The All New United States 2004 National Elections COUNTDOWN!

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by Obi-Wan McCartney, Mar 7, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Gonk Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Jul 8, 1998
    star 6
    John Kerry told the Teamsters President Hoffa that he was open to drilling in ANWAR, yet Kerry has vehemently led filibusters against any consideration of it.

    Actually he addressed the specifics of that accusation today in a CNN interview, saying he's in favor of a gas pipeline and drilling on the Alaskan oil shelf, but not in the wildlife preserve.

    You know, maybe one should look into some of the specifics of these very votes Kerry made before lauding him as being a flip-flopper and actually confront him with the accusations to see what he has to say about them.
  2. Gonk Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Jul 8, 1998
    star 6
    Oh, and DM, Krauthammer is hardly an impartial columnist. If you want me to realistically listen to your arguments, at least start posting things from say, Lou Dobbs or someone who doesn't wave the party flag half the time. I mean, Tucker Carlson is less biased than that guy. Of course, come to think of it, Carlson is actually fairly less biased than say, Limbaugh.

    C'mon DM, admit it, you really didn't know much about Kerry's voting record until the Republicans started throwing it our way. And you hit on it because you want to hit on it. And you wanted the allegations against Kerry to be right, both with the doctored photo (though how that would have really damaged him substantially I can't imagine) and with sexual misconduct (which really could have damaged him).

    Granted, its easier for Democrats to criticize the President: his record has been in the spotlight for four years. But have you really seriously LOOKED at the information you're given? Do you read up on Kerry? Or does somehow the general overview of what his policies MIGHT be sit right enough for you to not only vote against him, but encourage others not to? I see you post many articles by the conservative camp, but little else. Little in the way of quotes from Kerry himself, to be sure.
  3. Darth Mischievous Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 12, 1999
    star 6
    Lou Dobbs?

    HA

    That dude is just as far to the left as Krauthammer is to the right, but isn't a Pulitzer Prize winner like Krauthammer is.
  4. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 10
    You guys should just let Mr44 and I write op-eds. They'd be funnier, at least.

    E_S
  5. Vaderize03 Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Oct 25, 1999
    star 5
    Now that I would pay to see, Ender.

    Right back at ya, DM :)!

    Peace,

    V-03
  6. Gonk Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Jul 8, 1998
    star 6
    That dude is just as far to the left as Krauthammer is to the right, but isn't a Pulitzer Prize winner like Krauthammer is.

    I think you might be in need of a little reality check there, DM. Lou Dobbs is a pure economist. How many people you know have won pulitzers for covering the economy? He has recieved awards like the Peabody, Luminary, Janus and Horatio Alger Association award. He's also been a supporter of republicans in the past during the Reagan years. Read: critic != Democrat.

    Krauthammer, on the other hand is possibly the most biased reporter that is not directly on the administration payroll. He's a pure neocon, to the point that his signiature is one of the dozens in a letter sent to president Clinton in the late 90s urging an invasion of Iraq, a letter which included names such as Paul Wolfowitz and Daniel Perl.
  7. Darth Mischievous Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 12, 1999
    star 6
    Please.

    Every time I watch Dobbs, his commentary is consistently left and supportive of the Democratic agenda. I also consistently hear him complaining about the current administration.

    I also never made any such claims that Krauthammer wasn't a conservative. He is, and his article above is relevant and correct.
  8. Gonk Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Jul 8, 1998
    star 6
    Something a little interesting I found on the net. Mind you it comes from Express India, so you know they'd run something like this.

    http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=28568
  9. Mr44 VIP

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 6
    Oh, man this is getting rich....now we're polarizing commentators who polarize the election...

    What's next-Friday night First lady mud wrestling?

    I think you might be in need of a little reality check there, DM.

    First of all: Lou Dobbs, pure economist? Let's not delude ourselves to throwing out labels simply because someone fits into a certain mindset..

    Was Lou Dobbs a "economist" or a "commentator" when he was defending Arthur Andersen against Justice Department zealotry?

    Was Lou Dobbs an "economist," when he was blinded by the "100 billion" in interet capital, only to return to CNN 2 years later (Lou Dobbs started the failed space.com)

    What's next, Dobbs claiming that Enron "was overblown...?"

    Regarding Krauthammer, (lest we forget that he was a memeber of the Carter administration, AND was Mondale's speech writer) his views switched into the more conservative realm as a rally against Clintonian Democrats, not because he was beholden to any party.

    Do BOTH men have their bias, sure.. That doesn't make one more believeable over the other, simply because someone might not agree with what they are saying.

    Next..Express India? Come on, I think you acknowledged this in your very post...

    It couldn't be that India is currently involved in a conflict with Pakistan, so maybe they wanted action against the Pakis?

    I'm sure we all know the difference between state sponsorship and independent organizations...
  10. QuanarReg Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Aug 17, 2002
    star 3
    "Oh, and DM, Krauthammer is hardly an impartial columnist. "


    Even if he is impartial, that doesn't mean the points he raised are untrue. They are true. And Mr. Kerry is going to have to somehow explain some of those flip flops.



  11. Gonk Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Jul 8, 1998
    star 6
    Every time I watch Dobbs, his commentary is consistently left and supportive of the Democratic agenda. I also consistently hear him complaining about the current administration.

    What're you TALKING about? Dobbs is critical of NAFTA, which is not part of the Democratic agenda, not until Edwards just started mentioning it last week. The Democrats are incredibly pro-immigration and allowing illegal immigrants to stay and recieve national benefits, something Dobbs is stridently against. He slams Democrats more often than Republicans. The reason he seems to slam Republicans now is because he apparently doesn't see the current administration as representing good fiscal policy. Lou Dobbs is about the bottom line.


    I also never made any such claims that Krauthammer wasn't a conservative. He is, and his article above is relevant and correct.

    Actually it's largely irrelevant. Only one point he makes is relevant at all, which is Kerry voting against the original Gulf War, to which Kerry has not yet had an oppertunity to respond.

    As for the other points:

    -- Votes for the Iraq war, which he now says he opposed.

    Kerry's consistently said he was looking for a broad international coalition of the sort persued in the original Gulf War, not a thinly veiled 'coalition of the willing' which was more like a posse that anything with real UN authority. Even you have to admit DM, Gulf War II was not like Gulf War I internationally, and there's no reason to suspect that when the votes were cast in October/Novermber, that the administration was going to disregard the UN and act multilaterally. I mean, I still wouldn't have voted for it, which is where I would disagree with Kerry, but that's his stance and it seems consistent that the war was right, but done completely wrong.

    -- Votes against the $87 billion for troop support and Iraqi reconstruction, while saying that he favors troop support and Iraqi reconstruction.

    Perhaps he was one of the Senators that wanted to turn part that money into a loan and not a grant? If that's the case, that's still not flip-flopping.

    -- Votes for No Child Left Behind, which he now attacks incessantly.

    See NAFTA, below

    -- Votes for NAFTA; now rails against the unfairness of free trade.

    Many bills get passed with the expectation they will perform differently than originally planned. NAFTA in particular is an obvious case. It's taken 20 years for these negative effects of NAFTA to be felt and nobody was expecting them then in this proportion. GWB cannot be in any way blamed for NAFTA. By the same respect I suppose he can't be blamed for No Child Left Behind if you're slinging it. But if the proposals aren't working, he can certainly be criticized for sticking to the policies and not looking to change them. That's less of a flip-flop as just realizing when something isn't working out. Not to mention, Kerry isn't exactly suggesting NAFTA be torn into pieces.

    -- Votes for the Patriot Act; now decries the assault on civil liberties.

    This is a really low argument. Not on the level of Matt Drudge, but something Krauthammer would have to know is faulty logic. The Patriot Act was voted on in the direct aftermath of 9/11. The country was in a state of fear and the attitude was 'rally around your leader bipartisanly NOW'. I realize Kerry says he stands up to GWB, and obviously he didn't here -- but it would have been unrealistic for ANYONE to have stood up to GWB even if they were totally right, because if they had thier political career would be in shambles. They would have been called a traitor, unamerican, and if they tried to run for president now they would be as laughable as Dennis Kucinich. That's not a real point, it's a logic trap. To paraphrase a certain movie that did not quite deserve to win Best Picture: "Sometimes you do what you want to do. The rest of the time, you do what you have to."
  12. Gonk Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Jul 8, 1998
    star 6
    Mr 44, my apologies if I'm taken a touch to literally. I acknowledge Lou Dobbs is not 'pure' economist, but he's about as much as pure economist you get in television media. His political ideology pertains to the flow of money, not a dedication to one party or the other, or left/right bias. He simply either doesn't seem to care about it, or is apolitical on the matter.

    I'm aware of Krauthammer's past, but we are talking about the present. At present he's one of the MOST biased journalists working today while this administration is in power. If Bob Dole were in the White house he'd be less biased. Meanwhile Lou Dobbs may be no friend to the administration, but he's definately no Democrat. Or are you alledging that he is?

    As for Express India, yes I DID acknowledge it in my post. But just as the 'points' in Krauthammer's essay, which I largely don't buy, thier underlying points are also valid and unlike Krauthammer's points, are not written with 'spin'. Pakistan HAS been selling WMDs, unlike Iraq. Pakistan HAS been sheltering al-Qaida, unlike Iraq. The latter was well known since the fall of the Taliban, it was no secret. The former has been no doubt suspected for quite some time (I was reading articles last year speculating where the crazy North Koreans got thier nuclear material). Unlike Krauthammer the article doesn't really say anything except make allegation against Bush which have already been made. But it did a nice little job of summing up, in the wake of Dr. Khan's pardon, that Pakistan has been doing everything Iraq was accused of doing, and getting a pass.
  13. Mr44 VIP

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 6
    Except that politically, there is no connection that can be made.

    Sure, one could take some points from the article, but take them where?

    Pakistan HAS been selling WMDs, unlike Iraq. Pakistan HAS been sheltering al-Qaida, unlike Iraq.

    For instance, individuals in the Paki government had been selling WMD's, not the whole of the government. al-Qaida had been using areas of Pakistan... That's the nature of the state-sponsor vs independent organization comment.

    If we are to turn Pakistan into an election issue, what is the basis for criticism?

    Musharraf is very pro-western, to the tune that he has suffered from 3 assassination attempts because of his crackdown, but more importantly, it is because of Pakistan that we are "unrolling" the WMD network.

    Maybe he wasn't so anti-al Qaida before 9/11, but who was? The group didn't register.

    Holding the government responsible because a scientist sold nuclear secrets, would be like holding FDR responsible for Alger Hiss...

    It might generate some hype, but no one would seriously buy it...

  14. Gonk Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Jul 8, 1998
    star 6
    For instance, individuals in the Paki government had been selling WMD's, not the whole of the government.

    Who happens to be one of the most highly regarded men in Pakistan. So popular he was PARDONED, of all things. The very father of thier nuclear program. After all, how exactly would an entire government sell WMD's anyway? It doesn't seem to me the Pakistani government is very apologetic about the affair, just trying to mitigate the situation.


    al-Qaida had been using areas of Pakistan... That's the nature of the state-sponsor vs independent organization comment.

    As opposed to the Taliban, which was state-sponsered by Pakistan. Just because Pakistan does not openly support them doesn't mean Pakistan is really on board either and just trying to appease America so India won't stomp all over them.


    If we are to turn Pakistan into an election issue, what is the basis for criticism?

    Bush sent America into a war where 550 Americans have so far died under the pretenses of theat that in fact resides in ANOTHER country. Essentially, America is no safer: it attacked the wrong country.


    Musharraf is very pro-western, to the tune that he has suffered from 3 assassination attempts because of his crackdown, but more importantly, it is because of Pakistan that we are "unrolling" the WMD network.

    Because he survives assassination attempts makes him pro-western? What about the fact he and his nation were thrown out of the British Commonwealth because he came to power in a less-than-democratic coup? Saddam and al-Qaida had no love either, that didn't make Saddam 'very pro-western'.

    Not to mention, it is NOT because of Pakistan at all that the WMD network is being unrolled. If anything they're trying to cover thier asses by pretending to be America's friends. The entire reason Khan was 'revealed' was because LIBYA came clean about the entire affair and where their program was getting its equipment. It had nothing to do with volunteers from Pakistan.


    Maybe he wasn't so anti-al Qaida before 9/11, but who was? The group didn't register.

    Huh? Um, let's see. The US, obviously... India, definately Iran. Those would have been al-Qaida's main enemies. I'm not sure what you mean by this. The only reason Pakistan got on board at all was because if they didn't suppose the US against Afghanistan, ther emight well be no Pakistan today.

    Holding the government responsible because a scientist sold nuclear secrets, would be like holding FDR responsible for Alger Hiss...

    It might generate some hype, but no one would seriously buy it...


    Um, plenty of people would seriously buy it. It's not like this is the only thing Pakistan has been involved with that stands directly at odds with American interests. They've supported Kashmiri terrorists, STARTED the Taliban, and consciously raised anti-western sentiments since the 1970s/80s by founding Islamic schools and changing the country from the secular country that declared independance form Britain into one that teeters on becoming a theocracy supported by its people. At least in Iran you can tell the Islamic fundamentalists are unpopular.
  15. Darth_OlsenTwins Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    May 18, 2002
    star 5
    -- Votes for the Patriot Act; now decries the assault on civil liberties.

    This is a really low argument. Not on the level of Matt Drudge, but something Krauthammer would have to know is faulty logic. The Patriot Act was voted on in the direct aftermath of 9/11. The country was in a state of fear and the attitude was 'rally around your leader bipartisanly NOW'. I realize Kerry says he stands up to GWB, and obviously he didn't here -- but it would have been unrealistic for ANYONE to have stood up to GWB even if they were totally right, because if they had thier political career would be in shambles. They would have been called a traitor, unamerican, and if they tried to run for president now they would be as laughable as Dennis Kucinich. That's not a real point, it's a logic trap. To paraphrase a certain movie that did not quite deserve to win Best Picture: "Sometimes you do what you want to do. The rest of the time, you do what you have to."


    I can see were you are coming from in this argument, and voting for the Patriot Act was probably a good choice for Kerry, politically. However, I think its the fact that he voted for it, and now he decries it is what makes it a little fishy. Its okay to do "what you have to" and make these kinds of decisions. But if you make that decision, then you should take responsibility for that decision. To do what he does shows a lack of character and paints Kerry as a political opportunist.
  16. Jediflyer Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Dec 5, 2001
    star 5
    Well, we are going to have another potentially big Meet the Press on Sunday.

    Nader is going to be on and he will announce if he is running for president.

  17. Vaderize03 Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Oct 25, 1999
    star 5
    The "Ten Commandments" judge is contemplating a run for the Constitution Party as well.

    How weird would it be if we had third-party candidates on the left and the right?

    Peace,

    V-03
  18. Darth_OlsenTwins Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    May 18, 2002
    star 5
    Well, there was Nader and Buchanan last time.
  19. DeathStar1977 Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Jan 31, 2003
    star 4
    I must be quick, but to address the 'journalist' issue...

    IMO its tough to be 'impartial'. A lot of it comes down to reputation as well as personal preference.

    I'd put Krauthhammer in the same category as a Bob Novak...they both say some outrageous things, but are generally quite knowledgable. I generally disagree with them, but I also generally respect their opinion. Sure they're partisan, but so are a lot of people, myself included. [face_mischief]

    Its easy to dismiss someone as to one extreme or another, but its one of those cases where 'you know it when you see it' as to whether or not someone is giving their opinion, or if they are resorting to deceptive or smear tactics.

    According to polls, Kerry leads Edwards in both NY and Cali. Also...

    the California survey found that likely Golden State voters favor a Democratic nominee over Bush ? 54 percent to 37 percent. Nine percent are undecided.

    The poll was conducted Feb. 8-16 with 1,013 likely voters. The margin of error was plus or minus 3 percentage points.


    For what its worth of course.



  20. Gonk Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Jul 8, 1998
    star 6
    However, I think its the fact that he voted for it, and now he decries it is what makes it a little fishy. Its okay to do "what you have to" and make these kinds of decisions. But if you make that decision, then you should take responsibility for that decision. To do what he does shows a lack of character and paints Kerry as a political opportunist.

    You certainly have a point. However I don't think it will be one Kerry will address much until the primaries are over because he doesn't want to lose his momentum, which could very well still slip. He's addressed one or two of the allegations on his voting record (the current war and the oil drilling piece, and a bit about NAFTA as well), and the ideal time for him to give an interview to defend himself against these is still a month or two away. My opinion now would be to flag the arguments and wait until the Dem campaign is over to see what he has to say about them.
  21. Obi-Wan McCartney Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 17, 1999
    star 5
    I thought Lou Dobbs was a republican...I distinctly remember him saying that he was more conservative than liberal...
  22. Darth_OlsenTwins Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    May 18, 2002
    star 5
    You certainly have a point. However I don't think it will be one Kerry will address much until the primaries are over because he doesn't want to lose his momentum, which could very well still slip. He's addressed one or two of the allegations on his voting record (the current war and the oil drilling piece, and a bit about NAFTA as well), and the ideal time for him to give an interview to defend himself against these is still a month or two away. My opinion now would be to flag the arguments and wait until the Dem campaign is over to see what he has to say about them.

    Thats a fair assessment.
  23. sellars1996 Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Jun 19, 2002
    star 3
    Found this site on a colleague's computer that I had to borrow after mine crashed:


    http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnkerry.com/

    Wow ... this really has a chance to be dirtier and nastier than any election the last 20 years or so, and just when I was hoping that they would get better. I don't think political discourse in this country will ever get better in my lifetime, but this thread and its participants give me hope.

    scum& villainy, tell me more about these so called rumors you have heard about W, the Texas governor, his wife, and the secretary of state here. If you have any links, please post them. I am intrigued. Rick Perry, our current governor, is very straight laced and a former Democrat. He and his wife have been married for a number of years and have college aged kids and one of my former bosses was a neighbor of theirs. Also, we have had several Democratic secretaries of state appointed by W and Perry. I suspect that if there had really been any hanky panky in the governor's mansion, it would have been all over the news in Austin, Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, etc. Which is not to say that shenanigans are out of the question, but I doubt their likelihood and am surprised that I have not heard more.
  24. Jediflyer Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Dec 5, 2001
    star 5
    FoxNews is now saying Nader advisors told them he would run.

    Also, John Kerry and John Edwards will be going head to head on ABC's This Week with Stephanopoulos.

  25. Vaderize03 Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Oct 25, 1999
    star 5
    Nader's going to run as an indepedendent, not a green.

    I don't think he'll have any impact on this year's general election, for two reasons:

    1) He is not running as a Green, and therefore, is not going to be on any state ballot unless he can raise the necessary money and get the necessary signatures on his own. This will be especially difficult without a solid organization such as the Greens behind him.

    2) The democrats and the far-left understand that to beat Bush, they are going to have to be unified. A vote for a Nader, or anybody else who is not the democratic candidate, is a vote for Bush this time around. The dems get this, and so do all but the most extreme left-wing fringe.

    I'm not worried about a Nader run.

    Kerry and Edwards on Stephanopoulus? Kerry is creaming Edwards in polls so far in NY and California. In upstate NY, which is more socially conservative than the metropolitan area, a place where Edwards expects his message will resonate better, Kerry leads with over 70% of those polled pledging their support for him. Also, greater than 50% of those responding in both polls listed themselves as "having made up their minds, and weeks ago".

    Could Edwards still turn this around? Sure. But I still think, despite a bloody battle coming up, it's looking more and more like Kerry. The media boosting-followed-by-deflating-of-the-candidates-on-a-dime doesn't help either.

    We shall see.

    Peace,

    V-03
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.