Redstate

It's nice to see Ford is getting his just desserts for not being truthful, but I write in defense of the Tennessee lawyers that have passed the Bar.

Yes, it may not be the most difficult in the nation, but let's not downplay it's rigor either simply to kick Ford around for points. It's still a difficult test that many have failed and several more have passed - and properly deserve plaudits for it.

Who knows... it may be more difficult than, say, Georgia's...

As for Ford, failing the Bar is certainly not on his highlight film, but lying about being a lawyer no matter what state Bar he failed deservedly should be on his low-light reel.

At a Corker fundraiser in Nashville, Bush commented that the Senate had too many lawyers and that was why Tennessee needed to elect a businessman like Bob Corker. At the time, my reaction was yes to the latter (elect Corker) but why in the heck is Bush promoting Ford to lawyer status? If anything the theme should be we know how/why Ford got into the U. of Michigan law school, but even given that special opportunity he couldn't finish it by actually passing the bar.

And a majority of the Supreme Court ruled they have that right. I also think that resonates with Tenneesee voters. I also think Bush made a mistake referring to Ford as an attorney.

Funny how Ford could get into University of Michigan, an unabashed advocate of lowering admissions standards for minorities, yet he could not pass a Bar exam, thus placing him in the bottom 10% of his class effectively.* Does that mean that the Bar exam doesn't have a place where you can select your race/gender to be input into your score calculation? Could it be that the pass/fail standard applies equally to all people? How novel.

*Of course the stat provided above, that 90% of graduates pass the Bar may not factor in the applicants who choose NOT to take the Bar. Could that represent 5% of the graduates? Then that would place Ford in the bottom 5%.

I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant. - Alan Greenspan

Historical context. From a review of 1980 developments -- Mt. Saint Helens blows! -- by the Willamette Week:

THE ULTIMATE POLICY WONK
He was an unlikely candidate--a lanky bundle of nerves who flunked the Oregon Bar exam three times. His major accomplishment: a successful referendum to reduce the price of dentures. He'd never held an elective office. But in May, RON WYDEN, the 31-year-old co-founder of the Oregon Gray Panthers, stuns the pollsters by crushing incumbent Bob Duncan 60-40 in the Democratic primary for the 3rd Congressional District, which covers Portland's east side. Wyden went on to trounce his Republican opponent in the general election.

But, anyway, this post represents more gotcha, gotcha, gotcha. When did all this gotcha start? The vicuna coat? I don't remember. But it produces ridiculousness like the auto de fe for George Allen. Bleh.

It's now the preferred mode of criticism for everybody, political parties, the awful mainstream media, and bloggers like all of us.

Oh, here's Wyden's official biography:

WYDEN, Ronald Lee, a Representative and a Senator from Oregon; born in Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kans., May 3, 1949; attended the public schools of Palo Alto, Calif.; A.B., Stanford University 1971; J.D., University of Oregon Law School in Eugene 1974; director, Oregon Legal Services for the Elderly 1977-1979; public member, Oregon State Board of Examiners of Nursing Home Administrators 1977-1979; elected as a Democrat to the Ninety-seventh and to the seven succeeding Congresses, and served from January 3, 1981, to February 5, 1996, when he resigned, having been elected to the Senate; elected to the Senate in a special election on January 30, 1996, to fill the unexpired portion of the term ending January 3, 1999, left vacant by the resignation of Robert W. Packwood, and took the oath of office on February 6, 1996; reelected in 1998 and in 2004 for the term ending January 3, 2011.

Skillfully done, eh? Makes you think he's a lawyer.

Gotcha!

Going to law school in one state does not mean you are prepared to pass the bar in another state.

Texas bar has oil and gas questions; New Mexico bar has Indian law questions, Mass. bar has neither. The state you go to law school on prepares you for the bar in that state--not nationwide.

That being said: a bar review course will prepare any capable law school graduate for the bar in most states. So, he's not a very good student if he failed the only bar he took.

I want Corker to win in Tenn. I've also taken and passed three bars exams, including New York's. But I think the ruckus over whether Ford is or is not a lawyer is silly. In my mind someone who graduates from an accredited law school is a lawyer. Having a law degree makes one a JD, the formal degree held by a lawyer. Passing a bar exam (and becoming admitted) makes one a licensed lawyer.

Ford appears to be an oily politician, whose past successes seem to depend on family ties. Let's pray he loses big. But let's look at the crucial issue, viz., what did he know about Mark Foley, and when?

...but his ABA ranking will be "well qualified" when President Rodham/Clinton nominates him for the supreme court.

...I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

Whether or not you pass or even take a bar exam, you are a lawyer once you have graduated from law school and been granted a "Juris Doctor" Degree.

Whether or not you are licensed to practivce law in a particular state depends on tha state's licensing requirements.

In Wisconsin you are licensed to practce law in Wisconsin once you have graduated from a Wisconsin law school (UW or Marquette). There is no need to take a bar exam unless you went to school out of state.

In California, there is no requirement to obtain a "legit" JD before you take their bar exam.

I am licensed to practice law in Illinois, but not in any other state. That does not make me any less of a lawyer.

So yes...he can say he is a lawyer. You can say that he is not licensed to practice in any state.

Why don't we stick to substantive issues, rather thean personal attacks like the dems.

...but I am willing to bet--assuming he has a savvy staff--that he never says it again on TV, and we will never again have to point out to him the difference between a practicing attorney and a paper lawyer.

I cant for the life of me see how Corker won the primary. What a terrible inept candidate. He is almost trying to lose, with the 911 fiasco, the land deal scandal and his company hiring illegal immigrants, this is gonna be a toss up because its very hard for a candidate to win just because hes not the other guy. And Ford has done a good enough job positioning himself as a moderate that he very well could pull this off b/c Corker is such an idiot.

Down the stretch, me and all volunteers for Bob are working 24/7 to bring home a victory and send Bob to Washington.

dixie68

There is no way that Ford is a moderate. You should really look at his family history. It was his good fortune to have his uncle's trial postponed until after the election. Do not be fooled by his soft voice.

I watched the Ford/Corker debate last night. I was stunned at how Rightward Ford lurched.

I can't imagine the liberal Dems being pleased with his election. I hope Corker wins, but the way Ford appeared last night he'd almost be the next Zell Miller,

I think Corker held his own last night, and did well. But Ford was real slick. He looked good, and sounded good.

Eric Dondero
www.mainstreamlibertarian.com