Bush v. Kerry: The Official Elections 2004 Thread

TripleB:
Satan would want God and religion out of the public arena....SEPERATION OF CHURCH And State.

Maybe you've forgotten, but Satan is also a religious figure, meaning that "SEPARATION OF CHURCH And State", as you described it, will write him out of government affairs as it would for God.

---

Well, the buzz is all about who will be the VP nominee.

My pick: Rep. Richard Gephardt. I supported him, I like his record and what he has to say, he has the stances and the personality that will appeal not only in Missouri (which will probably vote Democratic if he's on the ticket) but in much of the Midwest (including the big swing state of Ohio) and the Upper South. I've said this a lot and I'll say it again: If we can talk about [i]fiscal, economic,[/i] and [i]public welfare[/i] issues, rather than stupid red herring social ones like gay marriage, [u]we can win[/u]. (By "we" I mean Democrats.)

Other rumored nominees include Sen. John Edwards (of course), Sen. Bob Graham (ugh, no thanks), Sen. Mary Landrieu (ugh, not thanks), Sen. Evan Bayh (ugh, no thanks), and Gov. Bill Richardson. Oh, and of course, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.

 

Bill Richardson won't be the VP nominee, he's flatly refused to do it.

 

Bush Congratulates Kerry in Phone Call

Tuesday, March 02, 2004

WASHINGTON ? President Bush telephoned John Kerry on Tuesday night to congratulate him on wrapping up the Democratic presidential nomination, and said he looked forward to a "spirited contest."

"I'm thinking about you," Bush was quoted as saying.

Ken Mehlman, campaign manager for the Bush-Cheney campaign, said the pair talked by telephone shortly before 8 p.m. EST. He quoted Bush as saying, "You had an important victory tonight."

Kerry won a string of Super Tuesday contests, forcing John Edwards, his sole major rival, from the race.

Mehlman said Bush told Kerry that he looked forward to a "spirited contest." According to the Republican campaign manager, Kerry told Bush he hoped to keep the campaign "on the issues."

Kerry said he and Bush had a "very nice conversation."

"He called to congratulate me. I said I hope we have a great debate about the issues before the country," Kerry told reporters at his election-night party in downtown Washington.

Kerry watched Edwards' speech live on TV, with his wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts and staff.

Kerry said he didn't know Edwards had decided to drop out of the race until he saw an Associated Press headline flash across the television screen.

"It says he quit," Kerry said. "I didn't think he'd say that."

 

"I'm thinking about you," Bush was quoted as saying.

Sounds like someone's got a crush!

 

I must admit, that did sound rather odd.

However, I think Bush is thinking of how to deal with Kerry over the course of the next 8 months.

I'm sure Rove and co. are ready to unleash the big guns on him over the next six to eight weeks. This race will be an entirely different one two months from now.

 

So what do you think the "big guns" are going to be? You keep mentioning Kerry having a liberal Senate record. What exactly is on the record that you think he'll get hammered over?

 

Kerry is going to get hammered for his liberal voting record in the US Senate that he can't hide from.

He'll also be hammered on his wiffle-waffling.

Examples:

Against the DOMA, but against gay marriage.

For NAFTA, then against NAFTA.

For 'No Child Left Behind', then against 'No Child Left Behind'.

For the 'Patriot Act', then against the 'Patriot Act'.

Against the '91 Gulf War, then for the '03 Gulf War, then against it in '04 and against adequately funding our troops there.

Against a great many defense appropriations for systems that we rely upon as well as in favor of intelligence cutbacks.

---

Having Ted Kennedy continually introducing him at speeches doesn't help him, either.

 

From an AOHELL (AOL) poll. Nothing spectacular, though it is interesting considering before Bush was ahead.


If the election were held today, who would get your vote?

John Kerry 58%
George W. Bush 42%


Would Edwards make the best running mate for Kerry?

Yes 66%
No 34%
Total Votes: 138,697


Again, nothing to get excited over. Just something that caught my eye.


EDIT:

To DM: Stop underestimating the democratic party, that is how they lost their majority, remember?

I think with as much disfavor as Bush has right now that he's going to have a tough fight ahead of him. Of course things do change, but at the moment he's becoming increasingly unpopular.

 

Polls mean nothing at this stage of the game - there have been nothing but a constant barrage of Democratic attacks being unaswered by the GOP. This is typical during the opposition party's primaries.

In six to eight weeks, when the GOP starts it's own campaign in earnest, then we'll see how it is. Things can certainly change even up to Election Day.

 

Oh indeed they can, but I wouldn't say the democrats are doomed already.

 

We'll see if these polls mean anything come November.

I doubt they will.

 

Agreed. I feel Ralph Nader will win.

 

I think part of what might hurt Kerry is his defense record.

He voted against funding for several key military programs.

There was no stopping Kerry?s assault on the Pentagon. When first running for his Senate seat in 1984, Kerry explained carefully that he was firmly against such mainstays of the defense establishment as the B-1 bomber, B-2 stealth bomber, AH-64 Apache helicopter, Patriot missile, the F-15, F-14A and F-14D jets, the AV-8B Harrier jet, the Aegis air-defense cruiser, and the Trident missile system.

He also ran on a platform of cutting back on the M1 Abrams tank, the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, the Tomahawk cruise missile, and the F-16. The average newspaper-reading American, of course, recognizes these systems as the veritable tip of the spear that not only crushed Saddam Hussein in the first Gulf War but also smashed the Taliban in Afghanistan and punched through to Baghdad in the second Gulf War.

when asked how to handle military matters: On what he?d do if elected to Congress, Kerry said he would ?bring a different kind of message to the president.? He said he would vote against military appropriations.

Geez, if we'd listened to him we'd be flying kites and shooting spitballs.

How 'bout on intelligence:

In 1994, Kerry proposed and voted to cut $1 billion from intelligence. Specifically, he proposed cutting that $1 billion from the budgets of the National Foreign Intelligence Program and from Tactical Intelligence, while freezing their budgets. The amendment was soundly defeated

In 1995, Kerry was at it again, voting to cut $80 million from the FBI?s budget and introducing a bill that would have reduced the overall intelligence budget by $1.5 billion by the year 2000. Without targeting specific programs, Kerry?s bill sought to reduce the intelligence budget by $300 million in each of fiscal years 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000.

In 1997, Kerry questioned the size of the intelligence community during a speech on the floor of the Senate:
Why it is that our vast intelligence apparatus, built to sustain America in the long twilight struggle of the Cold War continues to grow at an exponential rate? Now that that struggle is over, why is it that our vast intelligence apparatus continues to grow even as government resources for new and essential priorities fall far short of what is necessary? Why is it that our vast intelligence apparatus continues to roll on even as every other government bureaucracy is subject to increasing scrutiny and, indeed, to reinvention??

 

Kerry is going to get hammered for his liberal voting record in the US Senate that he can't hide from.

What makes you think that he is going to "hide" from it, DM?

See, the GOP is already falling into the same trap: labelling. It's more important to paint Kerry as an out-of-touch-left-wing-liberal than it is to debate the issues; this is a poor strategy for '04, if you ask me. Kerry is no Dukakis, and for all the talk about not repeating the "dukakis" strategy of '88, the GOP is already doing it. They've unleashed the conservative talk show hosts, they're bantering the term "liberal" around and salivating over how they're going to dissect Kerry's record without even stopping to acknowledge that Kerry won't run and Kerry won't hide.

This is a HUGE risk for Bush and Rove, IMHO. They don't have to convince conservatives or republicans, they have to convince democrats, moderates in both parties, and independents. There are a core of voters on both sides who will back their respective candidates no matter what, and those voters are not in play. But there is as much anti-Bush sentiment out there (and not just amongst the far-left, either) as there was anti-Clinton in '00, and that in my opinion makes this a virtual tie at this point.

Add to that the fact that Bush's record is nothing to crow about, and I believe he has reason to be worried. Bush has stretched the truth quite a great deal, he said "trust me" one too many times and failed to deliver for one too many americans. It's not going to be so easy this time, not with an opponent who hits back.

I said it before, and I'll say it again: what this will come down to are 1) local factors around the time of the election, ie if jobs are rebouding strongly and there have been no more terrorist attacks, Bush will win; 2) perhaps more importantly, whether or not people care more about John Kerry's voting record past than Bush's governing record of the present. Sure, we'll get into the usual detours like gay marriage, abortion and gun control, but with so many people out of work, so many people disaffected with this administration, the constant confrontational attitude with the rest of the world, the giveaways for the rich, the blatant attempts to theocratize america (which scares a lot more americans than it pleases when it really comes down to it) Bush stands a solid chance of losing. Not because the country is swinging overwhelmingly to the left, but because, as the slogan says...

Anybody But Bush.

ps expect a lot more dem unity this time around than in '00. People understand that a non-vote for Kerry will be a vote for Bush.

Peace,

V-03

 

Like I said before V03, Kerry is already running from that label. He's politically maneuvering to make himself appear mainstream, which he is certainly not based upon his voting record. Liberal is a label that doesn't win nationwide Presidential elections. The vast majority of States, besides the hard-core Blue States, will not vote for a far-left liberal (as Kerry is based upon the facts of his voting record). The GOP doesn't have to call him anything, all they have to do is point out his voting record as a Senator.

People understand the toll 9/11 had and the:

irrational exuberance

...as Alan Greenspan put it, of the 1990's which led to the bust in 2001, not to mention the corporate scandals going on.

The economy is improving, and job creation is the last stage of economic recovery.

What's Kerry's plan? Tax increases? That won't fly at all, I can tell you that much.

I said it before V03, we heard the same sentiment from the GOP during the 1996 election: Anybody but Clinton.

It takes more than hate to win an election.

The question is going to come down to national defense and the overall state of the economy.

The economy is good with job recovery improving, and we haven't had a terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11.

This isn't even to mention the social issues where Kerry is vulnerable, including his empty talk concerning opposing gay 'marriage' (he voted against the DOMA).

The statement that Bush is trying to 'theocratize' America is hogwash. Traditional values are part of this nation and have made it what it is. The secularists of the left want to change America to suit their value system: e.g., gay marriage, legalization of drugs, et cetera.

 

This has been an interesting race ... Susan Esterich was on Fox News last night talking about how amazing it is that the Dems are all united behind a candidate this early. I have never seen Democrats falling in line behind a candidate despite misgivings on issues simply because of his electability and because they believe a candidate offers the best chance to defeat the GOP. (I'll know the party is truly united, however, when I see Gore, the Clintons, Kucinich, Dean, Kerry, and Edwards holding hands on stage at the convention and singing Kumbayah. ) Republicans have almost always done this, and it's always interesting to see the parties using each other's methods.

I was glad to see Kerry win. I hope we'll have a real and substantive debate on the issues. However, as I have indicated before, I am not holding my breath.

I don't think Kerry will pick Edwards as a VP pick. It would be a good choice because of all the media attention, and I like Edwards because he has charisma. But Edwards probably does not add that much to the ticket in terms of support. Even though he is fom the South and attracts moderates, I don't think he'll make that much of a difference in the South or West. In that sense, Edwards would not be that different from Wesley Clark. Also, Edwards' inexperience could be a liability because he would be second in command, but only have less than one term in the Senate as far as relevant experience. The only Southerner I see that might make inroads into W's support as far as a VP pick for Kerry goes would be someone like Sam Nunn or Lloyd Bentsen, fairly conservative Democrats that would have broader appeal, but both of those men are old and have been out of politics for some time. Gephardt is a more logical choice in terms of a mesh with Kerry and similarity on issues, and Gephardt would make the Midwest competitive. I see Kerry picking a midwesterner like Evan Bayh or the governor of Iowa, or possibly a Californian.

W will be fine in this campaign once he gets rolling, especially if the economy really starts picking up job wise, but this is going to be close.

EDIT: I just read an article about how the Senate defeated the gun maker immunity bill W wanted. The NRA is now saying gun control is going to be an issue. Not that there was any danger of NRA members voting for Kerry, but this sort of thing and social issues like gay marriage are getting W's supporters fired up just like the Dems, too.

EDIT: Good point on how anger alone as a motivation won't get a candidate into office , DM ... I had forgotten how I felt in the 1996 and 2000 elections when I just wanted the Clintons out of Washington, and the GOP did not fare that well in either election in hindsight. On the other hand, I have never seen Dems so unified, ever. But it's also early, and it will come down to which party does a better job of attracting the undecideds in the middle.

 

Sure, I think it will be close. The popular vote will be much closer than the Electoral totals, I think.

But in the end, Bush will win.

Why do I think this?

Kerry has no hope of picking up any Southern US States. The VP choice won't matter. Like I stated before in this thread, voters care who the Presidential candidate is - and not so much the VP.

IMO, the best choice for Kerry would be Gephardt. Missouri is an important State, but even Gore lost his own home State.

 

Since many of the same issues regarding Kerry are being repeated, I am cutting and pasting, with a few additions, a post from the other thread:

First off, John Kerry does not give off a sense of 'hate' at all.

...and we haven't had a terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11

And we hadn't had one like that before 9/11...since Pearl Harbor.

Alan Greenspan put it, of the 1990's which led to the bust in 2001, not to mention the corporate scandals going on.

Greenspan, one of his many praises of Clinton from the AP:

Mr. Greenspan, 73, thanked Mr. Clinton for his confidence, and, straying from the nonpartisan stance that typically characterizes his public pronouncements, said Mr. Clinton's ?economic policy staff has been exceptional in my view.?

What's Kerry's economic plan?

Similar to Clinton's...return the tax rate on the top 1.5 percent (or thereabouts) and focus on targeted tax cuts and closing loopholes.

Kerry on defense:

http://slate.msn.com//?id=2096127&

Excerpts per Jediflyer

Before George W. Bush's political operatives started pounding on John Kerry for voting against certain weapons systems during his years in the Senate, they should have taken a look at this quotation:

After completing 20 planes for which we have begun procurement, we will shut down further production of the B-2 bomber. We will cancel the small ICBM program. We will cease production of new warheads for our sea-based ballistic missiles. We will stop all new production of the Peacekeeper [MX] missile. And we will not purchase any more advanced cruise missiles. ? The reductions I have approved will save us an additional $50 billion over the next five years. By 1997 we will have cut defense by 30 percent since I took office.

The speaker was President George H.W. Bush, the current president's father, in his State of the Union address on Jan. 28, 1992. ...



Looking at the weapons that the RNC says Kerry voted to cut, a good case could be made, certainly at the time, that some of them (the B-2 bomber and President Reagan's "Star Wars" missile-defense program) should have been cut. As for the others (the M-1 tank and the F-14, F-15, and F-16 fighter planes, among others), Kerry didn't really vote to cut them.

The claim about these votes was made in the Republican National Committee "Research Briefing" of Feb. 22. The report lists 13 weapons systems that Kerry voted to cut?the ones cited above, as well as Patriot air-defense missiles, Tomahawk cruise missiles, and AH64 Apache helicopters, among others.

It is instructive, however, to look at the footnotes. Almost all of them cite Kerry's vote on Senate bill S. 3189 (CQ Vote No. 273) on Oct. 15, 1990. Do a Google search, and you will learn that S. 3189 was the Fiscal Year 1991 Defense Appropriations Act, and CQ Vote No. 273 was a vote on the entire bill. There was no vote on those weapons systems specifically.

On a couple of the weapons, the RNC report cites H.R. 5803 and H.R. 2126. Look those up. They turn out to be votes on the House-Senate conference committee reports for the defense appropriations bills in October 1990 (the same year as S. 3189) and September 1995.

In other words, Kerry was one of 16 senators (including five Republicans) to vote against a defense appropriations bill 14 years ago. He was also one of an unspecified number of senators to vote against a conference report on a defense bill nine years ago. The RNC takes these facts and extrapolates from them that he voted against a dozen weapons systems that were in those bills. The Republicans could have claimed, with equal logic, that Kerry voted to abolish the entire U.S. armed forces, but that might have raised suspicions. Claiming that he opposed a list of specific weapons systems has an air of plausibility. On close examination, though, it reeks of rank dishonesty.

Since I have seen the same list of items that Kerry has voted against, here is some of what he has voted for, from the AP...

Kerry Strongly Supports Increased Intelli

 

Kerry indeed voted to cut defense, including the M1A1, the Apache, and other such weapon systems. He continually opposed Reagan's efforts in the Cold War. He flip-flopped on the Gulf Wars and voted against funding our troops there just this past year.

He can't hide from his record, and Slate.com (a certainly biased source endorsed by MSNBC, no surprise there) won't change the facts of Kerry's voting record.

Kerry won't be able to run away from his record.

The DOMA is just one example: and that one will kill him in the South. The gay 'marriage' issue is going beyond the States now, because the people's will, and the law, isn't being followed.

 

Here's one from today's New York Times:



With John Edwards's decision to quit the race, expected to be announced officially today, John Kerry's nomination as the Democratic candidate for president is secure. Speculation about his choice for vice president can now begin in earnest.

Mr. Edwards himself is an obvious choice: a skilled campaigner, he would also attract Southern voters. Other possibilities include Govs. Evan Bayh of Indiana and Bill Richardson of New Mexico, who have both regional appeal and executive experience, and dark-horse candidates like former Senator Sam Nunn of Georgia.

Amid this conjecture, however, one name is conspicuously absent: Bill Clinton.

Mr. Clinton's strengths would compensate for Mr. Kerry's weaknesses almost perfectly. Not only is Mr. Clinton the most talented campaigner of his generation, but he is also a Southerner ? and since 1948, when Harry S. Truman chose Senator Alben Barkley of Kentucky as his running mate, every successful Democratic ticket has included a Southern politician.

Besides, people might even pay to watch Bill Clinton debate Dick Cheney. So why not?

The first objection, the constitutional one, can be disposed of easily. The Constitution does not prevent Mr. Clinton from running for vice president. The 22nd Amendment, which became effective in 1951, begins: "No person shall be elected to the office of the president more than twice."

No problem. Bill Clinton would be running for vice president, not president. Scholars and judges can debate how loosely constitutional language should be interpreted, but one need not be a strict constructionist to find this language clear beyond dispute. Bill Clinton cannot be elected president, but nothing stops him from being elected vice president.

True, if Mr. Clinton were vice president he would be in line for the presidency. But Mr. Clinton would succeed Mr. Kerry not by election, which the amendment forbids, but through Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, which provides that if a president dies, resigns or is removed from office, his powers "shall devolve on the vice president." The 22nd Amendment would not prevent this succession.

So much for the constitutional obstacles. The political ones may be more formidable. They can be summarized in two questions: would Mr. Clinton want the job; and would Mr. Kerry want him to take it? We won't know until we ask, of course. But before asking, we might cite some reasons for both men to consider a Kerry-Clinton ticket seriously.

For Mr. Clinton, the appeal of the vice presidency is both political and personal. First, he could help his party win. Yes, Mr. Clinton remains a divisive figure in American politics ? but not so much among Democrats. And surely many voters long for the strong economy and economic stewardship that was one of the hallmarks of his administration.

Second, he could burnish his legacy. In exchange for joining the ticket, Mr. Clinton could negotiate for plum assignments as vice president. Mideast peace? National health care? Racial equality? He could focus on any or all of them. And from a purely personal standpoint, it might be especially gratifying for Mr. Clinton to be part of the team that defeats the man who four years ago promised to restore "character" to Mr. Clinton's own White House.

The only remaining question, then, is what John Kerry thinks of all this. Judging from recent debates, there's little chemistry between Senators Kerry and Edwards, although Mr. Edwards's graceful withdrawal may help ease tensions between them. But Mr. Kerry and Mr. Clinton would seem to have much in common; they are nearly the same age, worked with each other in Washington for almost a decade and have a shared interest in foreign affairs.

For Senator Kerry, the question may well come down to whether adding Mr. Clinton to the ticket would appreciably increase his chances of victory. A couple of polls should give him the answer fast enough. If the results are good, the course is clear: bring him on.


What do you think of th

 

Bill Clinton as VP?

That's a quite funny thought actually, but it won't happen. I'm not surprised something like that comes out of The New York Times. The paper has lost all credibility in objectivity, and that's unfortunate.

We also keep hearing about Hillary's name being thrown around, but I doubt she'd be asked. I don't think Kerry wants to take such a risky shot with a Hillary VP nomination.

 

He can't hide from his record, and Slate.com (a certainly biased source endorsed by MSNBC, no surprise there) won't change the facts of Kerry's voting record.

And Hannity and Colmes, and Bill O'reilly aren't biased? With all due and the utmost respect DM, its hard to keep quoting H &C and 'The Factor' and then claim everyone else is biased.

Anyway, Kerry has nothing to 'hide' from.

And I stand by my posts' accuracy.

The secularists of the left want to change America to suit their value system: e.g., gay marriage...

Their value system is just as valid as anyone elses. And there are certainly religious institutions that want to change America to suit THEIR value systems.

...legalization of drugs, et cetera.

I must have missed John Kerry's "Drugs for Everyone!" proposal.

 

well you're right the RNC can spin and make Kerry sound like he cut more and voted against weapons systems but he did vote against the weapons appropriations that were needed and those vital programs were needed. And like DM said he fought Reagan against any build up.

Your George HW Bush speech doesn't prove anything. There had to be some reduction in arms from the Cold War level. I think it was probably too much and a rush to judgment. But HW Bush's policies and speeches don't mean thats what W thinks. As far as the Commanche, I disagree completely that it should've been cut and feel that's a mistake.
I remember Bush saying he wanted to leave it up to state's to determine civil unions but he's always said he opposes "marriages" as does Kerry anyway so there's no arguement there.
ALl that aside I'll never vote for someone who thinks returning the top income tax rate to previous levels is a good idea. I don't think there should be any income discrimination. Those top income earners the Dems love to quote don't make millions. The top income tax rate starts at 300K. Not millions.

Clinton as a VP? It'd be a way to maybe win but Kerry would be a fool as it would completely overshadow him. I wouldn't put it past him to run on the ticket and then resign. But I don't really think the Clintons want to see Kerry win. Then Hillary has to wait to 2012.

 

It'll be good to see a tight race between the two parties and leaders. Those of us who followed the 2000 election might remember it was a very pedestrian affair, with apathy running high on both sides. Bush wasn't exactly that highly regarded till 9/11, and the election struck me as odd because it lacked any real candidate that was interesting. This time, it appears different.

E_S

 

Disclaimer: DS77: Hey, I'm not saying those other sources aren't equally biased! Just a matter of perspective.

Move along, Move along...

For the record, I disagree with W on much of his environmental policy.

The value system of secualrism is what is a driving force to change what America is. America has always held traditional values as important, until these very modern times. As a matter of perspective, traditionalists want to keep the values, that have in our opinions, have made this nation what it is. We believe that if the secuaristic ideology is basically judicially imposed on the people as it has been, then society as we know it will unravel and become decadent. We see this happening already in many cases.

You can plainly see how polarizing the political field is with Bush representing traditional values and Kerry representing secualristic values. This election is very polarizing and will be a bitter fight until the end.