Presidential Vote [Archive] - CookingLight.com Community

Escher

04-16-2004, 01:55 PM

Originally posted by Chiffonade
You left out ABB ... Anybody But Bush. As for Nader, he's going to be a wart just like he was LAST time. I can't believe this guy has the stones to try this again when he's responsible for draining off steam from the Democratic party in 2000. Nader and his Raiders are completely deluded. He is never going to win and, to boot, he's going to throw a wrench into the Democratic Party's real chance to drop kick Bush from the lawn of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

The economy sucks, our citizens are dying in Iraq, and the guy is about as dumb as a bag of hammers. We need a change. And fast.

Heh, heh. My favorite type of opponent.... easy to beat w/ demonstratable facts....so many points to pick apart, so little time.... I guess I'll have to pick just one....
Let's try your first "point": that Nader is responsible for Gore's defeat.
<wringing hands eagerly>
This is just too easy....<placing Chiffonade on Tee.....>
1) It is not the job of third-party or Independent candidates to make sure either of the two major parties wins.
2) 250,000 registered Democrats voted for Bush in Florida alone.
3) The Bush's margin of victory in Florida was so narrow that over a dozen candidates had enough votes that, if given to Gore, would have swung the state (and the national election)
4) One of those candidates was "Mickey Mouse"... a popular write-in candidate across the nation....
5) In New Hampshire, exit polls showed that Ralph "took more votes" from Republicans than Democrats, by a 2 to 1 margin.
6)Playing the "what if" game, Buchanan cost Bush four states (Oregon, Iowa, Wisconsin, and New Mexico).
7)CNN�s polling data said that if neither Nader nor Buchanan had run, Bush would have beat Gore 48 to 47 percent, with 4 percent who voted not voting.
8)There are 100 million people in this country who do not vote. There are plenty of nonvoters for all candidates to attract.
9)The Constitution does not mention parties, and the Nation has a rich tradition of third party candidates.
10)According to Democratic Party exit polling, more than 60 percent of votes for Nader would not have gone to Gore.....
11)Nader's platform is that neither the Democratic NOR the Republican party are meeting American's needs.

(I'll stop out of mercy)

And it's loooooooooooong goooooone!

http://www1.neweb.ne.jp/wb/delta/sinjopin2.jpg
FTR, I'm *shock* a Libertarian, and I'll defend 3rd parties till the end of days....

badunnin

04-16-2004, 01:56 PM

Originally posted by tbb113
Bethany:
IMO - Obviously Nader's primary purpose is to give people an alternative to the other two and to open debate and people's mind to other ideas. Unfortunately, what a third party does is to further fragment the vote. In the case of Nader it is usually Democratic voters that would vote for him, thereby increasing the chance for the Bush to win re-election.

I was being half-sarcastic. I just don't believe that it is Nader's duty to refrain from running just so that Kerry can win.

tbb113

04-16-2004, 02:05 PM

Bethany:
I agree with you. I think third party candidates serve a real purpose. I just wish enough people would really vote their conscience instead of voting for the lesser of the two evils. Until most people feel that 3rd party candidates have a viable chance...they end up being potential spoilers and not real candidates.

Escher

04-16-2004, 02:14 PM

Originally posted by tbb113
they end up being potential spoilers and not real candidates.

Please define a "real" candidate... I can't seem to find that in the Constitution anywhere....

tbb113

04-16-2004, 02:19 PM

Originally posted by Escher

Please define a "real" candidate... I can't seem to find that in the Constitution anywhere....

Some one that has a realistic chance of getting votes and winning the contest. I'll even say one that might influence future policy. I don't think many third party candidates fit this definition. So for example, when Arnold was running for the special election, the real candidates were Arnold and Cruz Bustamante. The other 80 or so names on the ballet weren't real candidates by MY definition.

Ms. Chevious

04-16-2004, 07:26 PM

Other - I don't vote. :p

beckms

04-16-2004, 07:40 PM

Originally posted by Ms. Chevious
Other - I don't vote. :p

Then I presume you don't complain about anything, either. :p

Guest

04-16-2004, 08:08 PM

Originally posted by Escher

(I'll stop out of mercy)

You really must have quite a big ego to think that many people read through your posts.

Escher

04-16-2004, 09:06 PM

Originally posted by MWS
You really must have quite a big ego to think that many people read through your posts.

Well, I am comforted by the fact that at least you do....
I welcome your attention.....but do try to keep your eye on the bouncing ball here....this is a thread about Presidential Politics.... do you have anything to add in this arena?

Guest

04-16-2004, 09:11 PM

Originally posted by Escher

Well, I am comforted by the fact that at least you do....

I don't.

Escher

04-16-2004, 09:16 PM

Originally posted by MWS
I don't.

And yet, now we have two posts in a row where you not only read my posts, but you actually quote me.... Immortalized for the whole BB to see....:D I am so flattered.... no, really, don't you have anything on-topic to add?

HejazSunKat

04-16-2004, 11:48 PM

Originally posted by kristalsnow7
I really wish the Democratic primaries had turned out differently. Kerry will get my vote, but I can't say that I'm thrilled with him.

Exactly how I feel. DH was expressing his disappointment in Kerry the other night as we were watching the current occupant of the White House on TV and I said: "I'm not thrilled with him either but I'd vote for the devil himself before I'd vote for this guy and the Republican party."

Alethea

04-17-2004, 05:38 AM

Add me to the group who will unenthusiastically vote for Kerry. I'm a democrat through and through, and really wish a stronger viable candidate had emerged.

Chefzhat

04-17-2004, 06:20 AM

Voting for Bush. I think he's cute :)

Molli526

04-17-2004, 06:51 AM

Bush here :)

sneezles

04-17-2004, 08:03 AM

Originally posted by Alethea
and really wish a stronger viable candidate had emerged.

Or at the very least an honest one!

I don't vote a party line but even if I was a Democrat I would never vote for a man like Kerry! I'm voting for Bush!

beckms

04-17-2004, 11:29 AM

I don't want to statt a firestorm here, but I'm interested to know why people will vote for Bush. Not because I can't imagine why someone in their right mind would vote for him, but honestly what your reasons are for wanting to keep him in office. Because I don't really know, and all I can pretend to know is what I hear/see in the media.

I tend to disagree with many (most) of his political/social views, which is why I'm not going to vote for him, regardless of the Iraq situation. If September 11th had never happened, I'd still disagree vehemently with his ideas on several issues.

So, can anyone give me a rational, well-thought out, non-knee-jerk response to the question of Why Bush? (and by the way, before it all starts again, I couldn't care less what you think of Escher, so you're just wasting everyone's time if that's where this thread goes. Again. Give it up, people. Talk to me about Bush.)

Chefzhat

04-17-2004, 12:48 PM

Because he's not Kerry?:) Sorry.

I just think he's a classy, strong, gentleman. I like his stance on family issues, and I think he's honest. I really don't have tons of good reasons, I just like his style. It's really easy to sit home and Monday-morning quarterback what the administration is doing, but the fact is we have no idea what information they have. I have to assume that it's waaaayyy more than I have, so in the end I have to go with someone I can trust to not bulls**t me and the rest of America.

I know, not very enlightening, is it??

Debie

eas11

04-17-2004, 01:00 PM

Originally posted by Chefzhat
Because he's not Kerry?:) Sorry.

I know, not very enlightening, is it??

Debie

No, it's not :( although you did say you like his stand on family values, and that is specific, because I do know what his stand is, so that is enlightening, Debbie. I'm with Becca- inquiring minds want to know...

Also, for people in the Bush camp, is it as Debbie says, because he's not Kerry? Would any of the other Dem's earlier on satisfied you more? In fact, might ANY Dem get your vote? Thanks for thoughtful replies, and thanks for asking, Becca.

Ellyn

badunnin

04-17-2004, 01:06 PM

Originally posted by Chefzhat
I like his stance on family issues,

What do you consider to be family issues?

Chefzhat

04-17-2004, 01:15 PM

Um, Ellyn - it's Debie - not Debbie.

You know, I'm going to bow out because I know where this type of discussion might head. I was trying to be funny, but I guess it didn't read that way.

I probably would vote Republican no matter what. Just funny that way, I guess.

Debie

Molli526

04-17-2004, 01:22 PM

I will state why, even though I *know* it is not popular on these boards. I am not trying to start anything, these are just my reasons why I will vote for Bush:

Taxes
Family & Social Values
Foreign Policy
Ladership Abilities
Decisiveness

None of the Democratic Candidates would have gotten my vote. They aren't worthy of it, IMHO.

crlykat

04-17-2004, 01:28 PM

I wonder, who is "other"? Some have voted for that on the poll but have not listed names. DOes that mean they won't vote at all? Curious...

badunnin

04-17-2004, 01:58 PM

Originally posted by crlykat
I wonder, who is "other"? Some have voted for that on the poll but have not listed names. DOes that mean they won't vote at all? Curious...

Crlykat - some of us I'm sure have used "other" as an undecided, some of us use it for other "Third" (fourth, fifth) party candidates, such as for the Libertarian or Green Parties, neither of which have held their primaries yet for their candidates. I'm part of the population that believes that a vote for a "third" party (I'm not fond of that terminology, if you couldn't tell... I think it sends the message that somehow the Republican and Democratic parties are first and second) is not a vote that is thrown away, nor is it a vote against either the Dems or the Republicans.

eas11

04-17-2004, 01:58 PM

Originally posted by Chefzhat
Um, Ellyn - it's Debie - not Debbie.

Debie

Sorry, Debie, about the spelling and also if you took offense. I knew your 1st comment was trying to be funny, because thats a common and typical response, similar to ABB on the other side. I didn't think you were trying to be funny in your 2nd paragraph... and it wasn't very enlightening, as you said, so my agreement was not meant to upset. Becca's respectful question was asking for a more specific response from supporters- whats wrong with that? I'm interested as well, and will listen without debate. It was stated thatthe question was asked in the spirit of understanding and not stirring up controversy.

Molli, thanks to you for answering. Would you mind being more specific as well? For example, I'm wondering if you are supportive of tax cuts, refunds, both? What about leadership abilities (this really interests me because of a discussion on leadership at work yesterday) What are Bushs' leadership qualities that you support- delegates to others, makes decisions himself, instilling confidence in the public, motivating others to work hard, etc? Actually, given our work discussion yesterday, I may post that sometime as a (non- political) poll.

Ellyn

Kristilyn1

04-17-2004, 05:23 PM

Originally posted by Chiffonade

The economy sucks, our citizens are dying in Iraq, and the guy is about as dumb as a bag of hammers. We need a change. And fast.

Boy, I wish I was stupid enough to get into an ivy league school....I wish people would be fair on this point. The man is not very articulate, but dumb? It makes your point of view sound lame.

Kristi

Kristilyn1

04-17-2004, 05:35 PM

Reasons to vote for Bush:

For me, I like him quite a bit, am I happy with all his decisions, no. I'm not happy with his handling of what I consider to be our crisis in immigration for starters.

Things I do like/support

1. The tax cut. That's my money and I'm sure glad I got it back.
2. ban on late term abortion. I won't try to stir that boiling pot up, but I think it's interesting in a country where people say a woman should be able to have an abortion WHENEVER, HOWEVER they want, we would then prosecute Scott Peterson for the death of Laci's "unborn son". I'm not trying to make a legal point, I know there isn't one to make, it's more of an emotional one I guess.
3. Limiting experimentation on fetus/stem cell research.
4. I believe that his decision to go to war with Iraq was based on a genuine belief in the intelligence we had.
5. I'm for civil unions, not for gay marriage.
6. I think that affirmative action has outlived it's usefulness.
7.

These are mostly the "family values" type policies, there are other more political/fiscal as well--but I think those lines tend to get blurred between parties, it's more of a feeling that one or the other will deliver what you want.

Kristi

Guest

04-17-2004, 05:46 PM

Kristi,

You probably could have been admitted to Yale, especially in the good old days when GW Bush was admitted, if you were male, your father and grandfather had gone to school there, you came from a wealthy family and your grandfather was a successful Wall Street financer. Intelligence didn't have a lot to do with it.

Kay Henderson

04-17-2004, 05:59 PM

Interesting poll!

Members of this BB can usually discuss highly contentious subjects in a way that is polite, thoughtful, and informative.

I hope we can have some discussions/debates on the 2004 elections.

Although I would enjoy individual threads on specific issues, I wouldn't rule out other conversations on the character and general world view of the candidates. The reason these are important to me is that so much of what happens during a term comes out left field. 9-11 is the example of the century, but unexpected issues, some of them very large, face all presidents, and a person's character/world view will determine how that individual faces a particular challenge.

Looking forward to interesting threads---

Kay

yomomma

04-17-2004, 10:18 PM

Bush, Bush, Bush, Bush, Bush, Bush, Bush, Bush, Bush, Bush, Bush, Bush, Bush, Bush, and in case there is any doubt - BUSH.:p

HejazSunKat

04-18-2004, 01:01 AM

Molli and Kristi, I'm glad you were comfortable enough to reply with your specific reasons for wanting to vote for Bush. I know we're never going to convince each other and I respect your right to hold different beliefs but I want to offer a look at him from the other side:

Tax cut - I think it was irresponsible to institute a tax cut at the same time he was taking the country to war.
War in Iraq - I feel he bungled both the preparation for war with his go it alone, cowboy stance that's alienated the rest of the world and now it's aftermath. He owes the military families and the tax payers a better explanation than we've gotten so far for why we are engaged in that conflict.
'Family values' - Let's call that by it's full name: Conservative Christian Family Values. He was employed to represent the interests of the entire country not just conservative Christians. It's not the government's job to regulate morality and after being a spectator in a society that does exactly that and seeing how screwed up it is as a result I'll thank George Bush to keep his religion off my government. I can appreciate and admire him for having strong moral beliefs but I'd like him to keep them to himself.

I don't like the man's personal style either. Unfortunately he inherited his father's complete inability to express himself intelligently but what bothers me the most is he can't say anything without an inappropriate smirk and I think it's highly unpresidential. Some members of his administration do it too (Condi Rice, for example, and I usually think she is da bomb). If I agreed with his politics I'd disregard that because I know that would be an irrelevant reason NOT to vote for him. As far as the honesty of elected officials is concerned the term 'honest politician' is an oxymoron. No one who gets to a high office like the Presidency is pure as the driven snow.

stefania4

04-18-2004, 05:50 AM

Amen, Linda! Although I could never vote for Bush on any issue, it's his positions on social issues that make my blood boil. It's all well and good to wish we lived in a world where birth control was 100% effective, a job was available to everyone who wanted one, the work world was a true meritocracy where hiring and promotion decisions never factored in skin color or religion or family ties, etc. But that simply is not the world we live in and policies need to be made according to reality.

jmarie

04-18-2004, 07:23 AM

I am with you, Debie.......and it really bothers me that others can post who they are voting for and they are not questioned. But you have to give precise reasons for why you are voting for Bush.....

When everyone knows he is just so darned cute!:D

All the way for Bush! I will answer the question for you.Because Kerry wants to be an International President. He wants to give our soverenty to the UN. I think the UN is worthless...just a bunch of Pansies and I do not want to give our soverenty to the UN. I do not want our boys to be tried by other nations for war crimes, when we are quite capable of taking care of our own and do so.

We are a soveren nation, we make our own decisions based on what is good for us and I would like for it to stay that way. Kerry got the endorsement of all of these foreign leaders, when what he should have been concerned with was getting the endorsement of our very own National Leaders and our Countrymen and women.

Since when do you hear France or Spain or Germany or any other country, for that matter, ask us who we think should run for the leadership of their country?

Gotta love BUSH!

Kristilyn1

04-18-2004, 07:59 AM

Originally posted by HejazSunKat

'Family values' - Let's call that by it's full name: Conservative Christian Family Values. He was employed to represent the interests of the entire country not just conservative Christians. It's not the government's job to regulate morality and after being a spectator in a society that does exactly that and seeing how screwed up it is as a result I'll thank George Bush to keep his religion off my government. I can appreciate and admire him for having strong moral beliefs but I'd like him to keep them to himself.

Of course I disagree with your other points as well, but this one I felt I had to respond to. It is not the job of the President or the political system to pander to EVERYONE. If that was the case, we'd have laws that reflect the Ku Klux Klan and their "values". He presents a point a view and people vote whether they buy into that point of view or not. That's how our political system works. I fully expect the person I vote for to represent what I believe is best for this country. The truth of the matter is, he DOES represent the majority in terms of his stand on "family values". As far as regulating morality, I strongly believe it's the DEMOCRATS who try to cram their secularism down MY throat. I've said it before, there is nothing in the Constitution that dictates the separation of church and state. That said, not a single one of my views on "family values" stem from religious beliefs. I'm the anti-religion conservative.

Kristi

beckms

04-18-2004, 08:00 AM

Originally posted by jmarie
I am with you, Debie.......and it really bothers me that others can post who they are voting for and they are not questioned. But you have to give precise reasons for why you are voting for Bush.....

Now, Joyce, that's just not fair, and you've missed the spirit of my initial query. I asked for reasons for voting for Bush because I personally wanted to know, not because I wanted to "expose" you all to add fuel to the fire. I don't know if I'm going to vote for Kerry, so I would also welcome any insight people have for or against him. But I do know that I disagree with just about all of Bush's stances stated above by his supporters, and there's nothing wrong with my disagreement or Molli's agreements (sorry Molli, not picking on ya! :)). It's not my place to say that you guys are wrong, and vice versa. I really just wanted to know if those were indeed the reasons people would vote for him, or if there's something else that I don't know about because it hasn't made it into the media blitz.

Just because I asked for info on Bush doesn't mean I represent the poll police, and you or anyone else is more than welcome to ask for people's reasons for voting for Kerry (or anyone else).

There's no reason to get defensive, no matter who you're voting for. People have a right to vote for anyone they choose, and it's silly to think that we could all ever agree on one person because there are so many issues that are so devisive. I'm trying to do this as diplomatically as possible, but it's hard to make it clear in print that my goal isn't to fight about what's right or wrong.

OK, so to be fair, since no one else has asked, bring on the reasons why anyone would vote for Kerry. Same rules apply.

Kristilyn1

04-18-2004, 08:04 AM

Originally posted by MWS
Kristi,

You probably could have been admitted to Yale, especially in the good old days when GW Bush was admitted, if you were male, your father and grandfather had gone to school there, you came from a wealthy family and your grandfather was a successful Wall Street financer. Intelligence didn't have a lot to do with it.

And I suppose they also gave him an easy ride at prep school and also for his undergraduate and MBA degrees. Sounds plausible.

Kristi

beckms

04-18-2004, 08:20 AM

Originally posted by Kristilyn1

And I suppose they also gave him an easy ride at prep school and also for his undergraduate and MBA degrees. Sounds plausible.

Kristi

Actually, it is plausible. And before anyone jumps down my throat because I'm not a Bush-supporter, let me say that I would say the same if we were talking about Kerry, or Clinton, or even Ghandi. I worked in a college admissions office, and it's true that children of big names or big donators or students who were prized athletes got an easier ride than people who didn't have those connections (there was one kid who failed high school English, but this was overlooked because he was both a star baseball player and a son of a major donor). It doesn't mean they were any less deserving of their enrollment, but it's a fact that a school is a business, and it's up to the school president to make sure the money keeps coming in.

Anyway, it shouldn't matter where you went to school. It's what you do with your education that counts. I'm in vet school, and my classmates come from Ivy Leagues and state schools, and they're all some of the brightest people I know. And if GW's credentials got him into the White House, or even if they didn't, so be it. I don't think it should be used as a reason to be for OR against him, because the fact of the matter is, none of us were in school with him to attest to his performance.

jmarie

04-18-2004, 08:35 AM

Now, Joyce, that's just not fair, and you've missed the spirit of my initial query.

beckms, thank you for your post. And I apologize for the incorrect judgement.

I worked in a college admissions office, and it's true that children of big names or big donators or students who were prized athletes got an easier ride than people who didn't have those connections (there was one kid who failed high school English, but this was overlooked because he was both a star baseball player and a son of a major donor). It doesn't mean they were any less deserving of their enrollment, but it's a fact that a school is a business, and it's up to the school president to make sure the money keeps coming in.

But I want to ask you something else......Are you saying that BUSH isn't the only one, who got into college by this means.....saying that is the only way he got into this college? That's an eye opener....

badunnin

04-18-2004, 08:39 AM

Originally posted by jmarie
All the way for Bush! I will answer the question for you.Because Kerry wants to be an International President. He wants to give our soverenty to the UN. I think the UN is worthless...just a bunch of Pansies and I do not want to give our soverenty to the UN. I do not want our boys to be tried by other nations for war crimes, when we are quite capable of taking care of our own and do so.

We are a soveren nation, we make our own decisions based on what is good for us and I would like for it to stay that way. Kerry got the endorsement of all of these foreign leaders, when what he should have been concerned with was getting the endorsement of our very own National Leaders and our Countrymen and women.

Since when do you hear France or Spain or Germany or any other country, for that matter, ask us who we think should run for the leadership of their country?

Sorry, Joyce, but to me, those sound like reasons why you WOULDN'T vote for Kerry, and that's all well and good. But why will you vote FOR Bush? What about Bush's policies make you believe in him?

As far as passing off our sovereignty, when it comes right down to it, we live in a global society. When we want to be active in other parts of the world, as we clearly do in the Middle East, it's kind of nice to have the backing of other nations. Especially in our struggling economic climate. Why should people like the French and the Germans want to buy our products? Yet when it comes right down to it, if the Germans stopped buying American products, it would affect us. We are links in a chain - we are not autonomous.

beckms

04-18-2004, 08:39 AM

Originally posted by jmarie

But I want to ask you something else......Are you saying that BUSH isn't the only one, who got into college by this means.....saying that is the only way he got into this college? That's an eye opener....

I don't understand your question. What do you mean? I don't know anything about Bush's acceptance to Yale. I was just making the point that it shouldn't matter. Hey, if you're lucky enough to have strings to pull, then you're lucky, even if you don't have to pull them.

I don't want to blow you off, Joyce; could you rephrase?

jmarie

04-18-2004, 09:00 AM

I hear everyone saying that Bush got into Yale for the very reason's that you stated....and not by his own merits. When you wrote what you did, my reply wasn't as much a reply to you as it was a sarcastic comment to those who say that Bush got into Yale by this method. My question to you, was kind of reiterating what you said.......Gee, ya mean BUSH wasn't the only one. (And by ya...not YOU, beckms, by any means...just BUSH detractors...and not saying that you are a BUSH detractor....Gee, I hope this is more clear to you than it is sounding to me....but I am trying to explain.)

I knew that you were saying that it happens all the time, but to hear BUSH detractors talk, Bush is the ONLY one who got lucky, if in fact it was just political pull or however.

I appreciate your reply but also see how you misunderstood my intentions. Thank you for asking for clarification instead of just blowing me off. :D
Joyce

eas11

04-18-2004, 09:08 AM

Check this out from the PVS web site: (Caps are from the web site, not mine)

SENATOR JOHN FORBES KERRY REFUSED TO PROVIDE ANY RESPONSES TO CITIZENS ON ISSUES THROUGH THE NATIONAL POLITICAL AWARENESS TEST

SENATOR JOHN FORBES KERRY REFUSED TO PROVIDE THIS INFORMATION WHEN ASKED TO DO SO ON 23 SEPARATE OCCASIONS BY:

MSNBC
CBS News
Cox Newspapers
Knight Ridder
National Journal
MTV
New Hampshire Public Broadcasting
Tucson Citizen
St. Paul Pioneer Press
Portsmouth Herald
Nashua Telegraph
Iowa Public Radio
Ames Daily Tribune
Cedar Rapids Gazette
Iowa City Press
The State (SC)
WYY Philadelphia
San Jose Mercury News
Geraldine Ferraro, Former Democratic Congresswoman
Michael Dukakis, Fomer Democratic Congressman
Bill Frenzel, Former Republican Congressman
Jim Leach, Republican Congressman
Richard Kimball, Project Vote Smart President

Urge Senator John Forbes Kerry to fill out the NPAT

Now, if your still reading this, substitute candidate KERRY'S name with PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH- he refused as well!
I would like to see EACH candidate commit their views IN WRITING, rather than what they spew to SIG.
Here is a description of the NPAT:

What is the NPAT?

The National Political Awareness Test is a key component of Project Vote Smart's Voter Self-Defense system. It has one central purpose: to measure each candidate's willingness to demonstrate a good faith effort to provide voters with the candidate's inclinations on the issues he or she will most likely face on the citizen's behalf. The NPAT is administered to all candidates for presidential, congressional, gubernatorial, and state legislative offices.

Why is the NPAT important?
At a time when Americans are increasingly frustrated with the attack advertising and empty rhetoric of many ca mpaigns, the need for this relevant information has never been greater. The public integrity of candidates an d the quality of their campaigns can be viewed, in part, as a measurement of their willingness to provide thei r prospective employers (voters) with this information during a campaign, the point when voters need the most help and when the candidates are asking for their vote.

How does Project Vote Smart choose issues to be addressed on the NPAT?
The issues included in the NPAT are only those that are both consistently the top concerns of the American people and also likely to come up in the next legislative session. They are determined by intense examination of national polls over the last three years, the majority, minority and third party platforms, State of the Union and Response speeches, State of the State and Response speeches, legislative agendas, and by consulting with prominent national political journalists, political scientists and the entire Project Vote Smart founding board to ensure that it is non-partisan and unbiased. All candidates must sign the NPAT before it can be placed in our database or publications. Issues covered in the 2004 NPAT in alphabetical order are:

Abortion Issues Gun Issues
Budgetary, Spending and Tax Issues Health Issues
Campaign Finance and Governmental Reform Issues Immigration Issues
Crime Issues International Aid & Policy Issues
Drug Issues National Security Issues
Educational Issues Social Security Issues
Employment and Affirmative Action Issues Technology Issues
Environmental and Energy Issues Welfare Issues
Legislative Priorities

Ellyn

jmarie

04-18-2004, 09:57 AM

We can be global... we have been global....But for foreign leaders to get involved in our polotics is not a good idea and why do we have to have both? I didn't say they couldn't buy our products and we shouldn'r buy theirs...I said for foreign leaders to keep their noses out of our politics.

Why Vote BUSH?
#1.BUSH's pro life stance. (I will not argue this with any of you, it will be pointless because you will not change my mind, nor will I change yours. You asked the question, I am responding.)
#2.Because of the Tax cuts and I hope there are more tax cuts in the future.
#3.No Child Left Behind.(Contrary to Dem's beliefs, there is more funding for education, now, than in any other time in history.)
#4The unemployment rate is staying consistantly under 6%, anything under 6% used to be considered FULL employment, that is ,until BUSH became President.
#5.George BUSH does not stand for appeasment, as the French and the Democrats do. (8 years of appeasment under the Clinton Administration is what brought down the World Trade Centers)
#6.George BUSH will not let TERROISTS kill me.
#7.Bush has proven that he believes in diversity (with his cabinet and otherwise.)
#8.Zell Miller, a Democrat, is voting for George BUSH and I trust his judgement!

These are off the top of my head....but if you want more reasons. I will try!:D
J!

HejazSunKat

04-18-2004, 10:05 AM

Originally posted by Kristilyn1
I strongly believe it's the DEMOCRATS who try to cram their secularism down MY throat. I've said it before, there is nothing in the Constitution that dictates the separation of church and state. That said, not a single one of my views on "family values" stem from religious beliefs. I'm the anti-religion conservative.

A little confused here...you say you your views on family values do not stem from religious beliefs, that you are 'the anti-religion conservative' yet you are upset with the democrats for cramming secularism down your throat? Sounds contradictory to me. I'm more interested in President Bush's family values than yours though and my suspicion is that this conservative Christian President's family values ARE based on religion and that his agenda is to use his office to impose them on public life to the greatest extent possible. That frightens me to death. I am not a constitutional scholar so I can't comment intelligently on your statement that there is nothing in the constitition that dictates the separation of church and state. I don't particularly care how it came about I just thank God for it. I am not anti-religion, I have one, it's important to me, it influences my values but I believe with every atom of my being that the only way we will all be able to continue to enjoy a pluralistic society is if we keep religion well away from the business of government.

Originally posted by badunnin
As far as passing off our sovereignty, when it comes right down to it, we live in a global society. When we want to be active in other parts of the world, as we clearly do in the Middle East, it's kind of nice to have the backing of other nations.

Joyce - do you really want US soldiers to be the only ones dying over there or US taxpayers the only ones paying for the rebuilding of Iraq? I know I don't. As Bethany pointed out if we hope to be able to sell our products abroad or have a role in shaping the direction of foreign events it's not a good idea to pi$$ off our allies by sending them the message that they are irrelevant.

jmarie

04-18-2004, 10:23 AM

Oh, and I beleive that you should support the man who is going to represent YOU and YOUR beliefs....If you perceive a man's beliefs to be that of conservative christians...or just plain conservative not being a christian, then you should vote for the guy. But don't be angry if someone else votes for the liberalistic guy if that is your own aganda...VOTE your heart...but don't get upset because the other guy feels the same right to vote HIS/HER own heart. That is called UNFAIRNESS.
Joyce...off to dinner

badunnin

04-18-2004, 11:06 AM

Originally posted by jmarie
#5.George BUSH does not stand for appeasment, as the French and the Democrats do. (8 years of appeasment under the Clinton Administration is what brought down the World Trade Centers)

What do the French have to do with this statement?

Loremma

04-18-2004, 11:18 AM

Originally posted by jmarie

#6.George BUSH will not let TERROISTS kill me.D
J!

What exactly does this mean?

Kristilyn1

04-18-2004, 11:29 AM

Originally posted by HejazSunKat

A little confused here...you say you your views on family values do not stem from religious beliefs, that you are 'the anti-religion conservative' yet you are upset with the democrats for cramming secularism down your throat? Sounds contradictory to me.

Let me explain. I don't require a moment of silence at school to pray. But what I DO hate, is people who think they have a right to deny people THEIR right to it. There is nothing that I've seen in the Constitution that takes away the right to practice your religion, even in public if you want! My interpretation is any protections offered by the Constitution are clearly in place to keep the government from TAKING AWAY the right to practice your religion--remember why people came here in the first place? I think it's ridiculous that schools can't have time off and call it Christmas break. It's a national holiday for cripe's sake! Just because you don't LIKE that it's called Christmas doesn't mean it isn't??? Right? Our country was founded under the belief that we have "certain unalienable rights" granted us by a higher being, God. Yet, we are sponsoring a "state relgion" because our coins say "in god we trust". I don't want to get into a debate about the French, but I believe that a lot of conservatives point to France as the direction we DON'T want our country to head in, and it seems that the Democrats keep trying to steer us that way.

My personal conservative beliefs come from a firm reverence for the Constitution. Things like the UN and this "global community" I keep hearing about sound like they are machinations to undermine the sovereignty of this nation. If we undermine or circumvent the Constitution or bend it to the fickle wind of popular opinion we undermine this nation and the bedrock upon which it stands. I believe we should exist in a global community, as a sovereign nation, not a member of the UN. I don't want members of the UN (take the whole Iraq war aside, does ANYONE approve of the way they handled Saddam?) to decide whether our President can be put on trial for war crimes (and yes, there are countries TODAY who believe he should be tried for war crimes). Do you want your soldiers to be held accountable to a system in which you have little or no representation? Meaning they can be tried and jailed or even executed by a body that is not made up of your fellow citizens, i.e, a jury of your peers? I don't. I don't want to inflict that kind of rule on other countries and I especially don't on ours!

I know, I know, I've veered off into a thicket that we may never find our way out of. It was supposed to be about George Bush and off I go into another tangent. I'm passionate. Either way, I hope I explained my "anti-religious conservatism".

Kristi

jmarie

04-18-2004, 01:49 PM

As Bethany pointed out if we hope to be able to sell our products abroad or have a role in shaping the direction of foreign events it's not a good idea to pi$$ off our allies by sending them the message that they are irrelevant.

Apparently I am being misunderstood, here. OK, we buy from China. Are we allowed to have input into their elections? I don't think so. What about France? Elections there? I don't think so....Spain? Nope, nada nope, there either. The way I see it, we can trade with everyone...BUT just because we do doesn't mean they should have ANY input into our government. Or have a say-so in who they supportin our elections....that to me, is just plain rude! There are many ways that we can talk to them, but allowing them to have a voice in our democrace, Sorry, but I don't care if they do get pi$$ed off. I hope that this doesn't offend you.

#6.George BUSH will not let TERROISTS kill me.D
What does it mean? I think it is self eplanatory, but GW hasn't allowed any more terrorism under his watch.

OH, but what about 9/11? That was his fault? I am a mind reader, right? Sorry, I do not agree with you. The man was in office what, 8 months? And 2 or 3 months of that time was spent waiting to see if the elections was going to be overturned. He had a rough going in , he can't have been expected to know EVERYTHING....especially when Clinton chose to do nothing.

Listen...Politics is a rough subject. The year Carter was voted in, I thought my world had ended. I remember going to dad and crying my eyes out. Dad, in his wisdom said that 4 years was pure and simple 4 years. And that if he did a bad job, he would be voted out. But that there were no guarantees the next time...and that I need to pick up and move on...That it wasn't the first time my candidate wasn't elected and it wouldn't be the last.

Thing is that I can't stand Kerry worse than I did Carter. So, if it happens...I will really be sobbing. Just don't laugh too hard at me, if it happens.:D
Joyce

sneezles

04-18-2004, 01:58 PM

A few of the reasons I won't vote for Kerry are:

Vietnam Veterans Against Kerry (http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnkerry.com/)

Kerry Voted For the War on Iraq (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=12079) but says Bush abused his vote. Seems Mr Kerry needed to read Public Law 107-243 before he voted.

And The Tides Foundation (http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/oid/225) , an organization of far left wing activities funded in part by Teresa Heinz Kerry, who until January of this year was a registered Republican even though she's been married to a Democrat for over 10 years! And while it may be Ms Heinz Kerry is not the one running for office, I for one am not interested in another First Lady running the country.

Robyn1007

04-18-2004, 02:36 PM

I would like to thank everyone for laying out their positions and beliefs. As someone who has not decided who to vote for I am interested in learning what people believe about the issues to help my decision. I know that many of you are very passionate about your beliefs but I want to remind you that if you want your candidate voted in then present your argument in a calm intelligent way and you are more likely to convince me and probably others than slinging mud across the BB. (This is why I change the channel now when politics comes up, I just can't stand the mud slinging negative campaigns!)

So, Kerry fans, speak up, I want to hear why you like this guy!

:D Robyn

jmarie

04-18-2004, 02:54 PM

I know that many of you are very passionate about your beliefs but I want to remind you that if you want your candidate voted in then present your argument in a calm intelligent way and you are more likely to convince me and probably others than slinging mud across the BB.

Gosh....I thought we were....:confused:
Joyce

eas11

04-18-2004, 03:11 PM

Originally posted by jmarie

Thing is that I can't stand Kerry worse than I did Carter. So, if it happens...I will really be sobbing. Just don't laugh too hard at me, if it happens.:D
Joyce

Joyce, If our little CL poll is any indication....ya better get out a big box of tissues!! :D :) :D

Ellyn

Robyn1007

04-18-2004, 04:07 PM

Originally posted by jmarie

Gosh....I thought we were....:confused:
Joyce

Joyce,

I think MOST people are. I was just trying to make a point to those who have made uninformative posts about things that aren't true issues that those aren't going to change the mind of the undecideds like me. I think that you and many others have made some great points that are making me rethink the direction I was leaning. Thanks to everyone!

Robyn

jmarie

04-18-2004, 05:21 PM

Ellyn
And you'll be the first I will PM crying the blues, IF in the unlikely possibility that it happens! :D Be nice to me like my daddy was, OK?

I guess that was when I first became politically active, when Carter won. I guess everyone has their time and place, but that was surely mine.

I sure hope Bush wins, but Jimmy Carter sure taught me a lesson!
Joyce

colleency

04-18-2004, 10:52 PM

I probably shouldn't be replying here, because my opinions come from being basically a democrat and listening to a lot of NPR. I can't back up what I believe at this point with any facts, and I know that's wrong, but here are reasons I don't like Bush:

the Kyoto treaty
school vouchers
abortion
gay marriage
pulling money from 3rd world nation clinics that discuss abortion
his vice-president
tax cuts when we have such a deficit

I believe my next step is to start researching my reasons. I'll be starting with the Kyoto treaty. Any advice for where to start on this?

HejazSunKat

04-18-2004, 11:27 PM

Originally posted by jmarie
Apparently I am being misunderstood, here. OK, we buy from China. Are we allowed to have input into their elections? I don't think so. What about France? Elections there? I don't think so....Spain? Nope, nada nope, there either. The way I see it, we can trade with everyone...BUT just because we do doesn't mean they should have ANY input into our government. Or have a say-so in who they supportin our elections....that to me, is just plain rude! There are many ways that we can talk to them, but allowing them to have a voice in our democrace, Sorry, but I don't care if they do get pi$$ed off. I hope that this doesn't offend you.

No Joyce, I'm not the least bit offended because I don't know what you mean. How are the countries referred to in your post (or any foreign countries for that matter) having input into US elections any more than we do into theirs?

The point I was (ineptly) trying to get across earlier was that George Bush, by his willingness to invade another country without the support of much of the rest of the world, by not selling it to them, and to the American electorate for that matter, with valid reasons why it should be done (and I happen to think there are valid reasons but they're not the ones George Bush used to justify going to war) he damaged our credibility abroad for which I find it hard to forgive him. I happen to think we DO need the rest of the world just as much as they need us. Maybe the UN is an anachronism but that doesn't mean we should blow off the concerns and opinions of other countries as if they mean nothing. Recent word in the media is that he and his administration started planning the war as early as December, 2001. The war didn't start until March of 2003 (and I spent it here with Tomahawk cruise missiles flying over my head out of the Red Sea). Where was the consensus building and diplomacy that should have been going on to assure the war had international legitimacy and that we weren't bearing the burden of it alone?

Oy, I usually steer clear of these threads. Off to the pharmacy to get my prescription for chill pills refilled.

jmarie

04-19-2004, 03:31 AM

Linda,
I guess we will have to agree to disagree :D . But as articulate as you are, you should never stay away from any thread if you have something valuable to add. I do not believe that anyone would take offense at anything you would have to say because of the way that you temper your words with the true belief that you have and kindness.
Joyce

HejazSunKat

04-19-2004, 05:54 AM

LOL Joyce, I have no doubt I've offended plenty of people with my views now and in the past. I was just surprised at myself for jumping in with both feet on this particular thread.

jmarie

04-19-2004, 07:32 AM

And this is exactly what I do not understand...Why can't people disagree without getting offended? where is it written that everyone is supposed to have the same beliefs? Isn't that why we are a two or more party system? I may not agree (or even like)what you, or anyone else, for that matter, may say....but that certainly doesn't give me the right to attack you for saying it.

My best friend and I argue politics all of the time, knowing full well that we aren't going to sway one another, but I would never consider getting mad at her.

Carry on!

beckms

04-19-2004, 07:40 AM

Joyce, I'd like to politely point out that you got offended (or seemed to) earlier in this thread when I asked Bush supporters to present their reasons.

I think it's just because politics, especially now, is such an emotionally charged subject. And sometimes agreeing to disagree is a hard compromise. For example, I am fervently against a ban on gay marriages, and it makes me sick, literally, to hear what the supporters of the ban have to say. I know I'll never change their minds and they'll never ever ever change mine, but it still upsets me to no end to just "agree to disagree", even though that's what I've resigned myself to do.

But yes, it is nice when people can at least hold civilized discussions on the matters at hand without resorting to name-calling or insults.

jmarie

04-19-2004, 08:00 AM

I take back what I said, in this post(erased it all) and am done with this thread.
Thank you all for a good discussion.
Joyce

crlykat

04-19-2004, 08:28 AM

Originally posted by colleency

I believe my next step is to start researching my reasons. I'll be starting with the Kyoto treaty. Any advice for where to start on this? [/B]

Hi Colleen!
Here's some links I found quickly.

Publication on International Affairs--Global Warming
http://www.americans-world.org/digest/global_issues/global_warming/gw2.cfm

CNN Special Report on Global Warming-- http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/globalwarming/

Mother Jones Special report on thw "Ungreening of America--http://www.motherjones.com/news/featurex/2003/09/we_531_04.html

Pew Center page for their report: Beyone Kyoto--
http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-in-depth/all_reports/beyond_kyoto/index.cfm

Looksmart's collection of articles on Kyoto
http://search.looksmart.com/p/browse/us1/us317916/us51606/us228785/us10092981/us10088828/

It's all pretty interesting stuff.

colleency

04-19-2004, 10:41 AM

Thanks Crlykat!

Loremma

04-19-2004, 06:50 PM

Originally posted by jmarie
Originally posted by jmarie

#6.George BUSH will not let TERROISTS kill me.D
J!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What exactly does this mean?

What does it mean? I think it is self eplanatory, but GW hasn't allowed any more terrorism under his watch.

OH, but what about 9/11? That was his fault? I am a mind reader, right? Sorry, I do not agree with you. The man was in office what, 8 months? And 2 or 3 months of that time was spent waiting to see if the elections was going to be overturned. He had a rough going in , he can't have been expected to know EVERYTHING....especially when Clinton chose to do nothing.

Joyce

I was curious about #6 when you listed it as a reason for voting for Bush. Does that mean Kerry wouldn't? I have no clue about Kerry and what he stands for, so I'm interested in everyone's opinion on all the candidates, but your statement just stood out to me and I had to ask.

Originally posted by jmarie
I take back what I said, in this post(erased it all) and am done with this thread.
Thank you all for a good discussion.
Joyce
I hope it wasn't because of something I said.

jmarie

04-19-2004, 08:34 PM

I hope it wasn't because of something I said.

No...I really didn't want to say anything else for fear of offending someone or having someone think I was offended by what they said.

Kerry thinks that the Terrorism issue should be a police matter. Let them go out and gather the evidence. But since when do the police have the same ability as the FBI or the CIA.....It never occured to GW that the police could even begin to handle this. Therefore I say. George won't let the Terrorists kill me. Simplistic? Maybe, but then i am a simple person.

and now you know the resy of the story, as I bow out of this thread saying VOTE YOUR HEART...VOTE YOUR CONSCIENCE...VOTE YOUR MAN! VOTE AGAINST THIS ONE....VOTE AGAINST THAT ONE....VOTE FOR THIS ONE OR VOTE FOR THAT ONE.....JUST VOTE..... AND IF YOU DON'T VOTE, DON'T COME WHINING TO ME.
Joyce

kirkbyky

04-20-2004, 07:12 AM

IF YOU DON'T VOTE, DON'T COME WHINING TO ME.

Ditto, ditto, ditto!!!

interesting thread...

Kyle~~who doesn't particularly like ANY of the candidates

Tess

04-20-2004, 08:27 PM

I've always figured-how much damage can one guy do in 4 or 8 years. I never imagined that anyone could be as horrendous at the "job" as Bush. He has perpetrated what to me is the biggest snow job ever! Starting with his campaign where he took credit for changes in Texas that he had no hand in, to passing off his lack of focus as some great management style , he used his good-ole-boy routine to parlay the anti-Clinton era into a free ticket to do what he wants. I don't consider him a moral person. I think he is a liar and a schemer whose lack of ability to see the big picture will set this country back and it will take years to undo his damage.
If we had more choice at the polls there would be fewer people having to vote one way to support their party (and it is a my guy against your guy mentality) and maybe then we could have a government that really focused on the needs of the country rather than the biased needs of one party or the other. Payback is a b***h unless you are paying back your financial backers and Bush has done that in spades!

jmarie

04-21-2004, 11:06 AM

Do the facts even matter to you, Tess?

badunnin

04-21-2004, 12:47 PM

Originally posted by jmarie
Do the facts even matter to you, Tess?

And yet you say vote your heart....

Ms. Chevious

04-21-2004, 01:26 PM

Originally posted by beckms

Then I presume you don't complain about anything, either. :p

Nope - I'm well aware that not voting means I don't have the right! But its well worth it so I don't mind. ;)

linsleyd

04-21-2004, 02:05 PM

Originally posted by beckms

, and it's true that children of big names or big donators or students who were prized athletes got an easier ride than people who didn't have those connections (there was one kid who failed high school English, but this was overlooked because he was both a star baseball player and a son of a major donor). It doesn't mean they were any less deserving of their enrollment, but it's a fact that a school is a business, and it's up to the school president to make sure the money keeps coming in.

Particulary when your father was head of the Illuminati!

jmarie

04-21-2004, 02:16 PM

Well, true, that is what I said....But I think by that, you choose to know the facts...Maybe I am wrong....But I'm thinking that voting your heart doesn't mean emotional voting, like you love the man, or you hate the man. You love someone with all of your heart....Does that mean that that love isn't based on facts and hormones?;) Or, at least this is what I'm thinking. ;)

jmarie

04-21-2004, 02:18 PM

Guest

04-21-2004, 02:27 PM

There are lots of facts to back up what Tess has said.

Let us start with the 2000 presidential primary season, Bush and his political machine started laying the groundwork for the lies and distortions that have continued for the past four years. The vicious lies the Bush machine spread in South Carolina about John McCain are worth remembering. Bush ads claimed that McCain had neglected war veterans. How ironic that this claim was made against McCain who served in Viet Nam and was held a POW by the North Vietnamese for 5 years. Yes, that claim was made by Bush and company, Karl Rove and Dick Cheney NONE OF WHOM SERVED IN VIET NAM. Bush claims to have served in the National Guard, but neither Cheney nor Rove can even make that claim.

The hateful lies about McCain's personal life that were circulated during the South Carolina campaign have been linked to the Bush machine.

It is also useful to remember that these dirty tactics were employed after McCain trounced Bush in New Hamphire. The 2000 election was decided by lies and dirty tricks all along the way.

Guest

04-21-2004, 02:33 PM

Joyce,

I am also curious about the following information you posted -

"...Because Kerry wants to be an International President. He wants to give our soverenty to the UN." What do you base this conclusion on? It really sounds like ultra right propoganda to me or is there a written record of this position from an objective source

MusicMom

04-21-2004, 03:04 PM

Originally posted by MWS
Joyce,

I am also curious about the following information you posted -

"...Because Kerry wants to be an International President. He wants to give our soverenty to the UN." What do you base this conclusion on? It really sounds like ultra right propoganda to me or is there a written record of this position from an objective source

It sounded like propaganda to me too. Just because John Kerry wants to cooperate with other countries doesn't mean that he wants to relinquish our sovereignty. Personally, I'd like a president who realizes that whatever we do affects the rest of the world. Our planet could use more collaboration. (or is that idealistic?)

Grace

04-21-2004, 03:52 PM

Originally posted by MusicMom
Personally, I'd like a president who realizes that whatever we do affects the rest of the world. Our planet could use more collaboration. (or is that idealistic?)

Editing to add that my comments here are not directed at you MusicMom! Just what you said inspired my own thoughts which I put out here for everyone's perusal - again, not to dispute your own thoughts in any way.

I do think it's idealistic - not in a bad way, in the sense that I truly don't believe anyone in this country wouldn't like "World Peace" as the saying goes. I mean really, who could logically be against that? The problem is, there is no way things can be done in such a way that will please everyone. It's impossible. And if you think of your own life as a microcosm of the world, it's the same exact thing. Let's say we're talking about your own neighborhood. And let's say you live (for example) in a neighborhood where crime is rampant and your own safety and that of your family's is compromised. And you think of your neighbors and those who come into your community as "other countries" - and your house is the US. Of course you would try to reason with your neighbors first. Then you would work with the police to change things. But when push comes to shove, your obligation to yourself and to your family is to protect your own house and their lives. I think for each and every one of us there would come a point where you wouldn't allow your family or your home to be harmed to keep your neighbors happy. And that's just a silly little analogy, and not meant to be a detailed explanation of the way I feel, but just to give an idea of the perspective my thoughts come from.

And again, I do believe that there are people out there (myself included) who would love it if we all got along, and would love it if there was more cooperation among all people (I mean that sincerely, not with any sarcasm). But what I don't believe is that most other countries have our best interests at heart any more than we do theirs, so it's a two way street, and my FIRST priority is to my own country and people, then everyone else second. Maybe that's a selfish attitude - I don't think so. It's kind of like the idea that you can't help anyone else unless you take care of yourself first. And I do believe that despite all the things we do wrong as a nation (and certainly I believe we do PLENTY wrong), no one's interested in what we do right. We give more money in support of other countries than any other nation on the planet. We also protect (with our military) more countries than any other nation on the planet. Most (not all, but most) of the free world owes at least part of their freedom to us because of the protection our military affords them. It annoys ME that few countries are grateful for this.

And I was going to stay away from this thread, but for some reason this aspect of the discussion compelled me to write. And lastly, I don't mean my comments to be any sort of argument with anyone else for their feelings or beliefs, or to tell anyone I think they're wrong and I'm right - just to state where I'm coming from and leave it at that; I'm not interested in trying to get people to think what I do, just to explain my thought processes. For whatever that's worth (which could be absolutely nothing! :D )

jmarie

04-21-2004, 04:06 PM

Actually Music mom, he said it himself, in a speech, if i recall correctly. I will do research and get back to you. Beleive me, i am not smart enough to make that up.

The hateful lies about McCain's personal life that were circulated during the South Carolina campaign have been linked to the Bush machine.
Amd while I am digging up my data, could you please reference this for me?
Thanks!
Joyce

stefania4

04-21-2004, 04:09 PM

Originally posted by Grace
I do think it's idealistic - not in a bad way, in the sense that I truly don't believe anyone in this country wouldn't like "World Peace" as the saying goes. I mean really, who could logically be against that? The problem is, there is no way things can be done in such a way that will please everyone. It's impossible.I interpreted the phrase "international President" differently. To me it doesn't mean trying to please the world; it means acknowledging that we are members of an international community and that we need to collaborate with other countries for a common good.

I don't believe there's any such thing, on a governmental level, as international altruism. We - like other countries - tend to focus our foreign aid towards countries where we want to be able to use their airspace or that have some other strategic benefit (e.g. oil).

What I feel Kerry understands, and Bush doesn't, is that a lot of these international relationships have been seriously damaged during the Bush administration, over the Kyoto Treaty and the war in Iraq. And when we need airspace and backup troops and neighboring countries through which to transport troops and supplies and whatever, will they be there for us? THAT, to me, is being an international President.

Grace

04-21-2004, 04:14 PM

Originally posted by stefania4
I interpreted the phrase "international President" differently. To me it doesn't mean trying to please the world; it means acknowledging that we are members of an international community and that we need to collaborate with other countries for a common good.

I don't disagree with you Stefania in theory, it's just that again, the "common good" is subjective. Who's to say what the common good is? What I think is good and what some other country believes is good, could be two totally different things. And this, to me, is the crux of the matter. Every country comes in with their own agenda. I don't think anyone out there is interested in true cooperation for the "common good" (if they could even agree on such a thing). I think most everyone out there is out for themselves. Maybe that's a jaded attitude, but it's what I believe.

And I do think there are at least a few altruistic causes we support (but maybe I'm wrong - I haven't done any research on the matter), but all the money we give (for example) to Africa for AIDS and other such things don't seem to have any other strategic benefit - but again, perhaps I'm wrong, and I very well could be.

Escher

04-21-2004, 04:17 PM

My philosophy is that people are generally good and self-sufficient.

From that, I conclude that a smaller government is preferable to a larger government, because a larger government implies that the people either need to be controlled, or are incapable of providing for themselves.

While neither the Democrats nor the Republicans completely meet my smaller government principle, the Republicans outwardly express more support for the concept, and sometimes even act on the principle....

If I feel a contest will be close, I will vote Republican, however, if a contest is already decided, I support Libertarian candidates.

I find many on the left are sorely deluding themselves when they suggest that larger government is necessary to help our fellow man:....
A)representative governments are inherently inefficient
B)the use of force (through taxation or other means) by a govenment upon it's people is vexing on principle
C)A citizen sheltered by the government can never learn independence.

stefania4

04-21-2004, 05:05 PM

Originally posted by Grace
I haven't done any research on the matter), but all the money we give (for example) to Africa for AIDS and other such things don't seem to have any other strategic benefit - but again, perhaps I'm wrong, and I very well could be. I have a special interest in this subject, having spent 6 months in Liberia. And it helps that I know where to look on the web, since I keep up with the news there.

http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/news/nta24261.htm

"Africa, the neglected stepchild of American diplomacy, is rising in strategic importance to Washington policy makers, and one word sums up the reason: oil. Africa already provides about 15 % of the United States' crude oil imports, but its share is expected to grow rapidly from new production in West Africa and construction of a pipeline linking southern Chad to Atlantic ports.

Within the next decade, recently discovered offshore reserves are expected to enable West Africa to outproduce the North Sea's oil rigs and capture as much as 25 % of America's oil-import market. Though the Persian Gulf will remain the nation's primary source of imported crude, the new African oil could reduce dependence on countries like Saudi Arabia, whose relations with the United States have been strained in the year since the Sept. 11 attacks. "

http://allafrica.com/stories/200404180002.html
The following is the transcript of an address by Acting Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Charles Snyder at the American Enterprise Institute. ...

"U.S. national security interests. As a number of speakers at this conference have made clear, the United States has real interests in Africa. We ignore the continent at our peril. Africa will provide up to 30 percent of U.S. oil in the next 10 years. The petroleum is coming from traditional suppliers like Nigeria, Gabon and Angola, but from emerging producers such as Equatorial Guinea, Chad, Sao Tome and Principe, and still more I think that are only beginning to come on-line.

More and more businesses are paying attention to Africa. During President Bush's trip to Africa, he referred to Africa as the last great emerging market of the world. It is. And my predecessor, Walter Kansteiner, is back in that business, and Walter is many things, but he's a shrewd businessman, and he's making his living in Africa. There really is a large emerging market there, a serious one, maybe the last one that's open for grabs in any real sense that doesn't have preexisting patterns that can't be broken at this point.

Infectious disease knows no borders. Public health officials warn of the possibilities of emerging infectious diseases that could spread to the U.S. and Europe, the comeback of TB in many places. The failure of the global eradication program against polio goes to the difficulties we've had getting to the last couple of pools of polio, one of which was in Sudan.

Finally, of course, terrorists and extremist groups find sanctuaries in Africa and have conducted attacks against U.S. and allied interests there. The continent's crises and conflict, as well as the brutal HIV/AIDS pandemic breed instability which opens new safe harbors for our enemies.

http://www.siyassa.org.eg/esiyassa/ahram/2003/7/1/REPO3.HTM

This article is pretty propaganda-istic (oh, the grammar!), but these points are well taken:

Africa is possibly more important within the framework of the new US strategy than other regions, such as the Middle East, Asia and Europe, for a number of reasons:

1- Africa's important trade routes and ports in both the Pacific and Atlantic oceans, through which the US could expand its military presence worldwide.

2- Africa's mineral and oil wealth, which represents a good opportunity for the US, which considers the fulfilment of its oil needs a matter of national security.

3- Africa's market of around 700m people, which the US wants to benefit from, particularly as trade between it and Africa is relatively low.

http://www.prairienet.org/acas/military/usmilafrica.pdf

The United States does not possess its own bases in Africa, but relies on the agreement of
African governments to use local bases and other military facilities in times of need. The
only country that had concluded a formal agreement with Washington for the use of local
military facilities is Kenya, which signed an agreement in February 1980. The Kenyan
agreement allows U.S. troops to use the port of Mombasa, as well as airfields at
Embakasi and Nanyuki. These facilities were used to support the American military
interve ntion in Somalia in 1992-1994 and have been used in the past year to support
forces from the United States and other coalition forces involved in counter-terrorism
operations.
After 11 September 2001, the Pentagon received permission from Djibouti to establish
the headquarters for the Combined Joint Task Force-Horn of Africa (its regional counterterrorism
command center) in that country. Along with the headquarters element, 800
U.S. Special Forces troops have set up base at Camp Lemonier outside of the city
Djibouti and the amphibious assault ship U.S.S. Mount Whitney, with 600 Marine on
board, is stationed off shore. In December 2002, 2,400 Marines from the 24th Marine
Expeditionary Unit, based on ships off shore, conducted military exercises in Djibout i in
preparation for the impending war with Iraq. In addition, the C.I.A. operatives are also
working out of Djibouti, from where they directed the flight of the Predator drone aircraft
that was used to fire the missiles that killed an alleged al-Qaeda leader and four others in
Yemen in November 2001.
The United States has not yet asked other African countries to use their military facilities.
It is likely that other facilities, such as the recently expanded air base in Botswana, would
be available for the use of U.S. troops if the United States wanted to use them in the
future. But this would be up to the host country on a case-by-case basis. The West
African country of S�o Tom� e Pr�ncipe has attracted attention recently by offering to
host an American naval base, but the Pentagon is unlikely to take them up on their offer
because the facilities are inadequate and are not needed by U.S. forces.
Military Exercises
The United States provides training to African military forces through a variety of
programs. Along with the training provided in Africa through the ACOTA and ARP
programs, U.S. troops conduct joint training exercises in Africa and the Pentagon brings
African military officers to the United States for training at U.S. military installations
through the IMET program. In April and May 2002, for example, two U.S. Navy
hospital ships, the U.S.S. Dallas and the U.S.S. Minneapolis, conducted the regular West
African Training Cruise and Medical Outreach Program mission, spending two-weeks
stationed off Togo and Ghana. In May 2002, 1,000 American troops participated in a
month- long joint amphibious assault exercise on the Kenyan coast with Kenyan,
Tanzanian, and Ugandan troops. In August 2002, U.S. military medical personnel and
Special Forces troops held a two-week medical training exercise, known as MEDFLAG
02, in Entebbe and Sorotti, Uganda. And in September 2001, 200 U.S. U.S. Air Force
personnel went to the Waterkloof Air Force Base in South Africa to participate in the first
bilateral training exercise with South African forces.

eas11

04-21-2004, 08:25 PM

Originally posted by jmarie
Actually Music mom, he said it himself, in a speech, if i recall correctly. I will do research and get back to you. Beleive me, i am not smart enough to make that up.

Amd while I am digging up my data, could you please reference this for me?
Thanks!
Joyce

Joyce, surely you don't belive things to be the truth just because a politician said it during a speech!!!??? If he said it, it sounds like it was his opinion, and there were probably no facts surrounding his statement either .:confused:
We'll keep hearing the candidates (all of em) express their opinions for the next 7 months, I'm afraid. :mad:
BTW, I checked the phrase "international president" Here (http://www.vote-smart.org/speech.php?can_id=CNIP9043&type=full#Results) in all of Bushs' public remarks and came up dry. You can view the text of all candidates public remarks and speeches at the site.

Ellyn

Guest

04-21-2004, 11:41 PM

Originally posted by jmarie

Amd while I am digging up my data, could you please reference this for me?
Thanks!
Joyce

Much has been written about the tactics used in the 2000 Republican presidential primary in South Carolina. Here are two. I am sure you can find more if you do a search.

E N Q U I R E R L O C A L N E W S C O V E R A G E

Sunday, February 27, 2000
McCain blasts foes' 'underhanded stunts'

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Candidate angry with some tactics of Bush supporters

BY HOWARD WILKINSON
The Cincinnati Enquirer
John McCain, on a three-city Ohio campaign tour Saturday, said he won't let George W. Bush and his supporters �pull the kind of underhanded stunts� he claims they did in earlier primaries.

�People are catching on to what that (Bush) campaign is all about,� Mr. McCain told The Cincinnati Enquirer on Saturday in Columbus.

In an interview with the Enquirer and, later, with a half-dozen Ohio reporters as the McCain �Straight Talk Express� made its way down Interstate 71 to Cincinnati, the Arizona senator was harsh in his criticism of the Bush campaign's methods of stirring up Christian conservative voters in South Carolina, where Mr. McCain lost the primary to Mr. Bush.

�There were all these phone calls going out all over the state, crazy stuff,� Mr. McCain said. �It was awful.�

Mr. Bush, a week before the primary, made a trip to Bob Jones University in South Carolina, a Christian college that has stirred controversy because it bans interracial dating and because its president, Bob Jones III, has been accused of being anti-Catholic.

�In South Carolina, you had this guy, this professor, at Bob Jones University sending thousands of e-mails all over the state saying I had fathered an illegitimate child,� Mr. McCain said, with his wife, Cindy, sitting across the aisle on the campaign bus.

Mr. McCain said the professor later said he was referring to the 8-year-old Sri Lankan girl the McCains adopted several years ago.

�It's disgusting, despicable stuff,� Mr. McCain said.

Sophisticated voters
In Michigan, where Mr. McCain won a primary victory, TV evangelist Pat Robertson's organization flooded the state with thousands of recorded phone calls saying Mr. McCain was a threat to Christian moral values.

Mr. Bush, Mr. McCain said, �has wrapped himself around Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson and now he's going to have to carry them through the rest of this campaign.�

�Pandering� to the Christian conservative wing of the party won't work in March 7 primary states, such as California, New York and Ohio, Mr. McCain said.

�I'm no expert on Ohio voters, but (U.S. Sen.) Mike DeWine tells me that there is a pretty fair level of sophistication among Ohio voters,� Mr. McCain said. �A Pat Robertson phone call is not going to make much of a difference.�

On the bus ride to Cincinnati, the candidate munched on Girl Scout cookies, sipped bottled water and fielded a nonstop barrage of questions from Ohio reporters.

Asked if he knew what Mr. Bush meant when he called himself a �compassionate conservative,� the candidate laughed.

�Compassionate conservative, that was last week,� Mr. McCain said. �This week it's "a reformer with results.' Next week, it will be a "Texan with tenacity.' I can't keep track of it.�

Mr. McCain said he could not explain his appeal in the early primaries to Democratic and indepen dent voters who do not necessarily agree with many of his conservative Republican positions on issues. �Maybe people are looking for something more in a president,� he said. �Maybe they are looking for someone who they can believe.�

A job for Taft
Asked about a flap in Cleveland, where aides to Ohio Gov. Bob Taft, a Bush supporter, are said to have persuaded Cuyahoga County Republican Party officials to rescind their invitation to Mr. McCain to speak at a party dinner, the candidate laughed. He said he hopes Mr. Taft �will invite me back to Ohio when I'm president.�

�I'm not mad at the governor; he's still on my short list for postmaster general,� he joked.

http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2000/02/27/loc_mccain_blasts_foes.html

Push Polling
Let's rewind history and study another rumor, one which cost Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) his candidacy in 2000. McCain was running a close campaign against George Bush in South Carolina, when Karl Rove introduced his brilliant strategy: push polling (Rove has been involved in push polling since the early 70s). Essentially, calls were made to households asking �Would you be more likely or less likely to vote for John McCain for president if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?� Many took this to say that he had one, and seeing McCain and his wife on stage with their adopted Bangladeshi daughter, concluded that the rumor was true. The sight of the little dark skinned girl made the seed planted earlier grow, and McCain ended up losing South Carolina and subsequentially dropping out of the race.
http://www.watchblog.com/thirdparty/archives/000780.html

jmarie

04-22-2004, 05:02 AM

I posted my remarks about the International President thing a week or so ago. Just yesterday morning, i read another newspiece about it, but last night could not find it anywhere. :confused: I will, however continue to look, because I have read it.

Joyce, surely you don't belive things to be the truth just because a politician said it during a speech!!!???

So, you are telling me that I am not to believe anything that JFK or Bush has said in a speech? Then why are we even having this debate? For crying out loud...I can understand why this would be important if you are listening to JFK's flip-flops and waffling....I guess that is why you say this. I guess it does make sense for a democrat, especially in these times. Your statement says it all.
Joyce

badunnin

04-22-2004, 05:10 AM

Originally posted by jmarie
I guess it does make sense for a democrat, especially in these times. Your statement says it all.
Joyce

Wow - that's painting with broad strokes.

eas11

04-22-2004, 05:16 AM

Originally posted by jmarie
I posted my remarks about the International President thing a week or so ago. Just yesterday morning, i read another newspiece about it, but last night could not find it anywhere. :confused: I will, however continue to look, because I have read it.

So, you are telling me that I am not to believe anything that JFK or Bush has said in a speech? Then why are we even having this debate? For crying out loud...I can understand why this would be important if you are listening to JFK's flip-flops and waffling....I guess that is why you say this. I guess it does make sense for a democrat, especially in these times. Your statement says it all.
Joyce

Sorry, I was not clear in my comment.... Since we were discussing a comment you said GB made publically about his opponent, I thought it was clearer that I was talking about those kind of campaign comments-again, sorry.
I'm talking about things canditadates say about their OPPONENTS, without facts, during campaigning. Not just about their opponents personally, but also the positions of opponents on issues. I am into facts. We CAN find facts when they are made publically, check out the link I posted Joyce-full texts of public staements and speeches are documented. When the comments are really fact, not fiction one candidate wants us to believe about another, then we can talk.

Ellyn

eas11

04-22-2004, 05:26 AM

Originally posted by jmarie
I guess it does make sense for a democrat, especially in these times. Your statement says it all.
Joyce

Yup, and this is an example of just that kind of factless, personal attack comment. Not a question to me, just a baseless statement as to what I believe and/or who I am, what I think of people/positions I've never commented on (like JFK). JFK? Flip-floping? These times? I'm a Democrat? What in the world are you talking about here? Geez.

MusicMom

04-22-2004, 06:42 AM

Originally posted by stefania4
I interpreted the phrase "international President" differently. To me it doesn't mean trying to please the world; it means acknowledging that we are members of an international community and that we need to collaborate with other countries for a common good.

What I feel Kerry understands, and Bush doesn't, is that a lot of these international relationships have been seriously damaged during the Bush administration, over the Kyoto Treaty and the war in Iraq. And when we need airspace and backup troops and neighboring countries through which to transport troops and supplies and whatever, will they be there for us? THAT, to me, is being an international President.

Thanks Stefania- That's where I was coming from. Grace, I understand your perspective and agree that we need to defend ourselves when necessary. I just think that we should be looking for more cooperation on international issues.

MusicMom

04-22-2004, 06:43 AM

Originally posted by linsleyd

Particulary when your father was head of the Illuminati!

:) :) :)

jmarie

04-22-2004, 07:50 AM

Since we were discussing a comment you said GB made publically about his opponent,

Oh, I didn't mean for it to sound like GB made the international comment...Actually Kerry made it. But I can see why you said what you did now. It makes sense. And thank you for the clarification!
Joyce

EsteemSamurai

04-22-2004, 12:48 PM

Whew. Talk about frevor! I like it! At least it proves that some of us are interested and taking active notice of the political process at hand.

I will be voting for John Kerry. He wasn't my original choice; during the primaries, I voted for John Edwards. I consider myself to be a social democrat and fiscal conservative, which puts me at odds with George W. Bush on just about every issue imaginable. That said, the reasons I will be voting for Kerry include:

1. I disagree with the scope and mode of implementation of the tax cuts. The timing was inappropriate in light of the move to go towards military action and the results of the overall fiscal plan implemented by the Bush white house has decimated the surplus left to us by the Clinton administration. Kerry has committed to cutting the deficit in half within his four-year term and additionally to creating 10 million new jobs to make up for jobs lost during the past four years. Finally, he committed to, within his first 500 days in office, establish a "State Tax Relief and Education Fund" that will help states with $50 billion over two years to stop the education cuts, tuition increases and tax raising that are inhibiting our economic growth, causing layoffs and hurting families.

2. I disagree with the current strategy for environmental conservation and protection. The Bush whitehouse has rolled back a number of clean air and water laws, and refused to enforce laws currently in place. Kerry has committed to, within the first 100 days in office, reverse these rollbacks and enforce already set standards.

3. I am pro-choice. I don't believe there is further explanation required here. Kerry has committed to supporting only pro-choice judges in appointment to the Supreme Court.

4. I support the right of gays and lesbians to marriage. To me (and this is a personal opinion), marriage is created by the love of two people and the desire to commit to one another until death parts them. These factors are not gender specific. While Kerry has not come out and said that he would support the right to marriage, he has come out in full support of civil unions and believes that gays/lesbians should have full and equal protection associated with civil unions under the law. Additionally, he's come out against the 'Defense of Marriage Act', which defines marriage as between a man and woman. Frankly, I don't see that as being a definition within the Senate's jurisidiction to make, so... I agree with that as well.

There are things I *do not* agree with for Kerry, but these items above are extremely important issues to me, and as such, they take priority over the others. All of this information can be referenced back at Kerry's website, should individuals like to read up.

I would also like to point out that, separate from all of this, I abhor G.W. Were Kerry not an option, I would be one of the shining examples of folks voting for Nader or Mickey Mouse.

Best,

~S

ellamay

04-22-2004, 12:57 PM

I am an ardent Democrat, and feel disappointed in Kerry as a choice. I was really hoping Wes Clark would get the nomination, and campaigned for him. (Actually I really wish that McCain had won the Republican nomination in 2000 over Bush. I liked McCain; even if he was a Republican, I would have voted for him).

I am voting for Kerry because

1. He's not Bush.

That pretty much sums it up for me. I think Bush is a terrible president, policy-wise. I don't think I agree with a single policy his administration has developed, and I am especially concerned about his inability to control the deficit and fix Social Security. And I can't believe anyone finds him cute, or his public speaking style endearing. Every time I see him on TV, he looks like a deer caught in headlights or like he's stoned on some kind of heavy tranquilizer.

I am glad to know that people are paying attention to the issues and I hope everyone votes, regardless of who they vote for.

jjsooner73

04-22-2004, 01:06 PM

I'm undecided. I'm not exactly crazy about Bush or Kerry. I don't know a thing about any of the other potential candidates, besides Nader. So when I do vote, I guess once again it will be for who I dislike the least. :( I'm not excited about voting at all.

KAG

04-22-2004, 01:44 PM

I am a moderate Republican. I've never voted Democrat in my life and it would be a heart palpatating experience to actually go through with a democratic vote. This year I won't have to worry about it. I can't stand Kerry, and I don't like it that the Democratic/Republican choice is always made before my state has a primary. I supported McCain in 2000 and was very disappointed when Bush got the nomination. I am not impressed that the deficit has skyrocketed. Although I'm thrilled that my taxes have been cut, I too question the timing. One of the things I dislike about the democratic party is the support of so many unnecessary social programs (In my opinion) and the tax and spend mentality. I would definately like to know how Kerry perposes to "create" 10 million jobs. How does a president do that?

There are a lot of things I don't like about Bush. I don't like his enviromental policies. I supported him with trepidation on the Iraq war. I gave him the benefit of MY doubt that he knew what he was doing. It came out of left field, my intuition said it was weak for the reasons he sited. Unfortunately, intuition seems to have been right. I don't like faith based initiatives. I also don't like vouchers for education.

I am also pro choice but don't want to see every judge on the Supreme Court a pro choice judge. I think balance is a good thing.

Let's just say on the Gay marriage issue I will vote my concience.

I personally don't think we need the UN's permission to defend ourselves. I think the UN should be disbanded. But that's my opinion and it's important only to me I'm sure.

I'm not sure I can make it through another 4 years of an administration that sees every issue in black and white but no gray. I do like the way Bush was no nonsense after 9/11. I think we need to stay the course on this one.

Like McCain, I don't think I could ever switch parties. The Republican party can be brought back around if everyone doesn't jump ship in the meantime. The wait may be painful though. Why oh why did the far right have to attach themselves to the Republican party? All you states that are so priviledged to choose my candidate for me just give me a decent Republican candidate please. Until then Bush outweighs Kerry for me by a country mile.

claire797

04-22-2004, 01:52 PM

Well said KAG! I'm voting for YOU! :).

KAG

04-22-2004, 01:53 PM

Originally posted by claire797
Well said KAG! I'm voting for YOU! :).

You mean instead of Mickey Mouse? :D Thanks. ;)

Robyn1007

04-22-2004, 03:15 PM

Originally posted by KAG
One of the things I dislike about the democratic party is the support of so many unnecessary social programs (In my opinion) and the tax and spend mentality.

I am just curious to know what social programs you feel are unnecessary? I am not agreeing, nor disagreeing at this point because I can't tell what you feel is unnecessary.

Also, though tax and spend may not be the best idea, I don't think cutting taxes and spending huge amounts on a war is the best idea either. I truly think we need to find a balance here.......

Robyn

JenniferJJ

04-22-2004, 06:09 PM

I will vote for Bush due to my Conservative Christian Values. Those are more important to me than the economy - and this is coming from someone who was unemployed for 4.5 months last year and is now on her 9th week of unemployment.

I believe education is a great thing: I've got a bachelors and a masters. However, I don't believe that all the funding in the world is going to make the difference that people are hoping for. My parents were the single most important factor in my education. They read to me as a little one, took me to story hour, preschool and made sure I could read before I went to kindergarten. They monitored and helped with homework. It was never a matter of if IF I was going to college, but WHICH college I would be going to. They paid for my bachelor's degree at the sacrifice of vacations, expensive cars and house updates that many of the neighbors had. (I had been jealous of my high school peers that had all these things, but later learned that some of their parents didn't pay a dime for college tuition.)

I was in one of the better school districts in the state. However, if my parents didn't support and model that value for me, I strongly believe I would not have the education values/accomplishments I have today.

sneezles

04-22-2004, 06:34 PM

Originally posted by Robyn1007

I am just curious to know what social programs you feel are unnecessary? I am not agreeing, nor disagreeing at this point because I can't tell what you feel is unnecessary.

It's a long article but weel worth the read...

Kerry's Spending, Tax Plans Fall Short
Review of Proposals Shows Expenditures Exceeding Savings by $165 Billion
By Jim VandeHei and Brian Faler
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, February 29, 2004; Page A05

Democratic presidential candidate John F. Kerry repeatedly assures voters he can pay for his top domestic priorities and cut the federal deficit, all by rolling back President Bush's tax cuts for top income earners and shutting down corporate tax loopholes.

But a review of his campaign proposals shows that the Democratic front-runner is promising to spend at least $165 billion more on new programs during his first term in office than he could save with his tax plan, a mix of breaks for the middle class and increases for corporations and the most affluent. The $165 billion figure does not include the cost of several proposals Kerry has not fully detailed or backed with estimates.

A policy adviser with Kerry's campaign said the candidate can fulfill his promise to cut the deficit in half by 2009 by slashing spending in other areas and "shedding" or "paring down" some proposals if necessary(amounts to campaign double-talk; dead end promises and lies should he be voted into office...rather like a pipe dream you have to wonder what's in that pipe he's smokin'). Kerry also anticipates stimulating the economy with greater spending during his first two years in office, the adviser said.

The Massachusetts senator has vowed not to touch entitlement programs such as Social Security, which eat up a huge chunk of tax dollars, forcing a likely squeeze or freeze of popular programs to make his deficit-cutting goal. The adviser said it is not uncommon for a campaign's political team to overpromise during the primaries (political banter for a LIE!) and then turn to the policy staff during the general election battle to cram the pledges into a workable budget.

"When(in other words let's keep the voters in the dark or I haven't quite figured out how to tell you it's all a lie) John Kerry outlines the full details of his budget -- both his proposed initiatives and the significant government waste and corporate giveaways he will get rid of -- it will be clear that his vision will reduce the Bush deficit and restore fiscal discipline," said Stephanie Cutter, a Kerry spokeswoman.

A review of John Edwards's campaign proposals indicated that the North Carolina senator appears to cover the cost of his agenda for two chief reasons: He has proposed less than Kerry in new spending -- particularly on health care, the costliest item for both candidates -- and would increase the capital-gains tax rate for Americans making more than $300,000 a year, carving a bigger revenue stream for the federal government.

Bush has promised to cut the deficit in half by 2009, too, though his budget relies on several controversial assumptions, including no new spending on operations in Iraq and cuts Congress is unlikely to approve. The Congressional Budget Office on Friday projected that Bush's budget plan would not halve the deficit in five years and would run up $2.75 trillion in additional debt over the next decade.

With the Bush deficits projected to hit historic heights, Republicans and Democrats expect the federal budget to be a major issue in the election. Deficit reduction rarely ranks among the chief concerns of voters, but Democrats believe Bush is vulnerable to charges he mismanaged the people's money, especially by cutting taxes so deeply for wealthier Americans. The Bush campaign's response: Kerry would tax and spend the country into an economic mess.

Elaine Kamarck, senior policy adviser to the 2000 Al Gore campaign, said it is important that presidential candidates explain how they will pay for their agenda. "We were extremely careful" to make sure Gore's numbers added up, she said, adding that Bush's numbers were not sufficiently scrutinized. "It was possible to predict these terrible deficits as early as 2000," she said, if Bush had been forced then to explain how the country could afford his tax cuts and new spending plans.

Playing to Democratic audiences, who largely oppose the Bush tax cuts, Kerry almost always touts his support for repealing the tax breaks for those making more than $200,000 -- and for beefing up programs that he says the savings would fund. This would mean reinstating a top tax rate of 39 percent and eliminating the breaks for capital gains and dividends available to those top income earners. This repeal would generate more than $200 billion in revenue over four years, according to William G. Gale of the Brookings Institution, a think tank Kerry campaign officials consult on budget numbers. Kerry also projects saving more than $180 billion over the first four years by eliminating loopholes and subsidies for corporations.

What Kerry rarely mentions is that he would extend all the Bush tax cuts for those making less than $200,000, which would cost about $75 billion over the next four years. In 2005, married couples, parents and others would see their taxes go up if the Bush cuts are not extended for this group because several reductions are set to expire; Bush wants the cuts made permanent. Edwards would do the same as Kerry.

In a general election, when Kerry will need to attract moderates and independents, aides said he would highlight not only his support for extending many of the Bush tax cuts but also tout his own, albeit little publicized, tax-reduction plans aimed at the middle class. Kerry has promised tax breaks for education, health care, manufacturers, small businesses and technology companies. His campaign has not detailed how much many of these cuts would cost the government or when they would take effect. Some advisers are pushing Kerry to propose more tax cuts if he wins the nomination.

If Kerry makes good on his tax-cutting promises, budget experts say he will run into the same problem Bush is having with soaring deficits, especially considering his myriad spending programs.

Kerry's advisers said the candidate's support for middle-class tax cuts will help deflect attention from his liberal voting record in the Senate. Republicans are planning to pounce on the large number of new spending programs Kerry has proposed in the campaign, as well as during his Senate career. Like many of his current and former Democratic primary rivals, Kerry has several big-ticket programs in a few key areas: health care, education, national security and the economy.

On the campaign trail, Kerry has proposed, for example, a health care plan that would cost $288 billion over his first four years in office -- although campaign aides say it would also save the government $100 billion over that period, through a variety of cost-saving measures. He would also boost spending on homeland security by more than $20 billion. Kerry wants to provide $50 billion to states grappling with tight budgets, while spending an additional $40 billion on jobs-related programs -- among them, tax breaks for small businesses, manufacturing companies and workers, and technology firms.

Kerry, who voted for Bush's No Child Left Behind education program, has relentlessly criticized Bush for underfunding it, and promises to increase annual funding by at least $8 billion. Kerry would increase spending on special education programs by almost $12 billion per year, and spend an additional $14 billion over four years on programs that help students pay for college education.

Kerry has proposed other, narrower initiatives that would add billions of dollars to the government's yearly bills, including expanding public service programs -- for seniors, teenagers and the Peace Corps -- by several billion dollars annually. And Kerry supports spending an additional $14 billion over the next four years on energy and environmental programs.

Veterans, in particular, would receive generous new support, including mortgage insurance to those in the National Guard and reserves who are called to duty and an increased death gratuity to be paid to the families of those killed in action. Kerry has also proposed providing 1.5 million rental units over the next decade for low-income families, while encouraging the building and rehabilitation of 500,000 homes in poor areas. He supports expanding funding for AIDS programs, including, according to his Web site, providing "at least $30 billion in the fight against AIDS by 2008."

His campaign has offered varying estimates of how much Kerry would spend on veterans programs, AIDS initiatives and urban renewal programs. Aides initially said they would be funded -- along with the plans to expand the preschool program Head Start and the number of police officers on the streets -- by a single pot of money that they estimated to be about $68 billion over the next four years. Aides later reduced that estimate to $54 billion and, later still, said Kerry could pay for all of the plans by squeezing or freezing other programs and eliminating government waste(odd that which programs are going to suffer from this freeze or squeeze are not named."

My point being that as the opposition candidate he's got a great schpiel but given my age and experience I consider his platform a load of cr@p! Does he think he's going to run this country by himself? Congress may have a thing or two to say about his ideas when and if he makes it into office.

I also have one request: Please do not refer to this man as JFK!

Guest

04-22-2004, 06:56 PM

Originally posted by KAG

I am also pro choice but don't want to see every judge on the Supreme Court a pro choice judge. I think balance is a good thing.

If choice and "balance" are important to you, I think you should take a hard look at the positions of many of the Bush judicial appointees. Many of them are virulently anti-choice, worked to overturn Roe v Wade and have called for a constitutional amendment to ban abortion. If you haven't taken a look at Bush's pending, confirmed and withdrawn nominees, I urge you to do some research so that you can see there is very little balance under the Bush administration.

stefania4

04-22-2004, 07:12 PM

Originally posted by JenniferJJ
However, I don't believe that all the funding in the world is going to make the difference that people are hoping for. My parents were the single most important factor in my education. They read to me as a little one, took me to story hour, preschool and made sure I could read before I went to kindergarten. They monitored and helped with homework. It was never a matter of if IF I was going to college, but WHICH college I would be going to.Like you, I was fortunate enough to have parents who took me to the library, helped me with my homework, and could afford to live in a decent school district.

Not all kids are that lucky. I've taught in schools where we all had to wear coats in the winter - in the classrooms - because the ancient heating system could not heat up the building, even if the roof wasn't leaking. I've taught in schools where the library was about the size of my bedroom & guest bedroom (complete with a 1977 set of encyclopedias). And when a single parent is working two jobs and the child stays after school with Grandma who doesn't speak English well, homework tends to not be checked.

I agree with you that increased funding isn't going to resolve the myriad of social, legislative, and economic issues that has led to the educational crisis we're in. But I'm far from saying it wouldn't help, and could help a great deal when combined with other changes not related to funding.

ellamay

04-22-2004, 09:02 PM

If anything, I think it's clear now that throwing more money at the education problem won't help. The "No Child Left Behind" program increased education funding in some circumstances but no educator I've talked to thinks the plan is good, or is going to help in the long run. They've been running articles in our local paper about how schools are affected by NCLB and the effects don't seem to be positive so far.

However, I think the problems in the educational system aren't something that any president, Democrat or Republican, can fix. It's going to take some type of societal change, what I'm not sure. But government has been trying to "fix" education for years and they still can't get anywhere. My opinion is that the whole system is flawed, I'm not sure I want any more tax dollars thrown at the current system until someone comes up with a better alternative.

But anyway. :D

badunnin

04-22-2004, 09:39 PM

Originally posted by ellamay
If anything, I think it's clear now that throwing more money at the education problem won't help. The "No Child Left Behind" program increased education funding in some circumstances but no educator I've talked to thinks the plan is good, or is going to help in the long run. They've been running articles in our local paper about how schools are affected by NCLB and the effects don't seem to be positive so far.

Ah, see, but therein lies the flaw of the NCLB legislation - there really is no money behind it. More testing, which requires money, but no actual money. Funding can be cut from schools who do not achieve adequate yearly progress (AYP). Now that's logical! Punish the schools who already lack the resources to provide a quality education. Punish the schools who can't get kids to come to school fed and clothed properly when they don't have scores that meet expectations. Punish schools where kids don't show up because they have such terrible home lives that they are taking care of younger siblings instead of coming to school - in order to pass at all, at least 95% of your students NEED TO TAKE THE TESTS. But do all this with no increase in funding. Way to go, Bush administration!

crlykat

04-22-2004, 10:37 PM

I agree with Bethany. The bill's intentions are good, I suppose, but there has been nothing but misleading information about the funds for it. My SIL is a teacher, and she is mad as hell about the misconceptions. If all students in the school don't meet certain testing criteria, which is the same for even those with special needs or limited English, the school can be punished, ultimately by letting go the current staff. Some states, such as Virginia, would rather not join with the bill. www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A43173-2004Jan23&notFound=true

YOu can check it out at the National Education Association's site:
http://www.nea.org/esea/leftbehind.html .

I did not really want to get involved on this thread, but this is an example of what I feel is the current administration's craftiness to the point of deceiving Americans about what's really going on.

Jill123

04-23-2004, 09:05 AM

Originally posted by badunnin

Ah, see, but therein lies the flaw of the NCLB legislation - there really is no money behind it. More testing, which requires money, but no actual money. Funding can be cut from schools who do not achieve adequate yearly progress (AYP). Now that's logical! Punish the schools who already lack the resources to provide a quality education. Punish the schools who can't get kids to come to school fed and clothed properly when they don't have scores that meet expectations. Punish schools where kids don't show up because they have such terrible home lives that they are taking care of younger siblings instead of coming to school - in order to pass at all, at least 95% of your students NEED TO TAKE THE TESTS. But do all this with no increase in funding. Way to go, Bush administration!

I'm just asking because I have almost no knowledge of how the NCLB legislation came about, but am I to understand that the Bush administration wrote this legislation completely -- without tweaks or changes or all-out rewrites by the House and Senate??

Robyn1007

04-23-2004, 09:15 AM

Originally posted by sneezles

I also have one request: Please do not refer to this man as JFK!

LOL I agree, I kept reading the earlier posts thinking "Since when did Kennedy become involved in this debate?"

Robyn

jmarie

04-23-2004, 10:07 AM

I also have one request: Please do not refer to this man as JFK!

Can if I want to.;) I have seen columnists do it.:D

badunnin

04-23-2004, 02:32 PM

Originally posted by Jill123

I'm just asking because I have almost no knowledge of how the NCLB legislation came about, but am I to understand that the Bush administration wrote this legislation completely -- without tweaks or changes or all-out rewrites by the House and Senate??
Actually, the entire legislation is a reauthorization of former President Johnson's ESEA (Elementary and Secondary Education Act) of 1965. President Bush just reworked it a bit.

little_bopeep

05-13-2004, 06:46 AM

Big Disclaimer: What I am about to post contains views and opinions that are not my own. I received it in email and am only sharing it because it's interesting reading. I, myself, am woefully ignorant of political issues, so I won't post personal opinions here. But I do want to thank all the posters for opening my eyes to some things. Again, this post is not designed to inflame any arguments or extend my personal beliefs. Please don't hurt me. :D

Subject: A Texas Soldier's Letter to Senator John Kerry

Dear Senator Kerry:

Since it has become clear that you will probably be the Democratic
nominee for President, I have spent a great deal of time researching
your war record and your record as a professional politician. The reason
is simple, you aspire to be the Commander in Chief who would lead my
sons and their fellow soldiers in time of war. I simply wanted to know if
you possess the necessary qualifications to be trusted in that regard.

You see, I belong to a family of proud U.S. veterans. I was a Captain
in the Army Reserve, my father was a decorated Lieutenant in World War II;
and I have four sons who have either served, or are currently serving in
the military. The oldest is an Army Lieutenant still on active duty in
Afghanistan, after already being honored for his service in Iraq. The
youngest is an E-4 with the military police. His National Guard unit
just finished their second tour of active duty, including six months in
Guantanamo Bay. My two other sons have served in the national guard
and the navy.

In looking at your record I found myself comparing it not only to that of
my father and my sons, but to the people they served with. My father
served with the 87th Chemical Mortar Battalion in Europe. They landed on
Utah Beach and fought for 317 straight days, including the Cherbourg Peninsula,
Aachen, the Hurtgen Forest, and the Battle of the Bulge. You earned a Silver
Star in Vietnam for chasing down and finishing off a wounded and retreating
enemy soldier. My father won a Bronze Star for single handedly charging and
knocking out a German machine gun nest that had his men pinned down.
You received three purple hearts for what appears to be three minor
scratches. In fact, you only missed a combined total of two days of duty for
these wounds. The men of my father's unit, the 87th, had to be admonished
by their commanding officer because it had been brought to his attention
that some men were covering up wounds and refusing medical attention for
fear of being evacuated and permanently separated from their organization...
It was also a common occurrence for seriously wounded soldiers to go AWOL from
hospitals in order to rejoin their units. You, however, used your three purple hearts to
leave Vietnam early.

My oldest boy came home from Iraq with numerous commendations and
then proceeded to volunteer to go to Afghanistan, and from there back to
Iraq again. My sons and father have never had anything but the highest
regard and respect for their fellow soldiers. Yet, you came home to publicly
charge your fellow fighting men with being war criminals and to urge their
defeat by the enemy. You even wrote a book that had a cover which mocked
the heroism of the U.S. Marines who raised the flag on Iwo Jima. Our current
crop of soldiers has a philosophy that no one gets left behind; and they have
practiced that from Somalia to the battlefields of the Middle East. Yet, as
chairman of a Senate committee looking into allegations that many of your
fellow servicemen had been left behind as prisoners in Vietnam, you chose
to defend the brutal Vietnamese regime. You even went so far as to refer
to the families of the POWs and MIAs as Professional malcontents, conspiracy
mongers, con artists, and dime-store Rambos.

As a Senator you voted against the 1991 Gulf War, and have repeatedly voted
against funds to supply our troops with the best equipment, and against
money to improve our intelligence capability. I find this particularly ironic
since as a Presidential candidate you are highly critical of our pre-war
intelligence in Iraq. However, you did vote to authorize the President to go
to war, but have since proceeded to do everything you can to undermine the
efforts of our government and our troops to win. Is this what our fighting men
and women can expect of you if you are their Commander in Chief? Will you gladly
send them to war, only to then aid the enemy byundermining the morale of our
troops and cutting off the weapons they need to win?

Our country is at war Senator, and as has been the case in every war since
the American Revolution, a member of my family is serving their country
during the war. Now you want me to trust you to lead my sons in this fight.

Sorry Senator, but when I compare your record to those who have fought and
died for this nation, and are currently fighting and dying, the answer is not just no,
but No Not Ever!

Sincerely,

Michael Connelly
February 14, 2004
Dallas, Texas

Jill123

05-13-2004, 09:06 AM

Wow, Susan. Thanks for posting that.

I've not been too interested in the presidential race so far (waiting for early fall!), so I haven't really read into Kerry's past much. That letter (if it is true -- you never can trust what you read nowadays!), really opened my eyes. I'll have to start looking into the charges made in that letter to see if it will sway my vote (which is still undecided, for the record). I'll let you all know what I find.

Thanks again for posting.

little_bopeep

05-14-2004, 09:33 AM

Again, what I'm posting today is just something I'm passing along, not my views or opinions. I don't know how much the prospective first lady would figure in anyone's vote, but you have to admit that this is interesting reading.

Catsup, Pickles, and the Radical Left
by Paul R. Hollrah

Maria Teresa Thiersten Simoes-Ferreira Heinz Kerry was born in
Mozambique, the daughter of a Portuguese physician, and was educated in
Switzerland and South Africa Fluent in five languages, she was working as a United
Nations interpreter in Geneva in the mid-60's when she met a handsome young
American, H. John Heinz, III, who worked at a bank inGeneva. He told her his family was in the food business.

They were married in 1966 and returned to Pittsburgh where his family ran the giant
H.J. Heinz food company. He was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in
1971, and in 1976 he was elected to the first of three terms in the United States Senate.

Senator H. John Heinz was a friend of mine, not a close friend, not a golfing buddy, but a friend nonetheless.

In 1991, he was killed when his plane collided with a helicopter over a Philadelphia suburb. He was survived by his wife, Teresa, and their three young sons.

Four years later, after inheriting Heinz's $500 million fortune, she married Senator John Forbes Kerry, the liberal junior senator from Massachusetts. She became a registered Democrat and the process of her radicalization was set in motion.

Heinz Kerry is not shy about telling people that she required Kerry to sign a pre-nuptial agreement before they were married. John Kerry may not have check-writing privileges on the Heinz catsup and pickle fortune, but he is certainly a willing and uncomplaining beneficiary of it.

So how does Mrs. Heinz Kerry spend John Heinz's money? Just one example:

According to the G2 Bulletin, an online intelligence newsletter of WorldNetDaily, in the years between 1995-2001 she gave more than $4 million to an organization called the Tides Foundation. And what does the Tides Foundation do with John Heinz's money?

a.. They support numerous anti-war groups, including Ramsey Clark's International Action Center. Clark has offered to defend Saddam Hussein when he's tried.

b.. They support the Democratic Justice Fund, a joint venture of the Tides Foundation and billionaire hate-monger George Soros. The Democratic Justice Fund seeks to ease restrictions on Muslim immigration from terrorist states.

c.. They support the Council for American-Islamic Relations, whose leaders are known to have close ties to the terrorist group, Hamas.

d.. They support the National Lawyers Guild, organized as a communist front during the Cold War era. One of their attorneys, Lynne Stewart, has been arrested for helping a client, Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, communicate with terror cells in Egypt. He is the convicted mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

e.. They support Planned Parenthood, the National Abortion Rights Action League, and the Abortion Action Project.

f.. They support the most violent of all homosexual action groups, ACT-UP.

g .. They support the Barrio Warriors, a radical Hispanic group whose primary goal is to return all of Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas to Mexico.

These are but a few of the radical groups that benefit, through the anonymity provided by the Tides Foundation, from the generosity of our would-be first lady the wealthy widow of Republican senator John Heinz, and now the wife of the Democratic senator who aspires to be the 44th President of the United States.

Note: Heinz has 57 of their plants and 72% of their employee's working overseas.

EsteemSamurai

05-14-2004, 10:00 AM

Interesting article along those lines. As with most of the postings in this forum, this particular article does not represent my personal opinions or feelings on the candidates. Simply providing more information. :)

Lady Politic
Will Outspoken Teresa Heinz Kerry Help or Hinder Husband's White House Bid?

ABCNEWS.com
May 6� Teresa Heinz Kerry is in a category all on her own among political wives. She's a woman who seems comfortable with contradiction. She's an environmental activist, but she owns three SUVs.

Her husband, Sen. John Kerry, is the presumed Democratic presidential candidate, but Heinz Kerry was a registered Republican until just last year. Beyond Heinz Kerry's substantial wealth � she's said to have a personal fortune of $500 million � her most notable trait as a political wife may be that she says exactly what she's thinking. "I'm a real person. I may not be what everybody would like to see, but it's real," she tells ABCNEWS' Barbara Walters in an exclusive interview airing on 20/20 Friday at 10 p.m.

Widow of H. John Heinz III, she is no stranger to the political spotlight and the scrutiny that comes with it. Her first husband, H. John Heinz III, sole heir to the Heinz ketchup and food fortune, served nearly 20 years in Congress � as a Republican congressman and senator from Pennsylvania � before his death in a 1991 plane crash.

And she's made it known over the years that she's never been particularly thrilled at the thought of being first lady.

When people asked her late husband to seek the presidency, she said, "I used to say 'over my dead body,' you know, because I was so terrified of it."

Indeed, she tells Walters she had no idea that Kerry was interested in a presidential bid when she married the Massachusetts senator in 1995. And she says she struggled to support his decision to seek the White House.

"It's something that you really have to come to terms with if it's not kind of a passion of your own," she said.

After some soul-searching, she tells Walters, she told Kerry she would support his presidential aspirations. "I said, 'I've thought about this a lot and I really have no right to be in your way.' � That means that I have an obligation to help. Because you can't do it halfway. You either do it or you don't do it. But I had to come to terms with that myself, and if I hadn't, he wouldn't have run."

Maria Teresa Thierstein Simoes-Ferreira Heinz Kerry is at least as complicated as her name. The daughter of a doctor, she was born in what was then the Portuguese colony of Mozambique, which borders South Africa and Tanzania. She mastered five languages: Portuguese, French, Spanish, Italian and English. While studying in Switzerland, she conquered the heart of H. John Heinz III, the heir to his family's ketchup and food fortune. They married in 1966.

She has three sons from her 25-year marriage with Heinz, and began seeing Kerry after meeting him at an Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. Even after their marriage in 1995, she says it took a while for her not to think of Heinz when referring to Kerry as her husband. "It took me a while to not say 'my husband' meaning John Heinz, cause I'd been married to him for 25 years. Then I switched to thinking my husband John Kerry � and then I thought thank goodness they're both called John."

Wrestled With Abortion Decision
Heinz Kerry also tells Walters she once wrestled with whether she should have an abortion some 30 years ago. She tells Walters that her doctor advised her to have an abortion when she learned of a pregnancy while taking cortisone medication.

"I always wanted the baby. I didn't want to have an abortion, but they gave me 15 days to because it was early and the night before I was due to go in, I miscarried it. So, God was very kind. � But the point is, I'm glad I had a choice."

Her husband, a Roman Catholic, has drawn criticism from the church for his pro-choice stance and his support for civil unions for homosexual couples.

The Medals Controversy
Heinz Kerry responded to the recent controversy over whether her husband had thrown away military decorations he earned during his service in Vietnam.

She says she has seen his medals. "Three, I think," she tells Walters.

But she thinks the criticism of Kerry's act of protest after his Vietnam service is unfair coming from political leaders who didn't serve. "If someone went to war and came back and didn't throw their medals in and criticized my husband, I'd say you have a right. But to be criticized by people who evaded going to war, I don't think is fair game."

Iraq vs. Vietnam
Heinz Kerry says her husband doesn't view Iraq as a quagmire along the lines of Vietnam. "John doesn't compare the two in the sense that we have a lot more communication," she said, "and we see a lot more today than they did before they went."

But true to her unedited form, she doesn't shy away from offering sharp criticism of President Bush's policy on Iraq. "On the other hand, we were misinformed before going in too. And so, in that sense, there are similarities. Iraq, although it was in terrible, terrible shape in terms of Saddam Hussein, had nothing to do with terrorism, nothing!"

She added, "Our first priority was terrorism. We have now made enemies of people who were our friends, and even our allies distrust us. And that's a terrible thing."

No Pretense and No Holds Barred
Heinz Kerry also answers criticism that her husband is aloof and indecisive, saying simply that "he's deliberate and patient." However, she thinks "he should learn to be a little briefer" on the campaign trail.

Although there have been a flurry of reports suggesting that Heinz Kerry has kept Kerry's campaign handlers on edge with her off the cuff remarks, she says nobody's telling her to keep her opinions to herself.

"If they did, I wouldn't be there campaigning. You know, I can only be me. And I also know that's not what the American people want. They don't want phonies. They don't want pretense � they want real people � I'm a real person."

MusicMom

05-14-2004, 10:00 AM

Originally posted by little_bopeep
They support Planned Parenthood...

These are but a few of the radical groups that benefit, through the anonymity provided by the Tides Foundation, from the generosity of our would-be first lady the wealthy widow of Republican senator John Heinz, and now the wife of the Democratic senator who aspires to be the 44th President of the United States.

Oh, brother. :rolleyes:

And this directly from The Tides Foundation (http://www.tides.org/index_tds.cfm)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Tides Foundation and Tides Center Statement Regarding Recent Scrutiny over Heinz Endowments

Date: March 11, 2004

Tides Foundation and Tides Center have come under attack in several opinion pieces recently appearing in media such as the The New York Post, The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Times, among others. The articles make false allegations relating specifically to Tides and the funding it receives from The Heinz Endowments, as well as Tides' support of a group called "September 11th Families for Peaceful Tomorrows." The allegations are without merit, consisting entirely of errors and innuendo.

Here are the facts: The Heinz Endowments have granted Tides Foundation $230,000 dispensed between 1994 and 1998. These grants were used solely to support a pollution prevention initiative and other environmentally friendly practices by industries in Western Pennsylvania. Tides Center, an independent organization providing administrative and financial services to hundreds of projects across the country, has received additional support from The Heinz Endowments specifically to support projects in Pennsylvania. The vast majority of the projects funded through these endowments were related to either environmental protection or youth education. No Heinz- related money has gone to fund September 11th Families for Peaceful Tomorrows. Teresa Heinz Kerry, the wife of Senator John Kerry, chairs The Howard Heinz Endowment and sits on Vira I. Heinz Endowment's board.

For the record, the Tides family of organizations is proud to provide support and services to Peaceful Tomorrows - a grassroots organization whose activities revolve around nonviolence and peaceful resolutions - through Tides Foundation, Tides Center, and Groundspring.org, an organization that provides training and web-based services for online fundraising. Tides Foundation has made four grants in 2002 and 2003 for a combined total of $34,665 to Peaceful Tomorrows. Peaceful Tomorrows has raised $19,097 through Groundspring.org since August, 2002.

Tides Foundation employs donor advised funds, the same financial vehicle administered in precisely the same way as the Fidelity Charitable Gift Fund and similar programs operated by Schwab, Vanguard, and more than 600 community foundations across the country. Tides works under the rigors of fund accounting, restricted grants, and annual audits, ensuring that all monies released by Tides are properly distributed and accounted for. Tides Center projects each raise funds for their individual program activities, with these funds being separately accounted for and administered. These funds are limited for the specific purposes for which they were given.

At Tides, our goal is a society based on fairness, equally shared economic opportunities, engaged and active citizens and environmental sustainability. In 2002 and 2003, Tides Foundation made more than 6,000 separate grants to nonprofit organizations totaling more than $100 million and Tides Center provides over 250 emerging projects with support services. Our work speaks for itself in the range of program activities that supports a diverse array of organizations working on projects from human rights to disaster relief and youth education.

Contact: Christopher J. Herrera
Tides Foundation
P: 415-561-6355
cherrera@tides.org

Looks like a good group to me.