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. scum&villainy Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 8, 1999
    star 4
    sellars:
    "scum& villainy, tell me more about these so called rumors..."
    I can't. It's just rumours, that's all.

    I heard afew days ago that a divorce was imminent. Could be scurrilous, salacious gossip, of course, but it seemed so leftfield, I'm inclined to believe.
  2. Gonk Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 8, 1998
    star 6
    Personally I blame Bill Clinton for all this division in America for two reasons. First, the fact that he was, yes, a bit sleazy. And secondly, for not telling people to get over the fact that he was a bit sleazy and was not Richard Nixon.
  3. Gonk Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 8, 1998
    star 6
    Personally, I think at the end of Super Tuesday Edwards could have Utah and Georgia, but that's about it. Possibly Ohio, at the outside. But it won't be enough.

    EDT: Whoops, wrong state.
  4. QuanarReg Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Aug 17, 2002
    star 3
    Umm, We (Michigan) already voted.
  5. DeathStar1977 Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 31, 2003
    star 4
    QR

    Umm, We (Michigan) already voted.

    And you voted for Kerry right? [face_mischief]

    Hey, I don't know if I asked you, have you ever hunted Wild Boar? There is a small chance (due to my hectic schedule) that I might head down to Georgia (I think he said Georgia) with a friend of mine to hunt Boar sometime soon.

  6. QuanarReg Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Aug 17, 2002
    star 3
    "And you voted for Kerry right?

    Hey, I don't know if I asked you, have you ever hunted Wild Boar? There is a small chance (due to my hectic schedule) that I might head down to Georgia (I think he said Georgia) with a friend of mine to hunt Boar sometime soon."


    Oh, yeah, I ALMOST voted for Kerry. Actually, I voted for you Deathstar as a write-in. :D If they are going to have Democratic nominee they mind as well have one who likes to hunt!



    But, no, sadly I have never hunted Wild Boar, all though I've heard it's a fun hunt. I know a guy around here who goes down south and does and he's speaks highly of it. BUT, I did land myself a Turkey permit for spring. So that is awesome. Turkey, Boar, and Elk. Those are kind of my dreams. Or maybe moose. Haha.

    But yeah, with work, and a girl, and everything I havne't found much time to get out and do Coyote hunting. And with this snow we've been having. (We are up to 244 inches so far)



    But to bring this back on topic.....Boy, what an exciting election this will be.


  7. sellars1996 Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Jun 19, 2002
    star 3
    Thanks for the heads up, scum&villainy ... I will alert you if I find anything here.

    P.S. DS1977, come hunt boars in Texas. There is a huge feral pig problem and the counties around here are exhausting all the bounty money they have to hunters. You can have fun and make money, what a deal.

    P.P.S. I have never hunted or shot a gun in my life though, much less driven a pickup ... I guess I am one confused Texan, though I did own a pair of Western boots once, like C&W music, vote Republican, drink beer, support the death penalty, and like to grouse about all the Yankees and Californians moving here ... ;)
  8. liberalmaverick Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Feb 17, 2004
    star 3
    I think that when it comes to voting records, people have to be careful about jumping to conclusions about a person's opinion on a given subject, based on that vote alone.

    I think that we can all safely say that a good 75% of the time, Senators/Representatives vote based on their opinion on the subject and/or that of their consitutients.

    But there can be a lot of reasons to vote against a bill while still supporting the basic idea behind it, or vice versa. There could be a small but potentially explosive provision buried in the bill that the legislator doesn't want to see passed. This explains many Democrats' vote against the partial birth abortion ban passed last year (because it didn't have a provision protecting the health of the mother).

    Votes have to be explained, yes. Senator Kerry has already explained a number of votes in question. On the Persian Gulf War, he voted against it because he didn't think there was a broad consensus on it among the American people. On the 2003 Iraq War, he voted for it to give the President and the UN a threat for President Hussein, but he never intended it to be a vote for war. On the No Child Left Behind Act, he supported the Act but his main criticism lies in the underfunding of it. On the Patriot Act, he voted for it because it improved intelligence and counterterrorism efforts, and he swallowed the civil liberty infringements because he thought that the administration would not abuse their power, and that those new powers' presence in the legislation didn't warrant a "no" vote. He voted against the $87 billion because he feared that the President would misuse these funds. (These explanations are to the best of my knowledge, and are by no means the end-all-be-all explanation to Sen. Kerry's voting record; if you want to verify the truth I recommend that you contact Senator Kerry himself.)

    The point is, you can make assumptions about a vote if there's nothing to the contrary, but if there's an explanation the responsible voter must heed and recognize it.
  9. ShaneP Ex-Mod Officio

    Member Since:
    Mar 26, 2001
    star 6
    liberamaverick,
    good point about the little things, riders, provisions, attached to bills causing senators to vote against it.

    However, don't forget to mention those little details that can lead to Senators who otherwise would vote against something say "I".

    The current Highway Bill is a good example.

    Log-rolling and voter-trading are other causes too.
  10. TripleB Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2000
    star 4
    Vaderize03 said

    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 would agree that he won't have as big of an effect as you might think, but for different reasons. Mostly that the people that support Nader are going to see their freak fringe left wing extremist views reflected in John Kerry's own character. THe result is the anti-war protestors, freak enviromentalists, gay marriage advocates, etc will not need to go for Ralph Nader advocating their views when Kerry will do it for them.
  11. drops_of_jupiter Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    May 29, 2002
    star 2
    Nice thread you guy have going on here.

    I just wanted to ask if anybody knew anything about how Kerry/Edwards stand on the military. Meaning, do they want to increase spending, decrease spending, etc.
    thanks.
  12. TripleB Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2000
    star 4
    Jupiter asked

    I just wanted to ask if anybody knew anything about how Kerry/Edwards stand on the military. Meaning, do they want to increase spending, decrease spending, etc.
    thanks.


    When Edwards first took office and Clinton was president, he essentially toed the party line on Defense. He did not do anything Oustanding one way or another for or against the military, since he took office in 1999, there was not a whole lot going on in the world militarily at the time.

    So in truth, he has very little experience on Defense issues. He voted for going into afghanistan, voted to go into Iraq, but voted against the additional funding the military needed to continue operations there, which certainly could be used against him. He has been a proponent of supporting the troops in general.

    John Kerry is about the opposite. HIs record on supporting the US Military as a US SENATOR is abysmal at best. Going back to 1985, when Kerry first sworn in as a US Senator, he voted against every one of Reagans Defense Budgets that came up during those 3 years when Reagan was still in office. He voted to udnercut the Veterans Administration, voted against new weapon system, voted against practically everything Reagan did for the military during that time.

    He voted for even greater cuts in the Military when the drawdown began when the first Bush took office, voted against Desert Storm.

    WHen CLinton took office, Kerry was the one who introduced the legislation to reduce the army down to 10 Divisions, when all Generals were saying that we needed 12 active duty divisions to get the job done (note, we could sure use those two extra divisions today). Kerry voted to slash military spending and often was the leading proponent against the Veterans Administration, voted to cut benefits to military retiree's, there was a lot more.

    As I have said in previous threads, Kerry can beat the Vietnam War Veteran drum all he wants, I commend his service in Vietnam.
    B
    But his record on the military as a US Senator, which counts for much more, is among the worst in the Senate, perhaps even the Worst. Even Ted Kennedy has a better record on supporting the US military then Kerry has.
  13. MoonTheLoon Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jun 23, 2001
    star 4
    Edwards is for a strong democratic presence in the middle east and Arab nations. He has several plans for democratic success that have worked before in bringing peoples of different ethnicities together under democracy. These are much more thought out even at this early stage of his presidential campaign than what either Gore or Bush had when they were running.

    Edwards supports better insurance coverage for current military service men & women, as well as lifetime medical benefits for personnel retired from the military. He's also against any veterans benefits cuts. People sometimes don't realize that in all the bragging the GOP does about strengthening the military, that veterans benefits are among the most rastically cut government expenditures under GOP rule. For all that Reagan did that was pro-military, he did just as bad in Veterans Affairs. The same thing with Bush 41, and it's happening again under Bush 43.

    Singling out the fact that the President has no concrete long term plans for a "blueprint for democracy" in Iraq, Edwards voted against the 'Blank check for Iraq' & the $87 billion budget request. Also, Edwards cited the White House for irrespnsible governing; suggesting the appropriations would only find their way into the hands of the big companies that are closely aligned with the GOP. Edwards renewed his call for an independent panel to oversee reconstruction contracts to ensure they are awarded fairly and through a competitive process, not for political payoffs.

    If you're asking directly about military spending, Edwards has said, "I have fought to make sure our armed forces have the resources they need to do their job well." So I don't think a Clintonian military cut and reduction is a part of his agenda.

    In response to Triple B's synopsis of Edwards:

    He did not do anything Oustanding one way or another for or against the military, since he took office in 1999, there was not a whole lot going on in the world militarily at the time.

    Most of Edwards time during 1999 and 2000 was devoted to constructing the Patients Welfare Bill under managed healthcare (aka "Patients Bill of Rights"). It is unheard of to assign a rookie senator such a daunting task. The bill did pass the Senate, but it failed to become law.

    So in truth, he has very little experience on Defense issues. He voted for going into afghanistan, voted to go into Iraq, but voted against the additional funding the military needed to continue operations there, which certainly could be used against him.

    See above. His national security credentials are stronger than what Bush's were when he ran in 2000. I think he was on the Senate Intelligence Committee as well. Like I said above, he has strong plans not only for foreign affairs but for domestic anti-terrorism initiatives as well.



  14. Darth Fierce Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Feb 6, 2000
    star 4
    Will either Kerry or Edwards repeal the Patriot Act?
  15. MoonTheLoon Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jun 23, 2001
    star 4
    Edwards voted for the Patriot Act, but if elected would try to implement the following amendments:

    1- Establish new protections for library and business records, limit the government's authority to search homes without giving people notice and require the Department of Justice to disclose more information about its use of special surveillance powers.

    2- Strengthen due process rights for people arrested on American soil as an "enemy combatant" without access to a lawyer or a day in court. He says appropriate limits on choice of lawyers and judicial forum could be imposed.

    3- Creation of a new Homeland Intelligence Agency. He says the Federal Bureau of Investigation is a law enforcement agency, not an agency able to track and stop terrorists. The agency would focus entirely on intelligence gathering and analysis, have an independent Office of Civil Liberties, and be subject to new judicial review and public disclosure requirements.

    Kerry voted for the Patriot Act, but plans to let the act expire without congressional approval if elected.

  16. TripleB Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2000
    star 4
    Sitting on a Committee is not in the end anything really daunting. All that is done is the asking of questions.

    I am not knocking Edwards on Defense here. I am just saying that as a Senator, it is undistinguished on this particular subject It is all up to you to read anything more into it.
  17. Darth Fierce Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Feb 6, 2000
    star 4
    Thanks for the answer, MoonTheLoon. :)

    I'm just wondering how the topic of the Patriot Act would be addressed in the debates. With so many Dems/libs/anti-Bush/etc, etc.... so vehemently opposed to it, I'll be curious to see if Bush's opponent attacks it outright, or simply proposes to amend it, or decides not to make an issue of it at all. It could be one of those things where, once elected, a candidate quietly reverses their opinion and decides not to reduce government's power after all.
  18. MoonTheLoon Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jun 23, 2001
    star 4
    Sitting on a Committee is not in the end anything really daunting

    If you're referring to Edward's involvement in crafting the Patient's Bill of Rights legislation (which is where the adjective 'daunting' was applied), it was much more than that. That's like saying "Thomas Jefferson sat on the committee that drafted the Declaration of Independence."

    If you're referring to being on the Senate Intelligence Committee, it's still more experience than what Bush had.

    Fierce, that's a good point. I do think it's refreshing that Edwards would at least review the Patriot Act, while Kerry would simply let it expire into oblivion.

    I wish you should do a Bush vs. Edwards map.
  19. Mr44 VIP

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 6
    Except you are failing to mention one major detail there Moon..

    How much of that list is purely politically based, and has no basis in reality?

    1- Establish new protections for library and business records, limit the government's authority to search homes without giving people notice and require the Department of Justice to disclose more information about its use of special surveillance powers.

    What new protections "for library records" are needed, and how do they relate to the Patriot Act? Unless one is simply playing on undefined fears, that is..

    So called sneek and peek searches were authorized BEFORE Patriot, and still require judical authorization(which they always did)

    "special surveillance powers?" What exactly are these? And how does one disclose an undefined term?

    2- Strengthen due process rights for people arrested on American soil as an "enemy combatant" without access to a lawyer or a day in court. He says appropriate limits on choice of lawyers and judicial forum could be imposed.

    None of this was contained in the Patriot Act, even if not Patriot specific, the precedent for this action has existed for 63 years, and is part of what the Supreme Court is reviewing in April.

    3- Creation of a new Homeland Intelligence Agency.

    You mean because additional layers of government are always helpful? I thought Edwards was criticizing the President about spending..

    How is Edward's agency going to be paid for, and how is redundancy going to be reduced between it, the CIA, and the FBI?

    Additionally, the FBI has already switched its focus from law enforecement to anti-terrorism.. Unless the 900 new intelligence analysts that were hired are simply getting coffee..

    I continue with veteran's issues, and Edward's so called "independent oversight" committes..

    Much of what you just posted are campaign promises, with vaguely defined criteria and no mention of how they are going to be paid for..
  20. TripleB Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2000
    star 4
    Let me state it again....

    Sitting on a Committee on the US Senate is not in the end anything close to real executive experience, nor is it anything close to drafting the Constitution, nor is it anything truely demanding. YOu sit on a comitteee. You ask questions, you meet in private for the real meat of an argument, it is not in the end such a huge matter.

    Why do you suppose so many Senators fail as Presidential candidates?
  21. Gonk Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 8, 1998
    star 6
    Why do you suppose so many Senators fail as Presidential candidates?

    Because since Nixon everyone wants to elect an 'outsider' -- a governor. Which is a rediculous reason since the first thing that happens to the political outsider is that they are absorbed by Washington. In the end the 'executive experience' of running a state is an insufficient resume compared to active Washington experience.

    Not to mention even Edwards's lack of experience is favorable to GWB's dismal experiences. GWB has opened up rifts and created no new alliances. Internationally, his administration is more of a burden for how the world views it than a plus. By that token a resume with no international experience would be preferable to one that includes frosty relations with Germany and France and a political disagreement that drew political objectors from those two nations in addition and not limited to Russia, China, India, Mexico, Canada, Brazil and viturally every Arab nation minus Turkey. In those nation where he was supported there were majority opinions against his efforts.

    Thus, I would not count any inexperience on the part of Edwards against him considering who he would be running against.
  22. TripleB Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2000
    star 4
    Gonk said

    Because since Nixon everyone wants to elect an 'outsider' -- a governor. Which is a rediculous reason since the first thing that happens to the political outsider is that they are absorbed by Washington. In the end the 'executive experience' of running a state is an insufficient resume compared to active Washington experience.

    The american people seem to disagree with you. The fact is they like to elect Governors or incumbent Vice Presidents when given the option and that is a fair thing for the voters to take into consideration.

    Not to mention even Edwards's lack of experience is favorable to GWB's dismal experiences.

    Bah!

    GWB has opened up rifts and created no new alliances. Internationally, his administration is more of a burden for how the world views it than a plus. By that token a resume with no international experience would be preferable to one that includes frosty relations with Germany and France and a political disagreement that drew political objectors from those two nations in addition and not limited to Russia, China, India, Mexico, Canada, Brazil and viturally every Arab nation minus Turkey. In those nation where he was supported there were majority opinions against his efforts.

    And I can blame a lot of these leftist leaning nations for not coming to the plate for the US and proving they were not our allies to begin with. I dont' give a rats arse about what other country's think and if the rest of the world is Anti-Bush, I think that will help the american people solidify aroudn Bush.

    Thus, I would not count any inexperience on the part of Edwards against him considering who he would be running against.

    I won't hold it in favor of him either.
  23. Mr44 VIP

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 6
    Thus, I would not count any inexperience on the part of Edwards against him considering who he would be running against.

    But then again, how does that lack of experince help him?

    Take most of his campaign issues..What practices are they based on, save Edwards is simply saying what he thinks will get him elected?

    For example, Edwards points to the current excesive spending levels of the administration, but then proposes to create an all new government agency, focusing on intelligence.

    Where are the finances for this start up going to come from? Does Edwards even have intelligence experience?

    You can't simply create intel assets out of the air. Any knew agency would have to start "cold," and therefore, be behind the curve from its inception.

    Even the Dept of Homeland security consolidated various agencies, it didn't create new ones.

    The FBI can more easily switch its focus, than create an entirely new agency..

    Or takes jobs.. Edwards simply says, as his cornerstone for job creation, that he will give a 10% tax credit to companies that produce goods at home.

    What goods? For what market? Where will the lost tax revenue come from?

    Additionally, his plan to restore jobs in lost areas is nothing more than a step backward for productivity.

    You can't simply re-open outdated steel plants, or re-staff inefficient textile mills, and expect their goods to remain competitive.

    It's a pipe dream that will never happen.

    Edwards sounds good, and looks good, but I don't see any real substance..
  24. ShaneP Ex-Mod Officio

    Member Since:
    Mar 26, 2001
    star 6
    Additionally, his plan to restore jobs in lost areas is nothing more than a step backward for productivity.

    Maybe there's a reason the areas are now "lost"?

    Migration is a part of America.


  25. Mr44 VIP

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 6
    Yes, I would tend to agree, and that's why the issue can't be boiled down to an election slogan.

    That's where his lack of experience hurts him.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.