How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 2nd Presidential Debate   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  ]
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

2nd Presidential Debate

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Alicat
Member Elite
since 05-23-99
Posts 4277
Coastal Texas


0 posted 10-08-2004 10:51 PM       View Profile for Alicat   Email Alicat   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Alicat

Yes, I know this one was during the same time as a baseball game, but for those who watched the debate, will read about the debate, or even have opinions about the debate, feel free to expound.

I did watch this one, and all I can say is 'WOW'.  That goes to both candidates.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


1 posted 10-08-2004 11:11 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Ditto. I thought they both did very well tonight.
Midnitesun
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Empyrean
since 05-18-2001
Posts 29020
Gaia


2 posted 10-08-2004 11:34 PM       View Profile for Midnitesun   Email Midnitesun   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Midnitesun

I watched less than 10 minutes, had a job call. After I get a chance to see the video, I'll come back. But from what I did see, I agree with your 'wow' comment. Later
Alicat
Member Elite
since 05-23-99
Posts 4277
Coastal Texas


3 posted 10-08-2004 11:40 PM       View Profile for Alicat   Email Alicat   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Alicat

The final question was a bit amusing to me.  Name 3 things you thought you did right which eneded up being wrong to Bush.  Very transparent question, but I would've been very amused if Bush had picked 3 things not having to do with Iraq and defused her question.  But, though he may come off like this to some, he's not stupid, and saw right through the question.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


4 posted 10-09-2004 12:04 AM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

I'm not going to say wow to either candidate for this debate but instead -- give a wow to the questioners.  We have an engaged, informed, electorate -- which has me really wondering about undecideds.

Of course Gibson gets a wow too because he picked the questions -- but the reason I'm not going to give the candidates wows is becuase substantively speaking they just stayed on message -- parking the stump speech lines in the appropriate -- or sometimes not -- places.

I did hear better questions last night, and better answers when I went to Notre Dame to see former Congressman Tim Roehmer who was one of the 10 members of the 9/11 commision, most of them came from students (of course these ARE ND students) but they were very impressive.

Roehmer is living up to the non-partisan spirit of the commission in his answers and explainations as are all the commissioners -- and he drove home THE major point that I don't think anyone is talking about in the campaign -- that is Donald Rumsfeld's comment that we can kill the terrorists -- but they can make them faster than we can kill them.

Candidate Kerry, candidate Bush -- let's talk straight about that.
Toerag
Member Ascendant
since 07-29-99
Posts 5839
Ala bam a


5 posted 10-09-2004 07:34 AM       View Profile for Toerag   Email Toerag   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Toerag

I watched the debate....thought it was far better than the other two...and, but, they both expounded on their "plans" and "accomplishments" and passing blame and I get so tired of this crap...Of course Bush has made mistakes....Kerry has no idea (in my opinion), of what it takes to be a President in these "times"...and...I don't believe either have the "exact" answer of what to do next..... hopefully, if Bush is re-elected or if Kerry is elected...that they fight tooth and nail to erradicate terrorism....though logically speaking, we all know it will never completely go away..
Greeneyes
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Patricius
since 09-09-2000
Posts 10848
In Your Poetic Mind


6 posted 10-09-2004 11:03 AM       View Profile for Greeneyes   Email Greeneyes   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Greeneyes

this one seemed to be "smoother" then the last one, they both seemed "more at ease" ....

~~*~~
Read between the lines
look deep into each word
and you will understand the
depth of my soul (GE)
~~**~~

Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 12-17-2000
Posts 34089
City of Roses


7 posted 10-09-2004 02:08 PM       View Profile for Mistletoe Angel   Email Mistletoe Angel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Mistletoe Angel's Home Page   View IP for Mistletoe Angel



Bush definitely gets credit for a huge improvement in his performance compared to the first debate, where he clearly lost in.

In all, I think Kerry had more substance in the second debate, but Bush wasn't that far behind this time, so in the end, I'd say there was no clear winner to this debate.

I'm actually suprised barely anyone seemed to pick up on Kerry mentioning Bush's lumber company immediately after the debate. That was a very daring move, and as much as I already knew of Bush’s lumber company "LSTF, LLC", which the company motto is organized "for the purpose of the production of trees for commercial sales." but the way Bush followed up Kerry’s criticism with laughter, saying, "I own a timber company? That's news to me...you need some wood?" made him sound convincing and Kerry a big fat liar and because there are millions of lesser-informed voters out there who don’t pay attention to who owns what, it could have very well hurt Kerry without clarification.

By the way, Kerry was also correct that this company Bush co-owns qualifies as a small business.

Another dramatic moment to me was when Kerry had a four-second pause when providing examples of the necessity for stem-cell research. Kerry, not known for pausing, kind of had me at the edge of my seat for a split-second there. Then, when immediately asked of the issue of abortion and what he would say to those against it, the way he was starting his response had me worried he’d make the same mistake, but I was impressed with how he answered the question on a very sensitive issue!

Then there was that moment when Bush interrupted the moderator Gibson and then allowed him to respond to the concern of the alliance on the war on terror saying, "Alone? Tell that to Tony Blair!"

I think both Bush and Kerry missed a golden opportunity to take this debate when it came to the question of a Missouri guest who asked Bush if he would name three instances in which he felt he made a mistake in judgment and why, his response made it perfectly clear that he regretted nothing...apologized for nothing...would have done nothing differently except for "several appointments" of people whose names he would not divulge. Bush made the huge mistake in trying to make himself appear more human to the audience, in how he’s wronged or faulted during these first four years.

Kerry, however, also missed the opportunity in rebuttal. He could have said, "What you heard this President say...or rather NOT say...is that he has nothing to apologize for and that he believes that in his entire term in office he has done nothing he regrets. How many of us can say that? How many of us would agree with him?"

In result, both men lost the chance to put this debate away. Bush could have connected to the audience in admitting a fault, and Kerry could have hit a home run by sharply criticizing his stubborn demeanor to the question.

During the debate, both sides gave misleading info and exaggerations. I'll give one example from each side.

Bush said Kerry is the most liberal senator in the Senate. In 2003, yes, but it must also be noted he was absent more than usual from the floor in 2003. And Kerry's lifetime liberal rating is 85.7 out of 100, making him the 11th most liberal senator.

Kerry said the economy under the Bush Administration has lost 1.6 million jobs. That’s actually 1.6 million private sector jobs, but the number is actually a net loss of 821,000 when you add up the total employment. Nevertheless, Kerry seems clearly correct now that Bush will be the first president since Hoover in 1932 to have a net loss of job creation in a term.

On a final note, though I believe this debate was essentially no winner-take-all, the polls seem to show Kerry had a slight edge to winning overall.

However, I don’t expect the polls to change much here either, just as I predicted with the VP debate.



Sincerely,
Noah Eaton


"You'll find something that's enough to keep you
But if the bright lights don't receive you
You should turn yourself around and come back home" MB20

[This message has been edited by Mistletoe Angel (10-09-2004 02:47 PM).]

Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 12-17-2000
Posts 34089
City of Roses


8 posted 10-09-2004 02:16 PM       View Profile for Mistletoe Angel   Email Mistletoe Angel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Mistletoe Angel's Home Page   View IP for Mistletoe Angel



Oh, by the way, let me say I believe the true winners of last night were those who asked the questions.

I absolutely agree with Local Rebel that the questions they gave were excellent. If anything, I think the audience connected to one another more than both candidates did with the audience, and that's what a good town hall meeting is about too, getting to know those like yourself who are represented in the audience.

Kudos to them!



Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

"You'll find something that's enough to keep you
But if the bright lights don't receive you
You should turn yourself around and come back home" MB20

Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 11-18-2002
Posts 7451
the ass-end of space


9 posted 10-09-2004 02:54 PM       View Profile for Aenimal   Email Aenimal   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Aenimal

A very evenly matched debate except aesthetically. Bush once again seemed annoyed and surly in his rebutals, often rising before his turn or standing during Kerry's. At one point interrupting and speaking over moderator Charles Gibson.

I thought Kerry did well in explaining his 'flip flop/wishy washy' record, though, it's all for naught as it won't change his image with devout Republicans busy ignoring Bush 'flip flops'.  

As far as I'm concerned, there was only one stand-out moment from the entire debate. The handling of the abortion question, particular the second part and rebutal to Bush's "I'm still trying to decipher that", was an absolute grandslam for Kerry.

KERRY: Well, again, the president just said, categorically, my opponent is against this, my opponent is against that. You know, it's just not that simple. No, I'm not.

I'm against the partial-birth abortion, but you've got to have an exception for the life of the mother and the health of the mother under the strictest test of bodily injury to the mother.

Secondly, with respect to parental notification, I'm not going to require a 16-or 17-year-old kid who's been raped by her father and who's pregnant to have to notify her father. So you got to have a judicial intervention. And because they didn't have a judicial intervention where she could go somewhere and get help, I voted against it. It's never quite as simple as the president wants you to believe.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


10 posted 10-09-2004 07:59 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

"I'm against the partial-birth abortion, but you've got to have an exception for the life of the mother and the health of the mother under the strictest test of bodily injury to the mother."

I wish I were there at the debate to ask Kerry for clarification.

When a person is already at the point of delivery, what situation would cause her life to be in danger and a partial-birth abortion being the procedure that could save it? Is a normal delivery more harmful in someway than a partial delivery? The hardest part of the delivery is at the 'partial' phase as the head is crowning, after that it's comparatively a breeze, a release of the physical stress. The women who usually died during delivery in the past were those whose babies were in the breach position, but with today's technologies, that's no longer a problem. The same with those who hemorrhaged during delivery. Being in the hospital, the bleeding can be stopped, drugs administered and blood replaced intravenously immediately. And would the hemorrhaging be more severe in the anti-climactic phase of delivery? I really am at a loss to see how a partial-birth abortion can save someone's life. And doctor's already have the legal ability to terminate pregnancy if the mother's life is actually in danger. There is no need to have a clause placed in the legislation to address that issue.

As to the strictest test of bodily injury to the mother, what would that test entail? The risk of migrane, abdominal pain, hormonal imbalance that causes depression, nausea, vomiting, hair loss, loss of muscle tone, fatigue, or would all these common maladies associated with childbirth be excluded as cause in the test? And if so, what would constitute harm to the health of the mother, according to the strictest test, that would necessitate a partial-birth abortion?  
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


11 posted 10-09-2004 08:07 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

I was pleased that Bush finally pointed out a few things that people should consider - Kerry's record being one of them. The fact of the matter is that Kerry's entire congressional record is mediocre, at best. He has had one of the worst attendance records in COngress. He has also had one of the worst voting records in Congress. As Cheney pointed this out about Edwards so did Bush about Kerry. In his entire Senatorial career Kerry has introduced few, if any, bills of national importance. Yet here he is stating that, if he is president, he will actually begin showing up for work. He is saying that now he has the solutions to so many problems - he can fix health care, he can balance the budget, he can create jobs, he can make America respected in the world. All of these things he now knows how to do after two decades of basically doing nothing. Can any rational person be expected to believe that? Bill Clinton won the presidency basically on his promise to cure health care. A few months ago, being interviewed on tv upon the release of his book, he was asked what his biggest disappointment was. He responded that it was his inability to come up with a good health care plan. I'm wondering why Kerry didn't help him out. If he has all of this knowledge of how to fix the system why didn't he share it with Bill sometime during those eight years? The answer is obvious, of course. He didn't know then and he doesn't know now. He knows it's something the public wants to hear and so he says he can do it. Yesterday morning he made the comment that he didn't believe trial lawyers should be held accountable for rising health costs. Doctors all over the country went into cardiac arrest, I'm sure. The radio programs were flooded with calls from doctors expressing their incredulity at that remark. There were doctors who had to stop practicing due to the malpractice insurance from frivolous lawsuits, calls from hospitals who were running short-staffed, calls from the mayors of small towns who had lost their only doctors and many clinics for the same reason. Yet John Kerry said it's not the main cause. When confronted with a question of tort reform in the debate he answered, "Yes, of course, tort reform is vital....."and then changed the subject. Bush accurately pointed out that Kerry had voted against tort reform 9 times and that people could be sure there would be no tort reform with Kerry in the White House. Kerry has the solution for health care reform but refuses to recognize its main cause....I wonder why.

In other words I was pleased with Bush because he used Kerry's record to make his points, something I have been waiting for to happen. Kerry has a two decade record in Congress. Has anyone heard Kerry using his Congressional record as a good resume for the presidency? He hasn't - because it was not worthy enough to use. Kerry is now pretending to be a dynamo, a man suddenly with the answers. Bush was able to point out that, for his entire career, Kerry has not been that person and voters should be careful of his self-proclaimed newly-acquired brilliance and drive. Kerry stated he would not raise taxes, which I don't think anyone believes. Bush was right there to claim Kerry would. (Kerry should have learned from Georgie's dad). Kerry re-iterated his plan to work with an "alliance" in Iraq. Bush was right there to state that Kerry would have no alliance, that France and Germany have already stated they would not participate with Kerry in power or not, and Kerry has insulted all the rest.

Every time Kerry made claims which were suspect at best, Bush was there to say "No, you won't and here's why." When Kerry tried to convince people he was the right man for the job, Bush was there to say, "Look at his record for the past twenty years."

It's about time.
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


12 posted 10-09-2004 08:40 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad


quote:
As to the strictest test of bodily injury to the mother, what would that test entail? The risk of migrane, abdominal pain, hormonal imbalance that causes depression, nausea, vomiting, hair loss, loss of muscle tone, fatigue, or would all these common maladies associated with childbirth be excluded as cause in the test? And if so, what would constitute harm to the health of the mother, according to the strictest test, that would necessitate a partial-birth abortion?


That's the point. At what point, is it necessary? At what point should it be illegal?

Should doctors be held accountable for murder if they perform the procedure?

You don't have to think abortion is a moral, proper, or even healthy procedure, but maybe we should let individuals decide and not the government.

    
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


13 posted 10-09-2004 08:42 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

By the way, here's an interesting tidbit...

Howard sweeps to historic victory in Australian election
By Anna Gizowska in Sydney
(Filed: 10/10/2004)

Australia's Prime Minister John Howard surged to a resounding victory in the general election last night, winning an historic fourth term in office. His defeat of the opposition Labour leader, Mark Latham, ensures that the country's troops will remain in Iraq.

Mr Howard, whom President George W Bush once described as a "man of steel", has been a staunch ally in the war on terrorism. He insisted that his troops would stay until Iraq asked them to leave.

Last night, Mr Howard, 65, a veteran of 30 years in politics, said he was humbled by his margin of victory. In a speech he thanked the Australian people and said the country "stands on the threshold of a new era of great achievement". He said: "This is a proud nation, a confident nation, a cohesive nation, a united nation, a nation that can achieve anything it wants if it sets its mind to it."

On the eve of the election, Mr Howard took the time to underline his support for President Bush, who faces the voters in the US election on November 2. "I hope Bush wins," Mr Howard said. "I like him. I think he's done a good job."

For the past week Kerry sent his sister to Austrailia to help with efforts to have Howard defeated. I was wondering why he would want one of our allies in Iraq out of the picture, wanting a coalition and all. Now I understand....

Thank you, Mr. Howard....
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


14 posted 10-09-2004 10:21 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Clarification is needed, Brad, if folks say there is justification for partial-birth abortion in the saving of a woman's life and for the protection of her health, in the strictest sense. Let them offer evidence for what they are stating. They need to define what they are talking about. They need to validate their contention that there are legitimate conditions that justify the procedure, if they are using the argument that the legislation is faulty without those clauses. Otherwise they aren't making their case based upon their purported argument.

Maybe adding such clauses is just their way of ensuring enough vague loopholes in the legislation so that the legislation is, for all intents and purposes, null and void. So their argument really isn't that the legislation is faulty without those clauses, it's their argument that the legislation is faulty, period.

Geeze, Kerry is smarter than I am, and if I just now figured this out, surely he has. I guess he really isn't against partial-birth abortion afterall, as he stated. If he were he would have asked the simple questions I just have. He knows that doctors are already able to perform abortions to save the mother's life. And he apparantly believes that health issues, according to the strictest test, should justify such a procedure. So in what sense can he possibly be against it? As a very smart lawyer I think he knows exactly what inserting those clauses would do to the legislation...create enough loopholes to make it null and void. I can only conclude that he is against the legislation, period, just as Bush said he was, contrary to his denial.

I think the legislation is fine as it stands. Doctors already are legally able to peform abortions to save the life of the mother. And as I said before, I can't even fathom a life-saving scenario with this particular procedure. My sister-in-law is a nurse, and she can't either. If someone can think of one, please enlighten us. If doctors want to do it for reasons other than that, then, yeah, I personally think they should be held accountable.

I agree, Michael. It's about time Kerry's record is brought to light. It's that record that shows what he truly believes, where he truly stands on issues, not the promises he is making on the campaign trail.
Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 12-17-2000
Posts 34089
City of Roses


15 posted 10-09-2004 10:31 PM       View Profile for Mistletoe Angel   Email Mistletoe Angel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Mistletoe Angel's Home Page   View IP for Mistletoe Angel



Well, with all true respect, Balladeer, I'm here to "swagger" like Bush likewise did last night and say Bush is not the right man for this job another four years by saying, "Look at his record these past four years!"

Bush is going to become the first president since Herbert Hoover in 1932 to have a net loss in job creation during a term. Not ONE job has been created in net gain! Bush uses the recession, September 11th and the war in Iraq as excuses. Well, we've been through World War II. Vietnam. The Korean war. The Gulf War. The Cold War. And in every single one of these difficult times, somehow we're STILL capable of at least having a net gain in job creation, from the era of Franklin D. Roosevelt to the era of Bill Clinton. We're 821,000 jobs in the hole since Bush took office, and Bush won't have enough time to replace them all by the end of this term.

Bush's environmental record is arguably the WORST in American history. It certainly is agreed the worst by many in the Environmental Protection Agency. Over 200 environmental laws have been rolled back. New autism, ADD and cancer cases are on the rise. Three times the level of mercury is being released into the atmosphere from power plants. Premature deaths caused from pollution by coal-burning power plants have risen to 24,000. As much as 16% of women of child-bearing agenow, in fact, have blood mercury levels such that their fetuses may experience mercury levels in the womb at levels higher than what the EPA considers safe. The Bush Administration has even exempted the Tongass National Forest from the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, allowing commerical logging in previously "roadless" wilderness areas. Nine million acres that make up one of the largest forests in North America is endangered because of this, and 100-year sequoias are being cut down in the Sequoia National Monument. Being a great lover and believer of the environment, I can go on and on about his terrifying environmental record.

But, of course, the most serious woe of Bush's record these past four years is his war in Iraq.

We have spent over $120 billion in Iraq, fighting a senseless, immoral war that has only incited more terrorism, polarized this nation and seperated the peoples of Iraq.

The CIA, Rumsfeld, and Blair all have something in common here. They admit there are no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the thesis that the Bush Administration used in taking us to war. On top of that, there is no clear connection between Saddam and 9/11.

Now Bush is defending this war simply on the belief that Saddam was a bad guy. That's it!!!

This $87 billion alone our government has spent for Iraq could have went to so many other things. It’s approximately nine times what the government spends on Special Education. Ten times what the government spends on environmental protections. Seven times what the government spends on Title I for low income schools. Eight times the total given in Pell Grants for college tuition. And...frankly...87 times what the government spends on after school programs.

And what do we get out of this? Over a thousand of our young men and women have been killed. Tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians as well. Thousands more with life-afflicting injuries. Men coming home with uranium contamination and their wives giving birth to children missing fingers, toes and sometimes full hands or feet. Members of the municipal council of Basra have reportedly been holding talks with officials in the provinces of Missan and Dhiqar to set up their own autonomous states from Iraq.

And on top of that, the violence continues to rise each month. In September, we had a total of 2,368 attacks occur across Iraq in the past thirty days. 2,368!!! Rumsfeld has even admitted in a radio interview that the violence in Iraq has gotten worse and even expects it to get even more worse in approaching the elections in Iraq come January. Personally, it pains me deeply, as if 2,368 incidents weren’t already enough, to imagine even more occur this month. In November. In December.

The fact is, over half of Americans believe America is heading in the wrong direction. EVERY poll says that. What that tells me is that a majority of Americans already feel like giving Bush the one-way fare ticket back to Crawford, Texas, but have just been waiting for Kerry to make his case. And seeing how Kerry has earned a big bounce from winning that first debate, it is clear Kerry may have set it out.

I look back on Kerry’s record, and acknowledge he certainly isn’t the man with the perfect attendance record, in fact among those further from it. But I find voting against many weapons systems and such in twenty years rather modest compared to the troubling record of Bush these past four years, That’s a fifth of the time we’re comparing to Kerry here, and though a little less than half are truly with Kerry, over half are unhappy with what this administration has done.

If anything, I hope Kerry critiques Bush’s domestic record these past four years on the economy, environment, health care, etc. with more force than he did in St. Louis. That’s what I hope to see at Arizona State this Wednesday!



Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

"You'll find something that's enough to keep you
But if the bright lights don't receive you
You should turn yourself around and come back home" MB20

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


16 posted 10-09-2004 10:47 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Well, it's hard to know where to begin

quote:

He has had one of the worst attendance records in COngress



B>S Micheal

Kerry's Senate Record (data from last 5 years)
http://www.vote-smart.org/bio.php?can_id=S0421103

2003
Voting participation 36%
Party Support           100%
Presidential Support 30%

2002
Voting participation 96%
Party Support           92%
Presidential Support 72%

2001
Voting participation 98%
Party Support           98%
Presidential Support 65%

2000
Voting participation  95%
Party Support            96%
Presidential Support  97%

1999
Voting participation 99%
Party Support           95%
Presidential Support 93%

I wonder what he might have been doing in 2003?  Any guesses?

Want the full record -- I'll just bet you haven't read it Michael http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=S0421103

Senator John Edwards

2003
Voting participation 61%
Party Support           97%
Presidential Support 41%

2002
Voting participation 100%
Party Support           84%
Presidential Support 76%

2001
Voting participation 100%
Party Support           91%
Presidential Support 67%

2000
Voting participation  100%
Party Support            94%
Presidential Support  92%

1999
Voting participation 99%
Party Support           92%
Presidential Support 87%
http://www.vote-smart.org/bio.php?can_id=CNC68243

full record http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=CNC68243

Be back later..
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


17 posted 10-09-2004 11:08 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

In contrast, in spite of Cheney's fantastic lie about never having met Edwards and being in the Senate every Tuesday, he's only presided over the Senate 2 times out of the 126 Tuesdays since his term of office.  Filling in for him as acting President of the Senate from the Congressional Record are the following;

2001
1/30 Enzi
2/6 Chafee
2/13 Chafee
2/27 Allen
3/6 Burns
3/13 Reid
3/20 DeWine
3/27 Chafee
4/3 Smith
4/24 Chafee
5/1 Chafee
5/8 Chafee
5/15 Frist
5/22 Chafee
5/29 Enzi
6/5 Byrd
6/19 Carper
6/26 Bayh
7/10 Nelson
7/17 Clinton
7/24 Byrd
7/31 Stabenaw
9/25 Wellstone
10/2 Clinton
10/9 Clinton
10/16 Edwards
10/23 Byrd
10/30 Bingaman
11/13 Murray
11/27 Jeffords
12/4 Stabenaw
12/11 Carnahan
12/18 Nelson
2002
1/29 Nelson
2/5 Kohl
2/12 Stabenow
2/26 Landrieu
3/5 Edwards
3/12 Landrieu
3/19 Miller
4/9 Cleland
4/16 Reed
4/23 Wellstone
4/30 Nelson
5/7 Miller
5/14 Cleland
5/21 Nelson
6/4 Durbin
6/11 Corzine
6/18 Dayton
6/25 Landrieu
7/9 Reed
7/16 Corzine
7/23 Reed
7/30 Clinton
9/3 Reed
9/10 Corzine
9/17 Reid
9/24 Stabenow
10/1 Miller
10/8 Miller
10/15 Reid
11/12 Cheney
11/19 Barkley (MN)
2003
Jan 7 Cheney
1/14 Stevens
1/22 Stevens
1/28 Stevens
2/4 Stevens
2/11 Stevens
2/25 Stevens
3/4 Stevens
3/11 Stevens
3/18 Stevens
3/25 Stevens
4/1 Stevens
4/8 Stevens
4/29 Stevens
5/6 Talent
5/13 Ensign
5/20 Alexander
6/3 Stevens
6/10 Stevens
6/18 Murkowski
6/24 Coleman
7/8 Stevens
7/15 Stevens
7/22 Chaffee
7/29 Stevens
9/2 Stevens
9/9 Stevens
9/16 Stevens
9/23 Stevens
9/30 Sununu
10/21 Stevens
10/28 Stevens
11/4 Stevens
11/11 Warner
11/18 Stevens
12/9 Stevens
2004
1/20 Stevens
1/27 Enzi
2/3 Stevens
2/10 Stevens
3/2 Stevens
3/9 Hagel
3/16 Sununu
3/23 Stevens
3/30 Ensign
4/6 Cornyn
4/20 Stevens
4/27 Chambliss
5/4 Stevens
5/11 Stevens
5/18 Stevens
6/1 Stevens
6/8 Hutchinson
6/15 Stevens
6/22 Allard
7/6 Burns
7/13 Stevens
7/20 Enzi
9/7 Stevens
9/14 Chafee
9/21 Enzi
9/28 Stevens
10/05 Stevens


Note the 2 times Cheney actually presided.

When Cheney does come to the Senate -- he only meets with Republicans.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


18 posted 10-09-2004 11:10 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Oh, yeah -- I forgot to note -- Edwards presided as many times as Cheney did...  :shrug:
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


19 posted 10-09-2004 11:14 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Thank you, reb...appreciate that info. I confess that I don't understand those figures. In the case of Edwards, for example, Cheney specified that Edwards had the worst attendance and voting record in the Senate, to his face, and Edwards did not refute it and actually appeared to acknowledge it. If it had not been true I can't imagine Edwards not jumping all over it. Yet, by the figures in your example, with the exception of 2003, Edwards is show almost perfect figures. Kerry has also been criticized heavily for his lack of voting record..sure seems to be something wrong somewhere, no? ANythoughts?
Alicat
Member Elite
since 05-23-99
Posts 4277
Coastal Texas


20 posted 10-09-2004 11:19 PM       View Profile for Alicat   Email Alicat   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Alicat

Gee...I wonder why Hoover had so many jobs lost under his tenure...could it have been the Great Depression? Naw...must've been something else.  And, despite what is commonly believed, Presidents do not create jobs, except when Clinton gave jobs to his relatives without them taking the Civil Service exam.  They were quickly let go once word got out.  Nor do they create law.  That is the job of Congress, made up of Representatives and Senators,  with two of the latter wanting to occupy the White House.

Bush had to deal with a recession which started in 1997, corporate scandals (I'm sure the investigations weren't started a few days before Enron went under), and the atrocious attack on the World Trade Center buildings, which cost over 3000 American lives and affected families in over 30 countries, not to mention losses of businesses and corporations.  Oh, and don't forget that most of the job losses have been in the private sector...yanno, corporations that folded due to massive corruption and creative accounting practices.  Let's not forget NAFTA either, which Clinton made a reality (cheaper labor in Mexico and no labor unions).  If Albert Gore hadn't ignored 'smaller' electoral states, he would've had the exact same things to deal with.  I'm not naive enough to wonder if the Democrats would hold him accountible.  Nor do I think the DNC would be trying very hard to deny Nader his Constitutional right to run for President by his using the very same tactics the Republicans and Democrats have used for decades.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


21 posted 10-09-2004 11:29 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

"Bush uses the recession, September 11th and the war in Iraq as excuses"

Noah, I must confess that is one of the most incredible statements I have seen in any of these discussions.
Alicat
Member Elite
since 05-23-99
Posts 4277
Coastal Texas


22 posted 10-09-2004 11:42 PM       View Profile for Alicat   Email Alicat   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Alicat

And LR, if Kerry and Edwards are so proud of their Senatorial records, why on earth haven't they spoken more about it?  With all elections, we are the employers.  We look at each job candidate and examine their resume, including past work history.  Why is it that Bush has included his, but competitors to this job have not?
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


23 posted 10-10-2004 01:17 AM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

quote:

ANythoughts?



Yes,

Politicians mislead, prevaricate, exagerate, expurgate, watergate, fornicate, ...

which is why I get my information from sites like factcheck.ORG (which is not factcheck.COM, an honest mistake Mr. Vice-President) that, for some reason Mr. Cheney thought had cleared him on Haliburton -- but really doesn't.

Edwards probably didn't want to acknowledge that he had been gone from the Senate during the time he was campaigning for his party's nomination and now the Vice-Presidency.

And if you look at the official record Mike -- the data is the data;
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/crecord/index.html

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


24 posted 10-10-2004 01:43 AM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Sorry, that site isn't very intuitive -- you have to click on browse which will take you here http://www.gpoaccess.gov/crecord/browse.html

Then pick the year you want to look at and it will give you the day by day pages -- at the begining of each session it will tell you who the President Pro Tem for that day is.
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> 2nd Presidential Debate   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors