How To Respond To A Right-Wing Talking Point

by: Chris Bowers

Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 15:31


John Edwards shows how it is done:

CLINTON: Well, John, trial lawyers have given you millions and millions of dollars. So...

EDWARDS: And what they expect from me is they expect me to stand up for democracy, for the right to jury trial, for the right for little people to be heard in the courtroom. And that is exactly what I stand up for.

That is not the same thing. That is not the same thing as corporate lobbyists who are in there every single day lobbying against the interests of middle-class Americans. And I think we need a president who can stand up.

That is just perfect. Aaron Sorkin could not have written a better candidate response to a right-wing charge (you are in the pocket of trial lawyers!) than this. No running from the charge, no changing the subject, no contorted answer. Just, "yeah, I took money from trial lawyers, and here is why." It is a style that I hope the eventual nominee adopts, no matter who that is and no matter what progressive interest group is being attacked.

Chris Bowers :: How To Respond To A Right-Wing Talking Point

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
How To Respond To A Right-Wing Talking Point | 39 comments
I thought so too (0.00 / 0)
It bugged me that Hillary resorted to a right wing mentality in attacking John.  Since when do Democrats accept the idea of there being anything especially wrong with trial lawyers?
Yup! (0.00 / 0)
That is John Edwards at his best.  And if he were like that all the time, I'd be supporting him, 100%.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3
[ Parent ]
Johnny was good (4.00 / 2)
You're totally right I think, on Edwards and him at his best.

But who is at their best all the time?  When has somebody like this ever run for President? 

[ Parent ]
video here (4.00 / 1)
http://www.youtube.c...

Right around 4:45 in.

[ Parent ]
Do you think (0.00 / 0)
That'll make a dent in the minds of those already indoctrinated to think of "trial lawyers/teachers/gay rights activists/environmental activists = corporate lobbyists?"

I sincerely hope it may, but I haven't seen any data from the debate to show how people responded to the comment to help verify that at least that reply made much headway.

Sure, why not? (4.00 / 1)
This idea that "trial lawyers=bad" was created by right wingers endlessly talking it up.  Sure there are fair criticisms of trial lawyers as a class or for specific individuals, but their rep is much worse than deserved.

Reminding people that it sometimes takes a trial lawyer to win a battle for the little guy in court is worthwhile. 

That one moment won't fix it of course, but it shows the way.

[ Parent ]
You're not getting what I'm saying (0.00 / 0)
It's not that I don't believe it SHOULD work. I wonder if anyone knows if it DOES work. If so, what can be the explanation for why our candidates are not doing something that works?
[ Parent ]
The Truth.... (4.00 / 1)
..........always works. Yep, it works every single time you stand up and say, 'This is the way it is!' and stick to it.

The stick to it part is where most fall down.

Not John 'Bulldog' Edwards. He never backs up, he always has his skewer for the ReichWing talking points ready. And he stiks it to 'em in impressive fashion.

Far better than the Sentor's Establishment in style and....

He's almost always right on the issues.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

[ Parent ]
Yep (4.00 / 2)
They often say if you keep saying a lie over and over again people will believe it.  What many miss is the works for the truth as well.
[ Parent ]
I am so sick of our candidates (4.00 / 1)
using right-wing attacks against each other. There are plenty of legitimate criticisms of all of them that weren't invented by Karl Rove, why can't they just use those?
I agree Chris (0.00 / 0)
I've always been frustrated in talking to people I regard as generally progressive that many of them don't see that  attacks on trial lawyers are attempts to wipe out what little recourse individuals have to fight back against corporate malfeasance.  Good for John! 
Yep. (0.00 / 0)
Go right back at them hard, go on offense rather than being defensive.
You think the MSM will be running THAT clip (0.00 / 0)
from now until the SC primary?

Or, will they keep running the personal tit-for-tat BS between Obama and Clinton? (Sans the scolding by Edwards, of course).


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

What do YOU think? :) (4.00 / 1)
Edwards won the debate. He was conciliatory, presented his points well, diplomatic. Obama came in second because he was attacked from both sides. Clinton played to the national campaign by acting quite mean.

Banned for posting five straight diaries.
[ Parent ]
Edwards - Obama ----- Clinton (0.00 / 0)
That's the way I see it.  Clinton had 1 good moment - when she was talking about universal health care.  But, overall, I think she did rather poorly.  The lasting image, for me, is her lauging while Edwards was scolding she and Obama for focusing on the personal attacks.  It was such an inappropriate response - at least Obama seemed to take Edwards' comments seriously. But, laughter?  Did she NOT realize that she was one of the targets of his comments? 


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
I think it was staged (0.00 / 0)
The all knives out portion and then the chummy portion. I didn't like it at all. But I was very proud of our three candidates.

Banned for posting five straight diaries.
[ Parent ]
Its theater (0.00 / 0)
No doubt about it.  Still, its hard to imagine that this debate could have gone off without those "personal" issues coming out.  Not just because the media has pushed the narrative of race and gender divides - but because the campaigns and candidates want to seem tough, as well as demonstrate that they can "take it".

Besides, I think that most politicians prefer that the news coverage of their debates and/or speeches be more focused on the style rather than the substance.  Fights ensure that the media will talk about the style and the tone.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
Indeed (0.00 / 0)
it was the most-watched presidential primary in television history. (Via)

Banned for posting five straight diaries.
[ Parent ]
The MSM will continue to ignore Edwards (n/t) (0.00 / 0)


Banned for posting five straight diaries.
[ Parent ]
Hypocrisy (0.00 / 0)
Trial lawyers are a special interest.  Corporations are a special interest.  Teachers Unions are a special interest.

That is a truism.  Some special interests we like, unions and lawyers, but there's nothing wrong with pointing out when you are being attacked for taking special interest money that so does the other guy.

There is no greater danger of a politician givng a quid-pro-quo to one special interest than to another.  The only difference is whose ox is being gored.  These high horses don't suit you.

by this rationale (4.00 / 6)
Unions, being a special interest are equivalent to corporations.  The environmental lobby is equal to the cigarette lobby.

That doesn't follow.  What the lobby is matters.  The AARP is not the same as Blackwater.

[ Parent ]
So you see no difference (4.00 / 5)
between a special interest that fights for a family's medical care or fights for workers' rights to organize or fights for peace as opposed to a special interest that pollutes the environment and sticks it to working men and women?
[ Parent ]
I'm Sorry, But You've Been Brainwashed Re "Sepcial Interests" (4.00 / 8)
The rightwing totally preverted the meaning of the term, "special interests" beginning in earnest in the 1980s.  The term originally referred exclusively to the organized economic interest group lobbies who lobbied for special favors to the detriment of the general public interest--coal mines, tobacco companies, arms manufacturers, etc.  They are special interests because they represent a very small slice of the population with a very large amount of money to magnify their voice, and crowd out the general interest.

The big push by the right wing--and you can see its success most starkly in how the tv networks covered the political conventions--was to use this label to brand the major demographic constituencies that tend to support the Democratic Party--women, minorities, labor, environmentalist, etc.  These are, generally speaking, large slices of the electorate who far less money, and far less coordinated power than they have people.

Labor at its best may be fairly closely balanced between the people it represents and its financial/coordinated political power--but that's only if you ignore the much larger group of people that labor represents as a social movement, beyond the scope of its formal memebership, but not beyond the scope of benefitting from what it advocates for.

If one takes a naive purely logical approach as you have, you simply accept the terms on which this great trasnformatrion in political language has been rationalized, and you contribute to burying the very real, and highly salient reality that it originally served to highlight--the better to fight against.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Yes, hypocrisy (4.00 / 1)
By your overly broad interpretation of "special interests" - one might conclude that the hypocrisy is on Edwards' part - BUT - take a look at his answer to the question of what this "special interest" expects in return for their financial support of his campaign (its in the diary post - read it again).  That direct answer - no fudging, no evasion, no subtle change of topic - makes your charge of hypocricy evaporate.

If you want to find hypocrisy in this issue - take a look at Clinton and Obama.  Did Clinton respond to Edwards by explaining what the "special interests" that fund her campaign expect in return?  NO.  Did Obama? NO.  I find it quite hypocritical to push one's opponent to answer a question that the candidate is not willing to answer.  As Obama didn't push Edwards on this issue, maybe I'll cut him some slack - but Clinton owes us all an explanation of what those "special interests" expect her to do for them, should she get the WH.

That Edwards (or Obama, for that matter) did not turn this issue right back on Clinton by asking for such an answer from her was a missed opportunity.



"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
Card carrying member of the ACLU (0.00 / 0)
Anybody remember with Dukakis was attacked by Bush Sr. for being a "card carrying member of the ACLU"?  I can't tell you how pissed I was that Dukakis just mousely mumbled something about it not meaning all that much.  Or something like that, I don't remember his actual response.  What I remember is the total lack of actually defending his position and the ACLU.
Apparently that bugged Aaron Sorkin, too (4.00 / 4)
He framed the perfect response in "The American President".

http://www.youtube.c...

For the record, yes, I am a card-carrying member of the ACLU, but the more important question is "Why aren't you, Bob?" Now this is an organization whose sole purpose is to defend the Bill of Rights, so it naturally begs the question, why would a senator, his party's most powerful spokesman and a candidate for President, choose to reject upholding the constitution? Now if you can answer that question, folks, then you're smarter than I am, because I didn't understand it until a few hours ago.

America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You've gotta want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say, "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours." You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country cannot just be a flag. The symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Now show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms.

Then you can stand up and sing about the land of the free.

And I agree... John Edwards' response was in a class with Sorkin, albeit necessarily briefer!

[ Parent ]
I couldn't believe she said that (4.00 / 4)
I literally twitched in revulsion when she used "trial lawyer" as a smear.  C'mon!  If anyone should know about right-wing smears it should be HRC.

I agree that Edwards handled it well.  He even came across smooth, comfortable in his own skin when he said it.

Easier when it is personal (0.00 / 0)
In this case, Edwards has been a trial lawyer most of his life and really takes this kind of attack personally.  While this kind of response should be the norm when progressive values are challenged, in reality it is much easier with the attack and, more importantly, the response is personal.
[ Parent ]
I Like It. (4.00 / 1)
Wow. That's a perfect example of how to turn an attack into an asset.
Agreed (4.00 / 2)
That was a virtually perfect (and memorable) response, which stood out in the prolonged attack & response portion of the debate.  It contrasted sharply with Obama's responses, which were sometimes pretty good, sometimes pretty (or even very) weak, but really never reached that level of potency--and almost always started with a stuttering hesistancy that could be described as "thoughfulness" but comes off poorly in this context.

I suspect it wouldn't be easy for Obama to develop that skill to anything near Edwards' level over the next nine months.  I think Clinton is much better than Obama at learning how to speak in these forums, and seems more likely to be able to at least simulate what Edwards did.

This is one of Edwards' strengths (and areas of continued improvement), and I suspect the fact that he knows he's not gonna win, but believes its worth continuing to fight the good fight has helped free him from the second-guessing defensiveness that is more of risk when you're in Obama's position.  He's certainly got the skill for it and seems to be the most fully aligned in terms of what he really believes and what he says (though his views have changed over the years, which has complicated his otherwise strong claim to be an "authentic" candidate).

Though I liked a lot of what Obama said and certainly found myself sympathizing with him, I woke up this morning more accepting of the fact that Clinton is our likely nominee and seeing more evidence that she's grown as a candidate, and will likely continue growing if she became President. 

And, in spite of the tension between them--especially during the early parts of the debate--I was struck by the fact that they all seemed able to back off from the angry feelings to what seemed to be a genuine mutual respect and a shared feeling that capturing the White House and a larger Congressional majority--and solving our nation's problems--was the most imporant thing, regardless of any ego-bruising along the way. 

Though the debate left me kinda pissed at Clinton for distorting the truth with such enthusiasm and aggressiveness, and disappointed with Obama for his too-often weak responses and lack of "purity" in matters of judgement and ethics, I also felt proud of all three of them (though wishing I could extract and combine their strengths into a hybrid candidate).

I think a Clinton-Obama ticket could beat McCain pretty handily (assuming he gets the nomination), and could groom Obama for a second eight years...first a woman, then a man of color.  Given his talents and background, he could be a great ambassador to other countries.  My wish re: Edwards would be for him to be AG for the first Clinton term (or maybe all eight years, since there's lots to clean up in and by that department), and then to get him on the Supreme Court, where he can use his intelligence, legal skill and passion to fight to protect our rights and also start beating back the tide of "corporate empowerment" rulings that have hobbled attempts at political and economic reform, starting with the bogus assumption of "corporate personhood."  And, of course, he's young and healthy.

And while I retain concerns about Clinton (e.g., lobbyist influence, Mark Penn, etc.), I'm warming up to the idea of a woman leading a bunch of powerful men (and other women)to turn around this country.  Given all the international problems we've got, I could see plenty of use for the likes of Wes Clark, Bill Richardson and Bill Clinton in repairing relations and dealing with problems involving the rest of the world.  And there are at least a few courageous progressives in Congress, who will hopefully be able to push the envelope in that direction.

I also hope that Clinton, assuming she wins, will adopt Obama's proposals for opening up government. In fact, if Obama was VP, it might be one area to assign for him to focus on.  I think that's an area the netroots can and should push for, regardless of who is in the White House.  This would be especially important if Clinton wins, given the concerns many of us have about the Clinton team's willingness to succumb to the influence of corporate lobbyists.

As I begin to disengage from the primary-preference mode of thinking, what's increasingly coming to mind is the question of what the focus and role of the netroots should be under what could be a prolonged period of Democratic control. 

I'd be interested in hearing more from front-pagers and others about their thoughts on this.

That was my favorite line of the debate (4.00 / 2)
Edwards defense of his support of trail lawyers was my favorite line of the debate.

I've been watching political debates since 1976, and I've never seen anything last last night. I think that debate will be remembered for a long time. It wasn't just the attacks, but also the overall level of engagement, and how the candidates seemed compelled to actually respond to one another, instead of staying on message.

What a great thread! (0.00 / 0)
Full of very good perspectives on a wide range of issues. Except for the obligatory 'you people' comment, I TRed ya pal, this is one of the best threads for substance and good dialogue I've seen in a while.

As an Edwards supporter I'd like him to post a win in SC if only so folks can continue to hear him. He's easily the best on responding to ReichWing smear jobs as shown in this excellent post.

But also if sure looks like longer this nomination is in contention the further left the candidates feel comfortable in going.

I think that's a real good thing....

Pretty soon they'll catch up with the citizenry.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

What, I'm confused (4.00 / 1)
ACitizen, you aren't allowed to say anything positive, it's in your contract!  Get back to work, slacker.
[ Parent ]
Hillary's Legal Background (0.00 / 0)
Don't be surprised at Hillary throwing around the phrase "trial lawyer" in a pejorative sense.  When she was in Arkansas she worked at the Rose Law Firm, which among other things, did insurance defense work.  And Bill was not a friend of the trial lawyers as governor.  In fact, he had very little trial lawyer support in the 1992 primaries because of bad blood between him and the Arkansas Trial Lawyers Association.  When he was President, his attitude toward the trial lawyers changed.  But arguably only because he realized what a huge percentage of national Democratic money comes from trial lawyers. 
How To Respond To A Right-Wing Talking Point | 39 comments





Donate to Open Left




blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
USER MENU

QUICK HITS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox