Why did Clinton ever hire this toe-sucking asshole?

[LTR]

The infamous john weighs in on the two Johns. And it's in the New York Post, the new paper of record. Must be pissed about the Gephardt embarrassment yesterday:

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/24531.htm

DISASTER IS LURKING

By DICK MORRIS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 7, 2004 --

JOHN Kerry's choice of John Edwards as his vice presidential candidate is getting predictable but sincere applause from Democrats, relieved that some charisma will enliven their presidential ticket. But the initial positive reaction may not last long as the Bush campaign zeroes in on Edwards' vulnerability: his presidential campaign contributors.

During his run for the top job, John Edwards relied heavily on leading trial lawyers. Twenty-two of his top 25 donors were trial attorneys. And those donations likely cloak a multitude of sins and violations of the campaign-finance laws.

Edwards' trial lawyers bundled massive contributions from their assorted law firms and client lists to float his presidential run. Bundling isn't illegal — except when the donors are straw men and women putting up money given to them by a wealthy patron.

For example, $1 million of Edwards' funds came from trial lawyers' wives — identified merely as "homemakers" in the campaign-finance filings. If the money came from their husbands, there could be a violation of law.

(more)

'Scuze me, I gotta go wash my eyes.

[sniffa]

1. he gives toe suckers Like me a bad rep

[NJmaverick]

2. The NY Post

Are you sure they weren't talking about Gephart?

[displacedtexan]

3. Hey, Dick! What's good for Enron is bad for Dems?

Of course! Enron wives can donate to Bush*, and Dick-less says nothing.

It's time to fight back, folks!

Bullies always back down when confronted!

[0007]

4. New York Post is sucking Dick Morris's sixth toe

[underpants]

5. Just trying to keep the base intact-He slipped on O'Reilly the other night

O'Reilly was revisiting Gore's 6/24 speech (why I am not sure) about how W directly and methodically implied that Saddam had something to do with 9/11. Morris actually said (of Gore) ~"I agree with him Bush did that" O'Reilly dismissed it off hand "No he didn't". It was funny because O'Reilly was at first shocked and Morris looked like the pills had just kicked in HARD.

[Tina H]

6. Replying to the various replies

would you feel the same way if the trial-lawyer-candidate was a Repuke. Or would you suddenly become sympathetic to Morris' concerns?

Partisan loyalties should not enter the picture when one contemplates campaign finance laws and potential violations thereof. I am not saying that Edwards is breaking campaign finance law (I am not familiar enuff with the law and facts of this case). However, I am not ready to dismiss the issue out of hand just because they may be unfavorable for our guy.

We complain about rich corporations basically buying the government. This is never going to stop unless campaign finance laws are: (1) made tougher; and (2) applied in an even-handed manner to *both* Ds and Rs.

The Democratic party does not support meaningful campaign finance reform. Such reform jeopardizes their traditional ways of operating. However, campaign finance reform is more important, to me, than party loyalty.