Practice Management

Home Office And Third Wave Attorneys Can Have A Political Point Of View

By chucknewton

I get much grief and praise for taking a political position now and then in a blog about the Third Wave practice of law.  But, law and politics when you think about it are inextricably bound.  In fact, the promises on the campaign trail (or lack thereof) probably effect the practice of law, and hence lawyers, more than anything or anybody else.  If you do not believe so, then ask the bankruptcy lawyers (or former bankruptcy lawyers) that lost their shirts over bankruptcy deform after 2005.

Besides, I am not evangelical about it.  I do not content that everyone must agree with me.  I except that many disagree with my position.  I just ask for a chance to explain my side.  Do with it what you will.

My excitement is that the race has come to Texas!  It is rare that we get a say in who the nominee of the Democratic Party should be.

In that regard, I will give you my hope.  Not my prediction.  My hope is that Hillary Clinton wins.

With Barack Obama I tend to think, "here we go again".  I guess I have been around far too long to believe that simply the rhetoric of hope and change over specifics is good for Democrats.  Glamor and oratory are no match for a solid sense of what is possible.

For me, I think what Senator Clinton said in McAllen, Texas recently is true and illustrates the issue well.  "I am in the solutions business. My opponent is in the promises business," Clinton said. "It's not the questions. It's the answers. And the answers get right to the heart of who is ready on Day One to be the president and commander-in-chief of the United States."

Sloganeering can sometimes leave us with charactatures.  I have listen carefully to Obama because he motivates me.  But in the final analysis, he says nothing.  He has done nothing.  His achievements in the U.S. Senate are nothing more than signing on to the legislation of others. After all, he started running for president after he had been in the Senate just one year.  What could he have accomplished.  His Illinois experience is sketchy.  I do not believe you can take bundles of cash from the clients of lobbyists instead of taking the money from their PACs and say that is different.  You can say that Hillary has not been in the Senate that much longer, and you can try and downplay her role in the White House, but the truth of the matter is that she has been in the thick of the fight for a long, long time.  Obama attributes community service necessary to gain admission to Harvard Law and attributes working on real estate finance shams in which developers rent a non-profits to build housing with government backed financing as civil rights law.  It is not.

A big problem I have for the feel of the person is that Obama is so terribly scripted, just like George Bush was when he ran.  With George Bush we did not get what we thought we were getting, and the fear is the same with Obama.  Hillary and Bill and Edwards and most of the others when in the race get up, and got up, in front of large crowds and spoke from their heart.  Yes they make sure they cover their talking points, but you cannot seem to catch Obama without a teleprompter.  He has Kennedy speak writer and old Clinton speech writers that have crafted the entire text -- not just the points.  I want to know the soul of person, and not someone that cannot leave the text behind because he is afraid to get off message.  It does not matter how good he is at reading the prepared text.  It matters how good he is at governance, and in that regard there is no telling.

We have already had on heavily scripted president who preached change and vowed to bring everyone together.  That was George Bush.  Is that who we need now?  I think not.  Will Obama be another Bush?  I hope not, but how do you know with someone that is so scripted and who lacks authenticity.  The truth is that we do not know who he is or what he is, because he has no real record, he has not accomplish any real thing apart from getting elected, and he will not step out from behind the teleprompter.

McCain said it as well recently.  "I respect him and the campaign he has run.  But there is going to be time when we have to get into specifics, and I have heard not every speech he has given obviously, but they are singularly lacking in specifics, and that's when as the campaign moves forward, we will be portraying very stark differences."

It was only in 1984 that we went through this phenomena before.   Gary Hart had moved his candidacy from dark horse to the lead over Walter Mondale based on his repeated use of the phrase "new ideas".  He talked about change and hope and was low on specifics. He drew big crowds and inspired.  When Hart once again used the slogan in the debate, Mondale leaned forward and said, "When I hear your new ideas, I'm reminded of that ad, 'Where's the beef?'" The line got a great response from the audience. Subsequently, the two campaigns continually clashed using the two dueling slogans.  Then, as now, there were not enough committed delegates to decide the election after the primaries and caucuses and the super delegates had to put Mondale over the top.  Then all of the pundits were saying that Mondale had lost it as well.  That was not true then, and I would like to think that is not true now.

To me anyway, this country has real problems and needs a real leader -- not a motivational speaker.  We do not need to take a chance on an unknown.

Does that mean Hillary will win?  I do not know.  But, what I also know is that pundits do not have a clue either.

Does this mean that I will not back Obama should he pull it off and get the nomination?  I am not say that either.  Again, he motivates me.

I am just saying, from my position as an old warhorse, when something or somebody looks to good to be true, it or he generally is too good to be true.  9 times out of 10 these unknowns are apt to disappoint.

For now all I ask of Obama is "where's the beef".  And, do not tell me hope and change.  It is a bit worn.  Tell me something, apart from running your campaigns and meeting the requirement to apply to Harvard Law, that you have really done.

Full post as published by Chuck Newton on February 14, 2008 (boomark / email).