2004 Presidential Election

[JSE]

I am confused on Kerry's record. Does he show up in the Senate or not? In one sentence I hear that he isn't there 90% or more of the time, then next I hear he votes hundreds of times against defending the country. How many votes are there on defense, and is this all he shows up for? I would like for a Republican to tell me which it is, as they are making these claims. And while we are on this subject, didn't Cheney recommend the cuts in the late 80's/early90's that he did in fact vote to cut?

I think Kerry has been absent in last year or so due to his run for office. I personally believe if your going to run for office, you should give up your current position. Some do, some don't. You clearly can't do both. Is that fair to the people that voted to put you there to be a Senator?

In regard to Cheney or any Senator or Congressman , you have to look through the political rhetoric. Did Cheney vote in favor of certain cuts on military programs. Sure, but that does not mean he does not support the military. It might mean that program A is outdated and does not make sense anymore. We now need program B. Does the US need more F-15 fighters or does it need the newer more advance F-22? Older programs have to be cut to make room for newer ones. You can apply this logic to Dems. or Reps. The key is to look deeper, not just take a candidates version.

JSE

[dean_martin]

I am confused on Kerry's record. Does he show up in the Senate or not? In one sentence I hear that he isn't there 90% or more of the time, then next I hear he votes hundreds of times against defending the country. How many votes are there on defense, and is this all he shows up for? I would like for a Republican to tell me which it is, as they are making these claims. And while we are on this subject, didn't Cheney recommend the cuts in the late 80's/early90's that he did in fact vote to cut?

SRO - Here's Kerry's record on intelligence issues. www.factcheck.org, which incidentally shows that both campaigns are twisting the truth, has other assessments of his votes on taxes and defense spending. They may have attendance assessments as well.

Would Kerry Throw Us To The Wolves?
A misleading Bush ad criticizes Kerry for proposing to cut intelligence spending -- a decade ago, by 4%, when some Republicans also proposed cuts.

October 23, 2004
Modified: October 23, 2004
eMail to a friend Printer Friendly Version

Summary



A new Bush ad claims Kerry supported cuts in intelligence “so deep they would have weakened America ’s defenses” against terrorists, and shows a pack of hungry-looking wolves preparing to attack. Actually, the cut Kerry proposed in 1994 amounted to less than 4 percent, as part of a proposal to cut many programs to reduce the deficit.

And in 1995 Porter Goss, who is now Bush’s CIA Director, co-sponsored an even stronger deficit-elimination measure that would have cut CIA personnel by 20 percent over five years. When asked about that at his confirmation hearings he didn't disavow it.


Analysis



The Bush ad released Oct. 22 is called “wolves,” and is a direct appeal to fear.

Bush Cheney ‘04

“Wolves”

Announcer: In an increasingly dangerous world… Even after the first terrorist attack on America … John Kerry and the liberals in Congress voted to slash America ’s intelligence operations. By 6 billion dollars… Cuts so deep they would have weakened America ’s defenses. And weakness attracts those who are waiting to do America harm..

(On Screen: Several wolves eye the camera, as if preparing to attack.)

Bush: I’m George W Bush and I approve this message.

Speak Softly But
Use Scary Words and Pictures

Using a soft-spoken female announcer to deliver the harsh message, the ad shows blurry images of a dark forest and a pack of hungry-looking wolves eying the camera and apparently contemplating an attack.

The announcer says that “after the first terrorist attack on America ” Kerry “voted to slash America ’s intelligence operations.” The ad is misleading in several ways, some of which we went over last March when President Bush first accused Kerry of trying to “gut” the intelligence budget.

Here are the ways this ad misleads voters:

•Old news: The “first terrorist attack” the ad refers to didn't happen September 11, 2001, as some listeners assume. It actually was more than a decade ago, in 1993, when a truck bomb went off in the parking garage under one of the World Trade Center towers. In fact, Kerry was supporting regular increases in intelligence spending for several years prior to the attacks of September 11, 2001.

•Exaggerated Wording: Kerry never proposed a single $6-billion cut in intelligence spending. He did propose S.1826 (see "supporting documents" at right) which included a $1-billion cut in 1994. That measure also would have frozen intelligence spending at that reduced level through 1998, allowing it to rise only by the rate of inflation. That could fairly be called a $5-billion cut spread over five years.

Total intelligence spending is a classified figure, but was estimated at the time to be $27 billion per year. So, the cut Kerry proposed amounted to an estimated 3.7 percent -- hardly a proposal to "slash" expenditures. That measure was debated on the Senate floor and on Feb 10,1994 it was defeated 75-20 with 38 Democratic Senators voting against it.

The following year Kerry introduced another deficit-reduction package, S.1290 (see "supporting documents" at right). This one would have lowered the ceiling for intelligence spending by $300 million for five years starting in 1996. That would have amounted to a reduction of just over 1 percent of estimated intelligence spending.

Not only was this proposed reduction a small one, it came at a time when it had just become known that one intelligence agency had been hoarding $1 billion in unspent funds from its secret appropriations. Kerry's proposal died without a hearing, but a similar Republican-sponsored measure eventually became law (see below).

Saying that either of these proposals would “slash” spending is an exaggeration. Saying that a 4 percent or 1 percent cut would have “weakened America ’s defenses” is an opinion which the Bush campaign has a perfect right to state, but it is not a fact.

•Missing Context: The ad doesn’t tell the whole story. Some Republicans also supported similar cuts in intelligence spending at the time, including Bush’s current CIA Director Porter Goss.

Goss co-sponsored a draconian, deficit-elimination bill in 1995 (see "supporting documents" at right) that would have cut the number of CIA employees by 20 percent or more over five years. Goss wasn't the main author -- he signed onto an 1,188-page bill authored by Gerald Solomon, the chairman of the House Rules Committee, of which Goss was a member. The measure died without a hearing and had no prospect of passage, as it called for elimination of the Departments of Education, Energy and Commerce among other things. When questioned about his co-sponsorship of the bill during his confirmation hearings in September Goss said only, "the record speaks for the record."

Another Republican-sponsored cut similar to Kerry's proposed 1995 measure actually became law. On the same day Kerry proposed his $1.5-billion cut spread over five years, the Senate passed by voice vote an amendment to eliminate $1 billion in intelligence funds for fiscal year 1996. That measure was proposed by Republican Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, and a companion measure was co-sponsored by Kerry and Republican Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama. The cut eventually became law as part of a House-Senate package endorsed by the Republican leadership. Specter explained at the time that the $1-billion cut was intended to recapture funds that had been appropriated for spy satellites, but which had gone unspent by the National Reconnaissance Office.


Sources



Dana Milbank, “Goss Backed '95 Bill to Slash Intelligence; Plan Would Have Cut Personnel 20%,” Washington Post, 24 Aug 2004 : A3.

"Hearing of the Senate Intelligence Committee: Nomination of Rep. Porter J. Goss to be Director of the Central Intelligence Agency," transcript, The Federal News Service, Inc., 14 Sep 2004.

103d Congress, 2d Session, S. 1826, "To reduce the deficit for fiscal years 1994 through 1998," 3 Feb. 1994.

104th Congress, 1st Session, S.1290, "To reduce the deficit," 25 Sep 1995.

104th Congress, 1st Session H.R. 1923, "To balance the budget of the United States Government by restructuring Government, reducing Federal spending, eliminating the deficit, limiting bureaucracy, and restoring federalism," 25 Jun 2004.




Related Articles
Bush Strains Facts Re: Kerry's Plan To Cut Intelligence Funding in '90's
President claims 1995 Kerry plan would "gut" the intelligence services. It was a 1% cut, and key Republicans approved something similar.

View Bush Ad "Wolves"


Title page and pertinent section of H.R. 1923, the 1995 bill co-sponsored by Porter Goss, which would have cut Intelligence personnel 20 percent over five years.

(.pdf - 20 KB)

Title page and pertinent sections of S.1826, Kerry's 1994 deficit-reduction bill, calling for a $1-billion cut and five-year freeze in intelligence spending.

(.pdf - 26 KB)
Title page and pertinent section of S.1290, Kerry's 1995 deficit-reduction bill to cut the ceiling for intelligence spending by $300 million for five years.

(.pdf - 12 KB)


FactCheck.org will send each new FactCheck and Special Report directly to your mailbox (disable pop-up blocker first).
Sign Up Now



Copyright 2004 Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania

Judgments expressed are those of FactCheck.org’s staff, not the Annenberg Center

[SRO]

I think Kerry has been absent in last year or so due to his run for office. I personally believe if your going to run for office, you should give up your current position. Some do, some don't. You clearly can't do both. Is that fair to the people that voted to put you there to be a Senator?

In regard to Cheney or any Senator or Congressman , you have to look through the political rhetoric. Did Cheney vote in favor of certain cuts on military programs. Sure, but that does not mean he does not support the military. It might mean that program A is outdated and does not make sense anymore. We now need program B. Does the US need more F-15 fighters or does it need the newer more advance F-22? Older programs have to be cut to make room for newer ones. You can apply this logic to Dems. or Reps. The key is to look deeper, not just take a candidates version.

JSE

I agree that you should not be able to do both. But, shouldnt it be stated that he has missed most of his votes in the last year. They are trying to portray it as he hasn't been there at any time in his career. Or that he has, a few minutes later. Oh well, if you didn't see the debates and only relied on out 5 second soundbite news companies, you would only get part of it anyway.

On the other hand, if you really set this precedent, then the sitting President would also have to give up his seat. Or, since we the President can sign documents anywhere, maybe we should allow Congress to absentee vote while campaigning. This could obviously lead to abuse if not worded properly in legislation.

I also do not think the incumbent should be able to use Air Force One ( or Two ) on any campaign trip, or fund raising trip, even if it is tied in with official business. Because of this, I am financially supporting the Bush re-election campaign. If they do, the cost should be reimbursed from their campaign funds. Maybe this is the case, I've just never heard of it happening.

In terms of the weapons programs, I once again agree. But most conservatives only see Kerry as having these positions. Check Factcheck.org. They seem to be the only non-partisan site for information. I don't remember for sure, but I believe they state that Kerry has only voted twice against the military budget. This was when we were trying to cut out many outdated programs from the cold war. I would ask everyone to look deeper in to both candidates, as there seems to be a double standard from many conservatives ( not necessarily you ) on Kerry's voting record here.

[nobody]

Here's a rather unusual endorsement from the American Conservative...

http://www.amconmag.com/2004_11_08/cover1.html

links to similar articles can be found here...

http://inprogress.typepad.com/republicanswitchers/


Unfortunately, for Kerry, more anti-Bush rather than pro-Kerry, which does indeed seem to be a trend. Still, that's kinda the way it goes running against an incumbent.

[piece-it pete]

Of course there are going to be those that will vote against him just because he is a Republican. It is not the right reason, but I know people who will only vote their party, Democrat or Republican. Bush is the incumbent, and if someone is not happy with his 4 years, it is perfectly acceptable to vote for Kerry. I am sure in 1996, many people used this rational in voting for Dole. Again, perfectly acceptable.

Well said. But it only goes so far, would you vote for Kusinich because he isn't Bush? One should still do his/her homework.

Voting your party is voting FOR someone.

I think overall Bush has done a decent job in the war on terror. I don't think we should have gone in to Iraq. At the very least, I want to be told the truth. If we in fact went in for freedom and democracy, when are we going to China? Oh, that's right, they supply us with cheap labor. While I am all for lower taxes, I would not lower them during a time like this. He KNEW that we were going to have increased spending. I don't make a lot of money, I don't live in a $10,000,000 house. I can barely afford the one I live in, so I am not going to quit my job. It's called budgeting, and Bush neds to get a clue on this. I don't understand conservatives supporting him. He never saw a spending bill he didn't love. Less money in, more money out. I wish I could live like that with no consequence. It will have to be paid back somehow. The next Democrat that gets in will probably raise taxes. This will be to balance the budget. Both sides will argue against cuts in their pet projects, and the Democrat will be called a "tax and spend liberal." Well, is Bush a "spend and spend conservative?"

To say there's no difference between dealing with slightly different countries like, say, Iraq and China, is at best naive, at worst disingenuous. We all know why we went into Iraq. We were wrong, from the short view. So pull out? Screw the Iraqis (again)? Are we going to stand with them, or not? Or do we just pay lip service? The world (including the Arabs) is watching.

We will always have increased spending, we're talking about politicians fer Petes' sake! And an increasingly spoiled electorate. Heath care! But balance the budget. Right. Wait! We can tax the rich till they leave. Which is what they will do, eventually.

I agree that Bush is no spending lightweight. I do not believe he's a true conservative. Nope. So elect Kerry? lol. Clinton was FAR more of a centrist in reality than Kerry. Heck, according to his actual voting record, ANYBODY is more centrist than Kerry. Oops, doesn't matter, after all, we're only voting to get rid of Bush.

That will straighten everything out.

I am confused on Kerry's record. Does he show up in the Senate or not? In one sentence I hear that he isn't there 90% or more of the time, then next I hear he votes hundreds of times against defending the country. How many votes are there on defense, and is this all he shows up for? I would like for a Republican to tell me which it is, as they are making these claims. And while we are on this subject, didn't Cheney recommend the cuts in the late 80's/early90's that he did in fact vote to cut?

He missed 64% of his votes in 03, over 80% this year. Previous to the campaign (2 years ago?), when he cared to vote, he never met a tax dollar he didn't like.

When the bill extending unemployment benifits failed to pass (employment was rising, but it was still a must for the budget balancing Libs), it lost by ONE VOTE. Guess who wasn't there? One of MANY missed votes.

He did make it to work to use a bill helping our boys as a political stunt - but he's not Bush.

I believe Cheney rec'd certain cuts as part of a reorganisation, NOT to loot the military for increased pork. Big difference! And what about the other hundreds of votes? Well, they don't matter 'cause it was the Cheney vote, the only one that matters, it proves the GOP is full of it.

Kerry should win 'cause, heck, he ain't Bush. That'll solve our problems!

Pete

[nobody]

Kerry should win 'cause, heck, he ain't Bush. That'll solve our problems!

Pete

Well, no not being Bush won't solve our problem. But, it could at the least stop us from continuing to make the same egregious errors we are making now, which would be a start.

[piece-it pete]

Well, no not being Bush won't solve our problem. But, it could at the least stop us from continuing to make the same egregious errors we are making now, which would be a start.

Again, getting rid of Bush for getting rid of hims' sake. What can we expect from Kerry?

Pete

[SRO]

Thanks to everyone who responded on the numbers for Kerry's voting record. I wish the politicians could have as civilized conservation as we seem to be settling into.

Pete:

I agree with you on voting for your party is a vote for someone. I just re-registered because of a move. When asked for affiliation, I chose " Decline to State". This leaves me out of the primary system. I'm stuck with whoever others put on the ballot for me. I tend to vote Democratic, but would have voted for McCain if the Repub's would have chosen him. He seems like one of the decent guys that are in office these days.

I was not being naive or disengeniuos about China. It's just that the reason for Iraq changes quite often. It seems as if I was one of the few that was against it from the beginning. I felt that since we had inspectors actually being able to finally do their jobs, we could have held off. If WMD's were found, go in and attack. Now we are bringing democracy and freedom to Iraq. This is why I brought up China, and got a little sarcastic with the cheap labor comment. I apologize for that. I am assuming that we needed a stable base in the Middle East, and Iraq is a great spot for that. That would be a tough sell to the American public, so other charges get trumped up.

According to FactCheck.org, Kerry is actually the 11th most liberal. I'm sure still too liberal for most. No offense, but for everyone to constantly repeat that he is the most liberal seems naive or disengenious. Or is it on purpose, to serve a specific political purpose?

I would like to see some honesty in politics. I know we are talking politicians, but do we not deserve it?

[nobody]

Less cowboy, go it alone policies, more work toward consensus, both within the country (necessitated by a Democrat in the White House having to work with a Republican Senate), and internationally with a leader with more respect for international institutions and laws.

Likely more sane fiscal policies.
Everyone wants to paint him a tax and spend liberal, but with the previously mentioned clash between executive and legislative branches, he's unlikely to be able to make any major spending plans fly, and there's no way he's gonna outspend Bush.

Less morally driven rhetoric and more discussion of "real" issues
I've had enough of what little talk isn't about Iraq going toward religious crusades like "saving" marriage and the like that I'm ready for a different set of priorities. Let's talk about giving corporations reasons to keep jobs in the US for a change.

The possibility of rational environmental policies
A president who doesn't think the consensus of scientists noticing the greenhouse effect merely constitutes a myth

Women's right to choose respected
A majority of the population supports a women's right to choose, so should our president. Supreme court nominations are at stake which will greatly affect this issue.

Stem cell research
Sure religious extremists tell you stem cell research isn't necessary, but I'm more likely to believe the scientists who actually have detailed knowledge of the subject over religious fanatics. (another example of science being sacrificed for ideology in the current climate)



Do I think Kerry is a perfect candidate? Absolutely not. But, to me the differences I just mentioned are more than enough for me to desire a change. and I didn't even mention Bush's deceptive policies around Iraq and the mess he's created over there.

[PPG]

I really don't understand why Bush is as high in the various national polls as he is. Seriously folks, do you think Kerry can screw the country up more than Bush & Cheney? Bush has over half the country playing right into his game plan: scaring everyone into believing he's the only one that can protect us from terrorism, and casting doubt on Kerry's ability to do better. There's some "conspiracy theories" that it's all part of the right's plan to incringe on our freedoms for the sake of "security" and I think there's a lot of weight to that theory, personally. Like John Edwards told Dick Cheney in their debate, "I don't think the country can take another four years of your experience."

[piece-it pete]

Thanks to everyone who responded ......... some honesty in politics. I know we are talking politicians, but do we not deserve it?

SRO,

1st please accept my apology if I came across a bit harsh, I get worked up and occasionally overreact.

I think that McCain would have a big surprise in store for his moderate supporters if elected!

The reason we went into Iraq everybody knows.

And the inspections were a joke.

Regardless, we are there, premature withdrawal would be a disaster! Kerry has got to know this, he isn't stupid, I'm sure, therefore, he's lieing. How can you plan what OTHER people are going to do?

We screw the Iraqis again, no Arab (and most of the rest of the world) will trust us for DECADES.

We stay strong, we will have friends, and be more respected by our enemies - they'll know that they just can't wait us out (what Saddam was sure of, and what the mullahs are telling their insurgents now), because we will have proved it.

And the fact that we're killing terrorists and sapping their resources is true. Ditto for having a base of operations, and an ally.

Because of this, the Admin is trying to explain to us why we are still there, and why we should stay. They know it is important, and are worried that we WILL tire and leave. But there is SO MUCH that can't be said openly, for worldwide political reasons. I've found a great deal of info in the back pages of the Sunday paper, under the guise of background briefings. They're telling us, we're not paying attention.

Kerry is VERY liberal, however, different rating groups will have different guidelines. Each group will use what best suits them, of course.

Take the economy. Worst job loss since the depression. Also, great gains in productivity: 17% since Bush came to power, more than in Clintons' entire two terms. So, same issue, different take.

BTW, since increased productivity is the only justifiable reason for sustainable increases in wages/earnings, I believe whoever wins will end up looking very good a coupla years or less down the road.

Honesty in politics - what a concept!



Are you under a barrage of political commercials? Those not in swing states have no idea how bitter this election is.

And they all suck. Hours of ads a day, not one iota of good info, equally true for both sides. Everyone complains, but many of our arguments are the same here (think of Moore), they must work or they wouldn't use them. We have met the enemy, and it is us!

I would argue that weare getting EXACTLY what we deserve.

That's nothing compared to the onslaught of lawsuits that will fly IMMEDIATELY after the results come out. I believe this undermines our system, but everyone will say "But it's not fair!" "Our guy actually won!" and perpetuate it. I think of the flawed Nixon (but man could we use his advice foreign policy wise right now!). Even he had enough class to leave the '60 election be, even though they had solid evidence of "irregularities" lol in Chicago (King Daley, cheat? Never!) and Texas, and that race was close enough for it to matter.

So I say to the Dems, (only partially tongue in cheek): At least be as classy and honorable as Nixon!

Heck the GOP probably's going to follow suit this cycle. We're all becoming weak-kneed whiners.

And how about the threat of car-bomb type attacks on polling places? We're gonna have SWAT patrols out in most commmunities here in Ohio, with police at each station. Ahh, the sweet smell of freedom. No wonder I like our actions in the Middle East.

Pete

BTW, I see that Ohio might become a lawsuit state, it's VERY close here and many of us still use butterfly ballots (I like them better than the electric machines, they are difficult to "fix"). I realise that some might not be able to work these things, but am not certain those folks matter all that much . Maybe I'll accidently vote for Nader. Oops, can't do that, the Dems had him thrown off the ballot!

Where's Buchanan?

[FLZapped]

T I just re-registered because of a move. When asked for affiliation, I chose " Decline to State". This leaves me out of the primary system. I'm stuck with whoever others put on the ballot for me.

Here in Florida, we have a category called "None" - it too leaves us out of the primaries. I think we should be given a primary ballot with all candidates of all parties so we can vote for whomever we wish......

-Bruce

[dean_martin]

Here in Florida, we have a category called "None" - it too leaves us out of the primaries. I think we should be given a primary ballot with all candidates of all parties so we can vote for whomever we wish......

-Bruce

The primary process is an interesting one. It's run soley by the political parties. In fact, a political party can choose it's candidate for the general election in any way it sees fit. It doesn't have to be by election. When a primary election is disputed in court, the only issue for the judge to decide (most of the time) is whether the party followed it's on procedures and/or by-laws regarding elections, candidate qualifications, etc. If its procedures were followed and the actual winner is still in dispute, then the party officials get to choose the winner. These are the general rules of primary elections; however, I'm sure there are exceptions.

[FLZapped]

That's nothing compared to the onslaught of lawsuits that will fly IMMEDIATELY after the results come out.

BTW, I see that Ohio might become a lawsuit state, it's VERY close here and many of us still use butterfly ballots (I like them better than the electric machines, they are difficult to "fix"). I realise that some might not be able to work these things, but am not certain those folks matter all that much . Maybe I'll accidently vote for Nader. Oops, can't do that, the Dems had him thrown off the ballot!

The dems have already said they are going to file lawsuits even where there is a large differential. It seems clear to me that Kerry and the democratic (communist) party is willing to sue their way to the White House regardless of the election outcome.

As for the paper ballots, I can no longer find it online, but there was a news video of one of the people doing manual recounts caught altering one of the cards.

-Bruce

[piece-it pete]

On Guarde!!



Wait, that's French .

Less cowboy, go it alone policies, more work toward consensus, both within the country (necessitated by a Democrat in the White House having to work with a Republican Senate), and internationally with a leader with more respect for international institutions and laws.

How did "cowboy" ever get to be a slur, when it embodies all that's great about us? I'd wear that title like a badge of honor.

The last cowboy president brought down the USSR, a MUCH bigger threat overall than our current crop of haters.

Let's take a quick glance at who runs these int'l groups. Western Europe: couldn't even handle Bosnia. Heck, they can't even decide what to put on their money, so they go with abstract drawings! UN: appointed lackeys, incapable of action. Africa:? Think of any other geopolitical base, be it Russia, China, the Middle East. Just whos laws should we be obeying? Where is there ANY leadership?

The Senate, at 51 GOP/ 49 Dem is in practical gridlock, think fillibuster. You need 60 votes to do anything truly controversial. And we don't know what's going to happen to that balance come election time.

Likely more sane fiscal policies.
Everyone wants to paint him a tax and spend liberal, but with the previously mentioned clash between executive and legislative branches, he's unlikely to be able to make any major spending plans fly, and there's no way he's gonna outspend Bush.

What is Kerrys' record? What has he been proposing? Capital flows worldwide show money LEAVES high tax countries and goes to low tax. Think outsourcing on a much larger scale.

Less morally driven rhetoric and more discussion of "real" issues
I've had enough of what little talk isn't about Iraq going toward religious crusades like "saving" marriage and the like that I'm ready for a different set of priorities. Let's talk about giving corporations reasons to keep jobs in the US for a change.

A good reason that speaks directly to businessmens' hearts is lower taxes.

As far as morals go, ALL laws are moral. And gay marriage has been pushed and supported mightly by the Libs, they are forcing it on us, not the other way around.

Judging by the state issues passed we don't like it much.

The possibility of rational environmental policies
A president who doesn't think the consensus of scientists noticing the greenhouse effect merely constitutes a myth.

This is a tough one for me.

Not because of the environment. I've always been an avid primitive camper, from the backwoods of Missouri to Algonquin, as well as a lifelong skier. I love the wild.

And I believe we are damaging it badly. Have you seen the sattellite pics from over China and India? Gigantic soot clouds, covering both countries in their entirety!, from burning coal in more or less open fires. Why they are not talking about Kyoto.

My problem: who decides? If we could have a consensus from the Scientific community, that would help. But giving the power to an international group of bureaucrats, many of whom don't like us much (understatement), doesn't sound like a very good solution to me.

The Pres that allows others to screw us will be hated and despised.

Women's right to choose respected
A majority of the population supports a women's right to choose, so should our president. Supreme court nominations are at stake which will greatly affect this issue.

Depends on HOW you ask. If you say "No abortion for any reason", you get a majority against. If you say "Parental notification", you get a majority for. There is extemists on both sides. Clinton vetoed the partial birth abortion ban - why?

The fact that the court decides shows me Jeffersons' fears were well founded. "The people" means "the legislature" not "the judges". Elect Dems, get activist judges who will tell you, with the FORCE of law, that they know what's best for you.

Stem cell research
Sure religious extremists tell you stem cell research isn't necessary, but I'm more likely to believe the scientists who actually have detailed knowledge of the subject over religious fanatics. (another example of science being sacrificed for ideology in the current climate).

Has anyone here looked up what this bruhaha is actually about? Politics, nothing more. No research has been slowed or stopped. It's a non-issue.

Do I think Kerry is a perfect candidate? Absolutely not. But, to me the differences I just mentioned are more than enough for me to desire a change. and I didn't even mention Bush's deceptive policies around Iraq and the mess he's created over there.

As you know, I think it would be a change for the worse. Deceptive? Throwing ribbons, keeping the metals, balancing the budget by increasing it, supporting the war, not supporting it, cutting the military budgetwise and morale-wise. Those baby-killing animals.

The mess, you can thank the mullahs for. Thank God (can I still say that?) it's not over here.

Pete

PS And why won't he release his military records?

[piece-it pete]

The dems have already said they are going to file lawsuits even where there is a large differential. It seems clear to me that Kerry and the democratic (communist) party is willing to sue their way to the White House regardless of the election outcome.

As for the paper ballots, I can no longer find it online, but there was a news video of one of the people doing manual recounts caught altering one of the cards.

-Bruce

So much for the voice of the people.

I heard one old timer say that a counter would glue a little piece of pin under their fingernail to punch out another chad on ballots going for the opposing party, invalidating the ballot.

And of course, eating chads!

Pete

[SRO]

Here in Florida, we have a category called "None" - it too leaves us out of the primaries. I think we should be given a primary ballot with all candidates of all parties so we can vote for whomever we wish......

-Bruce

I'm not sure a ballot with every candidate is a good idea. We actually tried an open primary a few years ago here in CA. It lasted for 1 primary and then was declared unconstitutional ( state constitution ). It was truly open, in that anyone registered to any party could vote for anyone on the ballot. If the parties were unprincipled ( certainly plausible ) and organized properly ( questionable, at best ), liberals could vote for the least electable conservative and vice versa. At least with voters registered to a specific party voting for their candidates should pick the person that best represents their beliefs. While this leaves us ( from your post I assume you are of the "None" party ) out of the system, we can't influence 1 parties choice. We have to pick the one we like best of the 2 choices. Somewhat unfortunate for us, but better for Democracy in the long run. At least that is my thinking.

[nobody]

I don't really like the whole going point for point because this thread could just grow way too big for my tastes and we both know that we could go back and forth forever and not settle anything. Briefly, I will say that I think many people underestimate the importance of following international guidelines. It makes friends, which are very useful, particularly in situations like where we find ourselves in Iraq. I think this fear of becomming the UN's ***** that I see so many people (not necessarily you) mention is just silly. We created the UN to be able to exercize some control over other countries and it works for us on that way more than it works against us. If you wanna be isolationist, stop spreading business concernes across the globe. You can't have it both ways.

We're already a low tax country. Personally, I'm more interested in the average standard of living and domestic job creation than I am in corporate profits and overall GDP and such. You can say one brings about the other, but I don't really see that borne out in all cases. Look at how productivity has skyrocketed while jobs have stagnated or been lost and real income has gone down. I'm really tired of the scheme of letting big money guys get what they want and expecting it to eventually help the rest of us. Too many people have been waiting for the trickle down that never comes for my tastes.

The science stuff I mentioned can be looked up by anyone. Bush's policies fall in line with religious based extremist groups and fly in the face of most any serious scientific groups out there. The global warming thing is the most obvious example, but if you want to dismiss stem cell, go ahead, but it would seem the scientific community that actually works with them does not. I'll take their word over religious zealots any day.

The pro-choice is a hard issue to be sure, and wording can change things, but there is still no evidence at all to support the idea that a majority of Americans wish to overturn Roe vs. Wade, in fact all evidence points against it, which is the bottom line

And, partial birth is a scam, it is not a medical term, it is a political one, coined by anti-choice groups. Failure to use proper medical terminoology allows for far too much intrepretaion by the courts and puts doctors at risk. Also, the reason most partial-birth bills are shot down is because the hard line anti-choice groups who support the bills as a way in the door to further restrictions refuse to permit exceptions for even the health of the mother, so even if the procedure would save a life, it would be still be illegal.

OK...that's enough for now. Let's just agree to disagree. You just asked for some of my reason and I gave some. You don't have to agree with me. Let's face it, there are intelligent, well-meaning people on both sides of these issues; to pretend that only one side has any facts to back them up is silly. I'm not going to change your mind, and you're not going to change mine.

And, the flip flop charges could be tossed at any open minded person if you looked at their beliefs over a 20 year or more period. If you go 20 years and have the same idea on everything and never change your mind, you're merely stubborn and closed-minded. When you learn, you change your mind about things. If you keep the same beliefs over a long period of time, you're generally not learning or you're learing and then refusing to change your beliefs based on new facts.

One of my favorite quotes from the campaigns was Kerry's assertation that "You can be certain, and still be wrong."

[SRO]

Discussions on politics get more heated than anything else. Well, maybe sports.

Go Steelers! Or, should I say Go Broncos? Just kidding. My best friend is a huge Browns fan. Those are the teams he hates most.

As far as the ads go, I can't honestly say. My television viewing consists mostly of the Discovery, History, and National Geographic channels. The only news program I watch is our local morning news show for the weather and traffic reports. Since it is early, I am barely awake enough to even catch those.

How is the weather in Cleveland? My girlfriend lived in Painesville for a couple of years, and grew up in Youngstown. She still complains about the weather 2.5 years after moving here. Of course, she is upset beacause it is going to only be in the 60's and may rain later here.

[PPG]

http://www.wral.com/politics/3850612/detail.html

[piece-it pete]

I don't really like the whole going point for point because this thread could just grow way too big for my tastes and we both know that we could go back and forth forever and not settle anything. Briefly, I will say that I think many people underestimate the importance of following international guidelines. It makes friends, which are very useful, particularly in situations like where we find ourselves in Iraq. I think this fear of becomming the UN's ***** that I see so many people (not necessarily you) mention is just silly. We created the UN to be able to exercize some control over other countries and it works for us on that way more than it works against us. If you wanna be isolationist, stop spreading business concernes across the globe. You can't have it both ways.

We're already a low tax country. Personally, I'm more interested in the average standard of living and domestic job creation than I am in corporate profits and overall GDP and such. You can say one brings about the other, but I don't really see that borne out in all cases. Look at how productivity has skyrocketed while jobs have stagnated or been lost and real income has gone down. I'm really tired of the scheme of letting big money guys get what they want and expecting it to eventually help the rest of us. Too many people have been waiting for the trickle down that never comes for my tastes.

The science stuff I mentioned can be looked up by anyone. Bush's policies fall in line with religious based extremist groups and fly in the face of most any serious scientific groups out there. The global warming thing is the most obvious example, but if you want to dismiss stem cell, go ahead, but it would seem the scientific community that actually works with them does not. I'll take their word over religious zealots any day.

The pro-choice is a hard issue to be sure, and wording can change things, but there is still no evidence at all to support the idea that a majority of Americans wish to overturn Roe vs. Wade, in fact all evidence points against it, which is the bottom line

And, partial birth is a scam, it is not a medical term, it is a political one, coined by anti-choice groups. Failure to use proper medical terminoology allows for far too much intrepretaion by the courts and puts doctors at risk. Also, the reason most partial-birth bills are shot down is because the hard line anti-choice groups who support the bills as a way in the door to further restrictions refuse to permit exceptions for even the health of the mother, so even if the procedure would save a life, it would be still be illegal.

OK...that's enough for now. Let's just agree to disagree. You just asked for some of my reason and I gave some. You don't have to agree with me. Let's face it, there are intelligent, well-meaning people on both sides of these issues; to pretend that only one side has any facts to back them up is silly. I'm not going to change your mind, and you're not going to change mine.

And, the flip flop charges could be tossed at any open minded person if you looked at their beliefs over a 20 year or more period. If you go 20 years and have the same idea on everything and never change your mind, you're merely stubborn and closed-minded. When you learn, you change your mind about things. If you keep the same beliefs over a long period of time, you're generally not learning or you're learing and then refusing to change your beliefs based on new facts.

One of my favorite quotes from the campaigns was Kerry's assertation that "You can be certain, and still be wrong."

One can be certainly wrong, too.

I'm no isolationist. I will point to my vocal belief that we SHOULD be in Iraq as proof.

I believe we should continue building the economic system that has brought untold wealth to much of the world.

I'd say "let the UN do it" is a copout. What, exactly, does the UN do, and how does it help more than hurt? Even what it accomplishes best, talk, is largely directed against us.

Productivity gain is the ONLY sustainable basis for increased wages. Everything else is temporary.

The economy cycles, although in a more centrally controlled economy it usually stays down after a possible initial boost. The reason we continue to grow, vs say Japan and I predict China (remember this!) is the free flow of capitol. If controlled by the Gov't or ANYBODY the controlling power will always work to protect the status quo, whether or not the overall economy has moved on.

And we are *much* weathier overall than when trickle down was pushed by Reagan.

Although adult stem cell research has paid off to some degree, not ONE thing has come of fetal stem cells. Call it what you will, there is NOTHING stopping this research - it's political mud slinging. Homework time.

If the American people are pro-abortion, why does the Supreme Court have to decide? Aren't our representatives elected by the majority? Or shouldn't that be up to us. Are we free?

Here's the partial birth abortion scam: The medical definition is "DILATION & EXTRACTION", d and x for short., or, if you like, "Intrauterine Cranial Decompression". It is a medical procedure.

For those who don't know already, here's how it works:

"The procedure is usually performed during the fifth month of gestation or later. The woman's cervix is dilated, and the fetus is partially removed from the womb, feet first. The surgeon inserts a sharp object into the back of the fetus' head, removes it, and inserts a vacuum tube through which the brains are extracted. The head of the fetus contracts at this point and allows the fetus to be more easily removed from the womb."

So, you "partially birth" the "fetus" (5th month or later - this is a child, if born would be a preemie), stick a pair of scissors into the base of the neck, pull out the scissors, and suck out the brains. Mind you, this baby is alive at the beginning of this.

Well, we agree on one thing, that sure doesn't sound like a legit medical procedure!

If they pulled the baby all the way out it would be murder under law. Who is scamming who? We care soooooo much. Save the whales! Kill the preemies.

You're right, we will disagree on many things, and come a coupla weeks will act upon them. People absolutely change their minds upon new information, and should. I would have argued very very close to your same position less than 20 years ago.

In Great Britain, they call the opposition "idiots". Just kidding (though that's prolly true to!). It's "the Loyal opposition". I like this term.

Pete

[nobody]

Problem with your abortion agruement is that those who favor the laws against so-called "partial-birth" abortion refuse to use a proper medical term to describe the procedure in their legislation. They prefer to remain vague in order to have the greatest possible impact and perhaps impact further procedures. They have also refused time and gain to set a limit on the time when procedures can be performed. They have also refused to allow for exceptions to protect the health and well-being of the mother.

Stem-cell funding is the issue, if that's what you meant by do homework. Find a private-funded scientific medical organization that has the means to fund detailed research into anything outside the military (which gets giovernment supprot anyway).


And, if productivity gain is the sustainable reason for growing wages, why haven't they been going up? Productivity has. And the "we are much wealthier overall" is arguable if you are looking at the majority of citizens personal standard of living as a measure, which is what I look at.

[JSE]

Problem with your abortion agruement is that those who favor the laws against so-called "partial-birth" abortion refuse to use a proper medical term to describe the procedure in their legislation.

Call it what you want but people are either against the practice or they are not. I don't care what it is called, I'm against it. What would you call it?

JSE

[nobody]

If those supporting the bans were satisfied to outlaw just that procedure you are discussing, they could likely get through a ban against Intrauterine Cranial Decompression during the third trimester with an allowence for the health and life of the mother.

They're not, so their legislation gets tossed.

[JOEBIALEK]

wow, some great points from both sides........the newly registered voter stampede will send Bush packing........