doctor was at fault for not delivering Jennifer earlier with a Caesarean operation.
The Edwards' case raised several points. First of all, how was the doctor to really know in the circumstances whether a Caesarean was necessary? If he had performed a Caesarean and Jennifer still developed cerebral palsy, as we now have good reason to believe would have been the case, would Edwards have still sued the doctor for malpractice? Furthermore, let us not forget that medicine is not an exact science, as anyone who has been to his doctor recently would know.
The fact is that John Edwards ruthlessly used junk science to win his case — regardless of the consequences for future mothers. Even the New York Times reported that "Studies indicate that in most cases, the disorder [cerebral palsy] is caused by fetal brain injury long before labor begins." Nevertheless, trial lawyers insist that juries consisting of laypersons are capable of making scientific-based judgments.
The ramifications of Edwards' trial-lawyer instincts to win at all costs have been enormous for expectant mothers and the medical profession. Many obstetricians have left the profession because they could not afford the huge malpractice insurance bill that the likes of John Edwards imposed on them.
This has left the "little people" with fewer doctors to deliver their babies. Pregnant women in rural Mississippi, for example, have found it increasingly difficult to find obstetricians because so many have abandoned the field.
But reducing the supply of obstetricians is not the only way in which John Edwards and his voracious trial-lawyer colleagues have endangered the lives of expectant mothers and their unborn children. By intimidating doctors into performing Caesareans these lawyers have increased the risk of death, acute pneumonia, pulmonary embolism, hemorrhage and infection for these women and their babies.
Any businessman who got rich by selling a product that had the same consequences as John Edwards' court actions would have been jailed long ago.
If John Edwards cares so much about the little people why did he strenuously oppose a bill in the North Carolina Legislature that would have set up a fund care for every baby born with cerebral palsy?
Because the bill would have removed the massive damages that lawyers like him have been able to extract from cerebral palsy cases. I guess this says a great deal about John Edwards' humanity and his moral priorities.
Edwards' hypocrisy doesn't stop with denying the infant victims of cerebral palsy a secure future. He claimed that would put a stop to tax lawyers making fortunes by using tax loopholes to shelter their clients' incomes. (Perhaps the thinks these lawyers would be better employed suing obstetricians, brain surgeons and fast food outlets).
Like John Edwards, Theresa Heinz has used the same loopholes to avoid paying taxes. This is why so many rich people finance the Democrats and support their high taxes: they know they have the means to avoid paying these taxes. Rich Democrats can therefore feel good about themselves by voting for something that someone else will have to pay for.
Fortunately partisan journalists no longer have a stranglehold on the media, even though their pernicious influence is still pervasive. The ever-present net and the power of talkback radio are already exposing John Edwards' ethical shortcomings to public scrutiny.
Gerard Jackson is Brookes' economics editor
BrookesNews.Com
Monday 12 July 2004