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. Obi-Wan McCartney Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 17, 1999
    star 5
    Singing Different Tunes
    Kerry and Edwards want to focus on the economy; Bush is talking about gay marriage. How the candidates are trying to hit the right notes?and set different agendas?on the campaign trail.



    Douglas C. Pizac / AP
    Volunteers count ballots in Utah's Democratic Party headquarters on Tuesday. Sen. John Kerry won the presidential primary with more than 50 percent of the vote
    WEB EXCLUSIVE
    By Richard Wolffe
    Newsweek
    Updated: 3:05 p.m. ET Feb. 25, 2004Feb. 25 -

    They are the states the candidates forgot. Utah, Idaho and Hawaii dropped off the traveling schedules of the surviving contenders for the Democratic nomination for president (with the exception of Dennis Kucinich, who found a fine excuse for a couple of tropical trips). Yet the voters of those three great states pointed clearly to what lies ahead in next week?s showdown on Super Tuesday. Sure, there may be the world of difference between Salt Lake City and San Francisco. But the numbers are surprisingly similar.

    Kerry swept Tuesday?s contests with more than 50 percent of the vote in Utah and Idaho, and only a little less (46 percent) in Hawaii. That tracks closely with Kerry?s latest figures in the far bigger states next week. In New York, the most recent polls give Kerry between 53 and 66 percent of the vote. In California he?s also running at more than 50 percent, and in the crucial swing state of Ohio he?s around 45 percent. The three states that just voted may be relatively unimportant come the fall when Utah and Idaho will surely vote heavily for President George W. Bush and Hawaii will lean just as heavily the other way. They may also look very different from the battleground states of the general election. But the Democratic voters in all three look a lot like the base in the rest of the nation.

    Of course, the race isn?t over. Kerry still needs to survive two high-profile debates in New York and Los Angeles, and John Edwards could still surge. But Kerry?s very strong showing in this week?s votes?and next week?s polls?suggest that Edwards is a long, long way from staging the kind of leap he needs to steal the nomination. There is now less than a week for the North Carolina senator to close a 30- or 40-point gap. And this time around, a good second place will represent almost certain defeat in the delegate count, rather than another reason to be optimistic about his future prospects.

    As if the numbers weren?t daunting enough for Edwards, the White House has moved rapidly into general-election mode. Even if Edwards wants the race to continue, President Bush has acknowledged twice in two days that his likely opponent comes from Massachusetts. The first moment came on Monday when he mocked ?the senator from Massachusetts? for what looks like flip-flopping on tax cuts, trade and the war in Iraq. On Tuesday, Bush announced his support for a constitutional amendment against gay marriage by citing congressional votes on the Defense of Marriage Act. Among the 14 senators who voted against the act was John Kerry. In case that reference was too obscure, the president mentioned the Massachusetts court ruling on the constitutionality of gay marriages before discussing the far more prominent events at city hall in San Francisco. That?s a curious reversal of what?s gaining public attention. Massachusetts has yet to begin issuing marriage licenses to gay couples, while San Francisco has already issued thousands.

    Gay marriage remains far down the list of concerns for voters, especially when compared to other issues. A recent Gallup poll showed just 6 percent of voters citing moral, religious or family issues as the most important facing the country. That compared to 21 percent citing the economy and 20 percent saying jobs. War issues came in third place at 14 percent with health care and terrorism tied for fourth at 11 percent. Public opinion about the economy is shifting rapidly in the wrong direction for the White House. On the same day President Bush took his stand on gay marriage, the Conference Board reported a sharp
  2. Jediflyer Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Dec 5, 2001
    star 5
    While we are all posting articles on the various positions of the candidates, check out this refutation of Kerry being against dozens of weapon systems:


    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.

  3. Obi-Wan McCartney Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 17, 1999
    star 5
    Aha, here is that last post.

    Wow. Captain Obvious came out of retirement! Flame Flame Flame Flame ShaneP, did you read my post?

    Of course I know the difference. Now, do you understand that say that compared to Democrats, Republicans TEND to be more conservative than Liberal? Do you know what "tend" means? Do you know what left and right are? Did you know that leftist is most commonly associated with liberal, whereas say right-wing is more apt for descrbing conservatives?

    Did you know that compared to republicans, Democrats TEND to be more liberal? Are you aware of some of the major divisive issues this country faces? And by country, I mean the United States. Did you know that? Did you know I meant that?

    Can you comprehend the difference between supporting a party because they usually share your outlook on major social issues and supporting a party without even knowing which IDEAology they generall subscribe to?

    Now, I don't know why you feel the need to discuss basic civics with me, but I thought I addressed that sometimes the PARTY (Democrat) doesn't always follow the IDEAology (liberal), and gave an brief example (the Defense of Marriage Act. Are you familiar with it? It's this law that President Clinton, whom I greatly admire, signed. It states that marriage as recognized by the feds is between a man and a woman. It states that states cannot be forced to recognize same sex marriages. Now, this is an example of a law that that, if I were a strict partisan, I would support, but since I know the difference, I don't.
  4. MoonTheLoon Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jun 23, 2001
    star 4
    The way that I understand it, is that if Mass passes legislation to allow gay marriage, then a couple can move to Mass., get married, then move to another state. When in that other state, it must recognize the sanctitiy of that marriage in all legal realms (insurance, wills, tax returns, ect.)

    So, by pointing out that this is a "States Rights" issue, the Dems are actually taking away states rights.

    The amendment that Bush proposes, again as I understand it, does not outlaw gay marriage. Rather, it exempts the states from being forced to legally recognize other laws that are in place in other states. The main example being the Mass. marriages. So in another set of words, supporting the proposed amendment would actually be supporting states rights.

    The Dems have seriously overlooked this, and as an Edwards supporter, I'm disturbed that as a former lawyer he has not instructed his camp about this.
  5. Mr44 VIP

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 6
    That's not exactly true.

    The proposed FMA would define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. (It wouldn't prohibit any kind of parallel civil union statutes)

    It was the DOMA that defined marriage at the federal level, but allowed states to adopt their own legislation, without honoring other states' laws that conflict.

    So far, there has been no DOMA challenge, so nobody knows how the SC will rule. It really could go either way.

    However, it is also important to realize that no one has yet proposed an actual amendment, nor has the process even been started.
  6. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 9
    MoonTheLoon: ...Jeb Bush in '08...

    Jeb Bush running for President? [face_laugh]

    If so, ATTN: All sane Americans, come to Australia before it's too late!

    E_S
  7. MoonTheLoon Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jun 23, 2001
    star 4
    Anyone watching the debate?
  8. liberalmaverick Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Feb 17, 2004
    star 3
    DM:
    These are the facts.

    Kerry can't dispute his voting record.


    No, but he can dispute the charge that he's "wiffle-waffled" or "stood on both sides" on the issues. That charge is the farthest thing from fact.
  9. TripleB Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2000
    star 4
    Maverick said

    No, but he can dispute the charge that he's "wiffle-waffled" or "stood on both sides" on the issues. That charge is the farthest thing from fact.

    Oh sure, if you take his most ardent left wing positions, sure those have never changed. But virtually any issue that could be considered a 'Centrist' issue, not only has he wiffle waffled on the issue, but he continues to do so.

    US Vets, Vietnamese Demonstrate Against Kerry
    32 minutes ago Add Politics to My Yahoo!

    NEW YORK (Reuters) - Around 200 U.S. Army veterans and Vietnamese people demonstrated outside Democratic presidential front-runner John Kerry (news - web sites)'s New York headquarters on Saturday to protest his opposition decades ago to the Vietnam War.

    Related Links
    ? Kerry's Vietnam Years (NPR)

    Waving American and South Vietnamese flags and singing the U.S. national anthem, they held up signs saying "Hanoi John," and "Kerry Betrayed Vietnam Vets."


    "We won't sit by and let the American people think that we are going to stand by somebody who stabbed us in the back," said Jerry Kiley, a veteran and one of the protest organizers.


    Kerry, a Massachusetts senator and probable presidential challenger to President Bush (news - web sites) in November, became a leader of the anti-war movement after returning from Vietnam, where he was decorated with a Silver Star, a Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts.

    "John Kerry served his country honorably," said Mark Kornblau, New York spokesman for Kerry's campaign. "This protest is being organized by an individual who has made a career of profiting from tragedy."

    Questions about Kerry's anti-war activities arose after some Democrats made an issue of Bush's service in the domestic Air National Guard, questioning whether he showed up for duty in Alabama in the early 1970s.

  10. Darth Mischievous Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 12, 1999
    star 6
    That charge is the farthest thing from fact.


    Think what you want; it doesn't change the facts.

    He's a wiffle-waffler in his voting record, and you're willing to excuse it based upon your ideological agreement with him.
  11. Jediflyer Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Dec 5, 2001
    star 5
    How do you become a waffler and an ideologue at the same time, DM?



  12. Darth Mischievous Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 12, 1999
    star 6
    Kerry's appealing to his base consituency (by voting for liberal issues, e.g., against the DOMA, et cetera), but politically maneuvering to appeal to moderates. He's not taking firm stands one way or the other for the sake of political expediency (against the Iraq war, then for the Iraq war, then against the Iraq war, and so on).
  13. Gonk Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 8, 1998
    star 6
    Kerry's appealing to his base consituency (by voting for liberal issues, e.g., against the DOMA, et cetera), but politically maneuvering to appeal to moderates. He's not taking firm stands one way or the other for the sake of political expediency (against the Iraq war, then for the Iraq war, then against the Iraq war, and so on).

    GEE DM, and Bush NEVER does that and NEVER flip-flops. Never mind his stance on gay marriage now stands in opposition to when his position in 2000 was to leave the matter up to the states. But now he has to have a constitutional amendment and somehow that's not a flip-flop at all.

    Oh, but wait, he was 'troubled' by the events in certain states. Aw, I guess the states are allowed to do what they like as long as it doesn't disagree with him.

    Oh, but they're 'breaking the law' in San Francsisco. Fine, then let California deal with its own law. Let it deal with the mayor of San Francisco in its own way. Now suddenly the states can't manage things for themselves, they need a constitutional amendment.

    Unlike the conservatives against Kerry DM, we HAVE the quotes that outlined Bush's stance on gay marriage in 2000 and it is a DEFINATE flip-flop, from states-rights to constitutional amendment.
  14. TripleB Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2000
    star 4
    I woudl say Bush is appealing to his constituency on the Federal Marriage Amendment. The problem is, he is appealing to the Right and Center of this country. THe fact that most of you liberals seem to have is that only the most left wing left is on your side with this one; Right wing and Middle America are on the same side with this one.
  15. Fire_Ice_Death Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2001
    star 7
    Except when it comes to actually making an amendment.
  16. Gonk Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 8, 1998
    star 6
    I would say Bush is appealing to his constituency on the Federal Marriage Amendment.

    Really? I'd say he just flip-flopped. The actual issue is not the point: the president clearly had one stance, and now in the election year suddenly has another. Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones, as the saying goes.
  17. Darth_OlsenTwins Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    May 18, 2002
    star 5
    As a good Republican, I am really disappointed in Bush's stance on the proposed marriage amendment.
  18. Gonk Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 8, 1998
    star 6
    D_S: I certainly wouldn't blame you.

    Kerry has noted he's against the Death Penalty. I'd wager he has some pretty strong reasons for his views. However I'm pretty certain he isn't about to amend the constitution or make national laws outlawing the death penalty.

    The reverse is not true.
  19. QuanarReg Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Aug 17, 2002
    star 3
    I saw an interesting report on the news today, from a non parisan magazine that rates Senators on how liberal or how conservative they are.


    Interesting enough, guess who came in number one. John Kerry.


    Even more interesting is the number two most liberal Senator of 2003 was John Edwards.



  20. Vaderize03 Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Oct 25, 1999
    star 5
    So what?

    This isn't going to work anymore.[/]

    John Kerry will not run from the label of "liberal". He will embrace it. By doing so, he has a chance of redefining the term and grabbing turf under the liberal mantra that the President thinks he has locked up.

    It's all about the rhetoric, people. Dukakis didn't fight. Clinton out-charismaed the fight. Kerry will meet them head-on, and he just might carry the day.

    Liberal is only a curseword if you allow it to be. John Kerry will not.

    Peace,

    V-03
  21. Darth Mischievous Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 12, 1999
    star 6
    Liberals don't win general national elections (for the Presidency) by being liberals, V03.

    If Kerry fully embraces the mantra of 'liberal', he knows he will lose - hence why he's trying to position himself outside of that term. Unfortunately for him, he won't be able to do it b/c his record is something that will come back to dispute any such maneuvering.
  22. Mr44 VIP

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 6
    I would have to agree with DM, here VO3.

    I certainly think Kerry has been the most
    "Presidential," out of any the Dem candidates, however, being a political insider (which is not automatically a bad thing), he has engaged in anything but a direct confrotation on the issues.

    Kerry has done almost anything he can to avoid a "liberal" label. he certainly hasn't tackled the issue head on.

    Maybe this will change once it is his record pitted against the current administration's..

    As of yet though, Kerry hasn't embraced anything liberal, even though he is quite rooted in its policies.
  23. ShaneP Ex-Mod Officio

    Member Since:
    Mar 26, 2001
    star 6
    Vaderize, a reporter tried to get Kerry to admit he was liberal in the last dem debate in NY, and he just wouldn't do it. He didn't say "No, I'm not!". He dodged it.

    He's certainly not embracing "liberal".
  24. Gonk Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 8, 1998
    star 6
    I recall him on CNN saying "You want to call me Liberal, go ahead and call me that"
  25. Mr44 VIP

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 6
    Yeah, that's exactly the point.

    Kerry deflects it back to the person asking.

    He'll gladly say "if you want to call me a liberal..fine"

    What he never says is "I am a liberal."

    Part of the problem with the word is that the democrats themselves treat it as a bad word, which of course, just adds to its power.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.