Advertisement

Commentary: Congressman Billybob sez

HIGHLANDS, N.C., Jan. 9 (UPI) -- Three Anti-Endorsements

This here's the 332nd Report ta the Folks Back Home from the (More er Less) Honorable Billybob, cyberCongressman from Western Carolina.

Advertisement

Ev'ryone what ken walk n chew gum seems ta be runnin fer President azza Democrat ov late. The entire field consists ov long-shots, some longer'n t'others. Three ov the "leading" Democrats pitched their hats inna ring, las week er before.

Ma able assistant, J. Armor, Esq., went ta school with two ov em, n knows another by profession, so I'll turn this over ta him.

Three Anti-Endorsements

It is a curious field of contenders for the Democrat nomination for president in 2004; each one is worse than the others. Mathematically, that's impossible, but they have accomplished the trick. I'll discuss mostly the three most likely nominees, beginning with the only one I have previously supported.

Advertisement

I've known Sen. Joseph Lieberman since we were 18. We were classmates, Yale, '64. We worked together on the Yale Daily News editorial board, he as chairman, I as senior editor.

For almost his entire political career, I've had high respect for Joe Lieberman. He was highly intelligent, hard-working, absolutely honest, and devout in his religious beliefs. When the dean of my Law School held a fund-raiser for Joe when he first ran for the Senate in Connecticut against Lowell Weiker, I was pleased to dig deep and help --- one of only five politicians to whom I've ever given a financial donation. (I've liberally given my time to some independents and to members of six political parties.)

When the possible impeachment of Bill Clinton became a front-burner issue, I was particularly interested in what Joe would do. I had strongly favored the impeachment of Richard Nixon, whose end came when Sen. Barry Goldwater led a delegation of honest Republicans to tell Nixon he no longer had their support. Recognizing he would be impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate, Nixon resigned.

Advertisement

Knowing that history, I realized Clinton would hang on unless he knew the Senate would convict by the required two-thirds majority. That would only happen if a well-respected Senate Democrat stepped forward to put nation above party, and told Clinton it was over. I could see only one prospect for that role: "the conscience of the Senate," Joe Lieberman.

I vividly recall the day CNN cut away from normal programming for live coverage of Joe's Senate speech regarding Clinton. At first, it seemed Joe understood the Goldwater role and was prepared to fill it. But after roundly condemning Clinton, Joe stepped back from the brink of integrity. He made it clear that he would not vote to remove Clinton.

At that point Joe put the welfare of his political party above the welfare of his nation. At that point, Joe sold his soul for the advantages of political power.

Of course, it got worse. When Joe was picked to run as vice president with Al Gore, he sold his soul again by abandoning issues he had long championed in the Senate, to play lapdog to Gore for a shot at the lesser brass ring. Bottom line, I recommend that anyone interested in integrity in public office vote against Joe Lieberman, formerly known as the conscience of the Senate.

Advertisement

We turn to Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts. I have also known him from an early age; he was Yale, '66. I met him when he joined the Yale Political Union. I was then an officer of the Conservative Party, and later of the Union. I recall his first participation in the Oxford-style debates of the Union. He was a member of the Liberal Party, and later served as President of the Union.

I can't speak definitively about the culture of Yale University in recent decades. But I can describe it in the early 60s, when Joe, John and I were there. There were three main student groups on campus. The largest group were valedictorians from hundreds of disparate schools and leading students from dozens of countries around the world. The second largest group were legacies and minor preppies. Legacies were sons of alumni, routinely admitted and expected to muddle through. Minor preppies were the fairly good students from off-brand prep schools --- admitted on their merits and expected to do fairly well. John Kerry was one of those, as was I.

The smallest group were the graduates of "St. Grottlesex." That was the catch-all name for the three prep schools where the rich and famous kenneled their offspring. The entire graduating classes of these three schools were expected to take their pick of the Ivy League, take positions of honor and importance while there, and promptly thereafter take their places as captains of industry, leaders of governments, etc.

Advertisement

Some of the students in this smallest group were able young men seeking achievement on their own merits, regardless of their backgrounds. But many displayed unearned arrogance, in my view. They took the position that they were "born to the purple," and expected others to kowtow.

The problem with John Kerry is that from day one he sought acceptance into the St. Grottlesex group. It meant wearing the right clothes, saying the right things, using the right inflections, and being seen in the right places. In this period, at the height of the memories of Camelot and its fallen king, he emphasized his convenient initials, JFK. He became a preppie's preppie. He wormed his way into the St. Grottlesex group.

In the Political Union, he was haughty, arrogant, and absolutely sure that his opinions were correct. In following his career since then, I've see no material changes from the young man I knew at Yale. He believes he was reborn to the purple. He still believes that his ideas are the only valid ones. And his ability to connect on a personal basis with average Americans, who put their pants on in the morning and go to work at an hourly job, is zip.

Advertisement

That is not even mentioning that many of his political views are the same tired, failed, liberal policies that have brought government failures for more than 50 years. Anyone wanting to see the future of America if Kerry were to be elected, should look at the bankrupt mess of increasing crime, bad schools and rising taxes in California today. Suffice to say, anyone hoping for a better future for America, should not vote for John Kerry.

We turn now to the man who formed his "exploratory committee" last week, Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina. I do not know him personally, but I've known personal injury trial lawyers for more than 30 years. Allow me to explain the breed.

Two decades ago, I took my only massive personal injury case. It was a consolidation of all lawyers in the death cases of the Amtrak crash that happened in Chase, Md. Sixteen people were killed; 25 lawyers were involved. A friend of mine became co-chairman of that group of lawyers, and obtained a total offer of $54.5 million, provided that ALL clients and ALL lawyers agreed on accepting the settlement. Otherwise, the offer would be withdrawn.

Imagine a large Porterhouse steak thrown into a tank of piranhas. The four-hour session to divide up that settlement was one of the most intriguing meetings I have ever attended, but that's not today's subject. I came to talk about the nature of personal injury trial lawyers.

Advertisement

There's a small group of trial lawyers who specialize in disasters with multiple deaths and solvent corporations to be sued. They introduce themselves to one another by talking about disasters. "I was in Arrow Air." "I was in Bhopal." Without giving names, I'll describe one of them.

He told me that his law office had an Associated Press ticker. The office manager had standing orders, when any mass-death disaster came across the wire, to book flights for two to the site and book connecting suites in the nearest leading hotel. Then, two lawyers would fly there immediately.

One would go to the disaster scene and track down the press. He'd tell them, "I'm investigating the matter on behalf of clients," without naming them. He'd get airtime, get his name spelled correctly, and name his hotel. The other lawyer would stay in the suite, eating chicken sandwiches and waiting for the phone to ring. This lawyer told me with pride of hiring runners with preprinted forms to sign up clients at 50 cents a name. It was "a great achievement" that Melvin Belli, legendary plaintiff's attorney, had a few clients to sign up when he flew in to Bhopal a day later.

Advertisement

John Edwards, Esq., was not involved in the Amtrak or Bhopal cases. However, from what I know of Mr. Edwards, he would have been extremely comfortable in those environments. Those were his kind of people.

In the interview that Edwards gave after his announcement on The Today Show, he stated the qualities he thinks the American people should have in a president. He said that we need in our leaders, "somebody who has strength of character, strength of conviction; somebody who can earn the trust of the people." There are not enough Americans who can use "character, conviction and trust" in the same sentence with "trial lawyer" without laughing, to elect John Edwards vice president, much less president.

In addition, I don't believe the American press or the American people will be as dense in 2004 as they were in 1992. The people of Arkansas told us then that their governor, "Slick Willie," had tendencies to lie and cut corners. We didn't listen. Today, neither the press nor the people will ignore similar warnings from us folks in the Tar Heel State about our accidental senator, John Edwards.

John Edwards will not run for re-election to the Senate at the same time he runs for national office (as Joe Lieberman did in 2000, and Lyndon Johnson long ago). The reason is that bad poll numbers for reelection to the Senate --- which Edwards already has in North Carolina -- would undercut his national campaign. I recommend strongly against John Edwards as a nominee, also.

Advertisement

There are, of course, other (possible) candidates. They can be dealt with quickly.

The Rev. Al Sharpton --- Don King, without the charisma and integrity.

Rep. Dick Gephardt --- the man who led the House Democrats to defeat in 2002.

Sen. Tom Daschle --- the man who led the Senate Democrats to defeat in 2002. [This just in: Daschle has withdrawn from the race. Good decision, but it probably means he wants to use the $1.8 million he raised to run for president, to try to keep his Senate seat, a swap which IS legal.]

Gov. Howard Dean of Vermont --- Doesn't anyone remember Harold Stassen?

In short, the Democrats currently have no one running for President who should be allowed in the White House without a visitor's pass, IMHO. (For those not adept on the Internet, IMHO, means "in my humble opinion." Nothing here reflects the views of UPI or anyone else except Congressman Billybob and his able assistant, John Armor).

--

(About the author: Congressman Billybob is fictitious, but prolific, on the Internet -- the invention of John Armor, who writes books and practices law in the U.S. Supreme Court. Comments and criticisms are welcome at [email protected]).

Advertisement

Latest Headlines