Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Toad on March 12, 2004, 07:58:10 AM
-
CNN: Senate passes $2.36 trillion budget
(This part is what brought the question; I should have included it to begin with):
The measure was approved 51-45 after Republicans fought off a mountain of Democratic amendments. Many would have trimmed tax cuts on the richest Americans and shifted the money to health care, schools, firefighters or other popular programs.
John Kerry, D-Massachusetts; Harry Reid, D-Nevada, and Tim Johnson, D-South Dakota, did not vote.
Kerry For President:
John Kerry has the courage to roll back Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans so we can invest in education and healthcare.
So, why didn't the vote on the budget?
-
Because being a very rich man he was going to benefit from it the most?
Your politicians suck almost as much as ours. Perhaps more so in some areas.
-
Maybe he was too busy fighting the imaginary "Republican hate machine" he has been talking about for about a year now.
-
Originally posted by Toad
So, why didn't the vote on the budget?
Because it's political suicide in a presidential race to position yourself on issues like this that opponents can easily spin one way or another. If he votes against the budget, he's for "raising taxes," and if he votes for it, he looks like a hypocrite. Republicans understand this, and they are pursuing an active strategy of bringing up potentially embarrassing votes for Kerry to vote (or not vote) on during the campaign.
Frankly, if I were his political advisor, I would also recommend that he not vote on these issues. Doing so gains him nothing at this point.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Isn't it obvious? He was too busy holding meetings with the great foreign leaders and heads of state who want to see him in office rather than Bush...
Gosh, there are so many...
(http://insidemagic.com/artman/uploads/kimjong-il.jpg)
(http://wtc.acmecargo.com/wtc-pics/osama-bin-laden.jpg)
(http://www.embavenez-paris.com/images/chavez.jpg)
(http://www.n-tv.de/images/200308/3177784_fidel_castro.jpg)
(http://numbers.blogs.com/photos/saddam/image0088.jpg)
-
That's just lame, Groinherz.
-
It sure is Dowding, that Kerry would rather cater to the intersts of foreign leaders such as these rather thas the american people. Perhaps he shouldnt be president...
-
Will you vote GRUN ?
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
It sure is Dowding, that Kerry would rather cater to the intersts of foreign leaders such as these rather thas the american people. Perhaps he shouldnt be president...
You've lost it, once a great troller now slid back into the masses of mediocrity. Sad to see a gift like that vanish...
-
Originally posted by straffo
Will you vote GRUN ?
Hell no! Never vote, its filthy.
Thud I'm tuched by your concern. :)
-
Originally posted by Dowding
That's just lame, Groinherz.
Thats just what we want..... elect a president because foreign interests support him. These so called alliances have brought us nothing in recent history, other than support for the gulf war.
I'm not referring to GB btw:)
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Hell no! Never vote, its filthy.
Thud I'm tuched by your concern. :)
// rude frenchman mode on
so you're not really part of the game don't you ?
:p
// off
-
Originally posted by Rude
Thats just what we want..... elect a president because foreign interests support him. These so called alliances have brought us nothing in recent history, other than support for the gulf war.
I'm not referring to GB btw:)
Thats not true, NATO and the varios economic alliances are very nice - even the UN sometimes - although that one is mosdtly pointless now. However if Kerry is going to run on the basis that mysterious unnamed foreign leaders are supporting him, well thats stupid. I think it illustrates his opiion of US inferiority and subserviance to foreign intersts that he has consitently displayed in his defense voting record, gulf war 1, cia funding cuts, his stance towards the UN etc etyc etc... I dont want some limp wristed UN lapdog as US president. And I dont take that to mean all democrats are like that (clinton sure wasnt) but it sure seems that kerry is, and thats in keeping with his ultra liberal anti-US soverignty & defense voting recird....
-
Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
Because it's political suicide in a presidential race to position yourself on issues like this that opponents can easily spin one way or another. If he votes against the budget, he's for "raising taxes," and if he votes for it, he looks like a hypocrite. Republicans understand this, and they are pursuing an active strategy of bringing up potentially embarrassing votes for Kerry to vote (or not vote) on during the campaign.
Frankly, if I were his political advisor, I would also recommend that he not vote on these issues. Doing so gains him nothing at this point.
-- Todd/Leviathn
Wouldn't it be nice to have someone in office that stands on principles and not votes?
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Wouldn't it be nice to have someone in office that stands on principles and not votes?
So which principle does he stand on? Is he a hypocrite? Or a tax-and-spender?
He has nothing to gain by voting on this measure. And almost certainly he would not gain your vote as a principled political actor anyway. You're not the constituency he's wooing.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
Because it's political suicide in a presidential race to position yourself on issues like this
-- Todd/Leviathn
Well, sure. That's politics. Unfortunately, eventually you have to stand for something, right?
Now his website clearly positions him on the tax cuts:
John Kerry has the courage to roll back Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans so we can invest in education and healthcare.
Yet, when this very issue comes up in the Senate.... you know, that place he works for the people of Massachusetts and by extension the people he wants to lead, the entire USA...
Democratic amendments. Many would have trimmed tax cuts on the richest Americans and shifted the money to health care, schools
I see the "political risk" of which you speak. However, the other side of it is his opponents can say "Look, he says he's going to do this on his Website; it's a campaign promise. When it comes up in the Senate for a vote, he doesn't vote. Flip. Flop. Can you trust this guy to do what he says?"
I'd have looked at it the other way. This was his opportunity to make a fiery speech in the Senate on rolling "back Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans so we can invest in education and healthcare". A place to put his "vision" before the people.
Instead, he no showed. Where's that courage they speak of on the website?
-
Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
So which principle does he stand on? Is he a hypocrite? Or a tax-and-spender?
He has nothing to gain by voting on this measure. And almost certainly he would not gain your vote as a principled political actor anyway. You're not the constituency he's wooing.
-- Todd/Leviathn
How about voting the way the people he's supposed to
represent feel? After all, all those lamers in DC are supposedly
elected REPRESENTATIVES, a fact they seem to forget the day
after the election.
-
Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
So which principle does he stand on? Is he a hypocrite? Or a tax-and-spender?
-- Todd/Leviathn
I dunno, without a vote I have to put him in the uncommitted category. I know it may be pure fantasy these days but I still hope for a leader with vision and the courage to stand for what he believes in.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Wouldn't it be nice to have someone in office that stands on principles and not votes?
IMO if you find one ,thousands of politician will be jobless :)
-
He didn't vote on something he said he was against which proves he's to damn wishy washy to follow through with his promises.
Or he's too big of a coward to actually have his vote on record.
Either way I'm starting to wonder about Kerry.
-
this is nothing new, in his years in the senate, kerry was AWOL for 1/3 of the votes. it seems kerry is a part time senator.
if kerry had been president , saddam would not only still be in bagdad, saddam would still be in kuwait *
* kerry voted against sending troops to free kuwait
-
If he can't take any political heat for making a stand / vote when it is his job to do so. What makes him think he is qualified to have the more demanding job of President? Sounds like a previous administration, policy by pollsters.