John Kerry on the role of government - nails it.

[MH1]

I'm excerpting this from a longer post by Mass in the Kerry Forum (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=273&topic_id=78040&mesg_id=78040).

From an appearance yesterday (3/27/06) at the Hawthorne Hotel in Salem, MA, John Kerry speaks on the role of government:

"'It's not the government's money, it's your money' ... (is) a very difficult proposition to defend against. The problem is, it's also your pothole and somebody's got to fill it. It's your school and somebody's got to manage it. It's your bridge and somebody's got to fix it."

That seems plain enough to me, and right on target.

Link to original news article in The Salem News Online:
http://www.ecnnews.com/cgi-bin/05/snstory.pl?-sec-morning+1k589g0+skerry+page_0

[babylonsister]

1. Ah, a voice of reason! How refreshing and rare! nt

[rodeodance]

2. problem is--my roads are full of potholls, the schools need money and

it took 5 years to fix a nearby bridge cause the project ran out of money.

[karynnj]

9. Which suggests that priorities needed changing

Either money should have been allocated differently or taxes should have been raised.

[Canuckistanian]

22. SUV's full of cash disappearing in the desert don't help, either

There's so much being stolen. But, nobody cares.

[karynnj]

25. actually Kerry did -

Though the media played games with it, Kerry's 2 votes on the $87 billion were For the one paid for with taxes and requiring oversight and accounting and the Against the one which (in Kerry's words) created a slush fund for Halliburton and increased the debt.

[MH1]

27. Nobody in the media cared

to report the actual facts.

It was more fun (and more profitable for their corporate masters) to trivialize the differences in the bills and play up the "for before against" crap.

[BlueEyedSon]

3. Money (& all property for that matter) have no intrinsic value EXCEPT

in the context of a society with its accompanying laws, government, etc.....

[BlueEyedSon]

4. Not to mention, are you gonna go out and hire your own police PERSONALLY?

Or would you rather pay taxes to have that done communally?

[derby378]

5. Was Kerry even saying this in 2004?

I hope so. If not, that explains one of the reasons he "lost" to Nero two years ago.

[MH1]

17. Well I can't give you a link, but I believe so

I wasn't a Kerry fan until after I saw him during the primary debates, and even then, as a relatively casual political observer at the time, it took time for me to warm up to him.

But this sort of approach to government is very important to me, and one of the reasons I liked Kerry so much was his general sensibility about the role of government. So he was getting that message across to this casual observor, which implies he must have been saying it.

[babylonsister]

18. Why yes, yes he was. Links:

http://kerry.senate.gov/v3/cfm/record.cfm?id=234791

http://kerry.senate.gov/v3/cfm/record.cfm?id=234792

Aw, heck-check this out:

http://www.returningsoldiers.us/whatskerrydoing.htm

[FormerDittoHead]

6. Military spending is never mentioned in this context. Tax the wealthy.

The right wing think the military is free. They never make the connection that those "evil $700 hammers" were a product of a "rugged individualist corporation" and the "god bless our troops" military.

We practically spend as much on the military as the rest of the world combined.

OK, assuming we actually have to, what for? To protect what? Life, liberty and property.

Who enjoys a disproportate share of liberty (power) and property? The wealthy.

If you have a bigger house, you pay more to protect it (insurance).

So it should be for the wealthy.

Simply, they should pay for what it takes to protect their wealth and power.

check this podcast out:
http://www.therationalradical.com/audio/34-wealthtaxfdr.mp3
from:
http://www.therationalradical.com

[MrTriumph]

7. Yeah, John, and it's your war in Iraq and SOMEBODY'S got to pay for it.

Come on, John. Until you state the Iraq War was a terrible idea (you had plenty of warnings) you can't tell us we should feel good about paying our taxes to support the terrible idea you voted for.

For those Kerry apologists who want to say Kerry only voted for war IF the president would blah, blah, blah, we all knew Bush was taking us to war no matter what.

[Mass]

8. Except he said that again and again and again.

and people like you just dont want to understand that.

[MH1]

12. "Bush was taking us to war no matter what."

EXACTLY.

With or without the IWR vote.

Think back - I know it's hard but try - think back to the political climate when that bill was being voted on -

And with 28 other Dem Senators voting for it, it was passing anyway. Just with Lieberman and the Nelsons, it was passing. And there were plenty of others (like Landrieu and Breaux) who were also immovable.

Meanwhile, the bill was marketed to the public as a "show of unity by America against Saddam." Bush even said on the eve of the vote, "this is not a vote for war" (words to that effect). It's not whether you, in your infinite wisdom, believed him or not - it's what was the result going to be for Dems at the polls in 2002 - because the bill was going to pass ANYWAY.


Until you state the Iraq War was a terrible idea.....

Where have you been? Did you try to help elect a Democratic president in 2004? You obviously haven't been paying the slightest attention because Kerry said war was a bad idea before the invasion, after the invasion, all during 2004, and ever since.

So what's your point. Except to pull out an old canard to trash Kerry when he makes a statement that undeniably and powerfully asserts what every Democrat stands for. (And please do remember, this is Democratic Underground).

[MrTriumph]

32. Oh, so Kerry was against the war before he voted for it... uh,...

Get real. How can you oppose a war but support funding it?

Look, guy-who-thinks-he-knows-what-every-Demcocrat-stands-for, a clear majority of Democrats in the House voted AGAINST going to war. If they understood how to vote, why didn't JK?

[blm]

35. You blame the IWR instead of Bush for violating the IWR?

Do you honestly think that Bush adhered to the guidelines of the IWR?

[LittleClarkie]

36. "Well, fellahs, we can't get you out yet

as the Republicans don't want to stop. But we'll just stop funding you. That'll show em. You can do without food and guns, right?"

The way to end a war is to end it. You think you end a war by ending its funding FIRST? Well, isn't THAT a lovely, passive-aggressive way to do things. YOU get real.

[MrTriumph]

44. How do you think Viet Nam came to a close? Congress stopped funding it

No, Little, YOU get real. This is how the Democrats stopped the foolishness in Viet Nam. They stopped the funding.

[LittleClarkie]

47. That explains the cluster fuck that was Saigon at the end

I have no desire to get out of Iraq the way we got out of Vietnam, and with the same assholes at the helm no less.

Besides, are you trying to tell me that there was no policy change first. They just stopped funding it and that was it? "Oh we didn't decide to end the war. We just stopped paying for it. Heh." I doubt that's how it happened.

[MrTriumph]

49. Yes, that is EXACTLY what happened.

We would be in SE Asia today had congress not cut off the money.

[LittleClarkie]

55. Here's a bit of a good article from the Rolling Stone:

called "The Curse of Dick Cheney"

"The period between August 1974 and November 1976, when Ford lost the election to Jimmy Carter, is essential to understanding George W. Bush's disastrous misjudgments -- and Dick Cheney's role in them. In both cases, Cheney and Rumsfeld played the key role in turning opportunity into chaos. Ford, like Bush later, hadn't been elected president. As he entered office, he was overshadowed by a secretary of state (Kissinger then, Powell later) who was considered incontestably his better. Ford was caught as flat-footed by the fall of Saigon in April 1975 as Bush was by the September 2001 attacks. A better president, with more astute advisers, might have arranged a more orderly ending to the long and divisive war. But instead of heeding the country's desire for honesty and reconciliation, Rumsfeld and Cheney convinced Ford that the way to turn himself into a real president was to stir up crises in international relations while lurching to the right in domestic politics."

[MrTriumph]

77. That is correct. Ford asked congress for funds to pay for an American

mission to shore up the failing S. Vietnamese army and was DENIED funding by the US congress. Saigon fell and that was that.

You need not have checked Rolling Stone. Many of us older, wiser DUers remember this.

[karynnj]

13. As he was taking us to war no matter what,

the vote is irrelevant.

Either the resolution mattered and Bush was constrained to go to war only for the reasons in the text.

OR

Bush would have gone to war, with or without any resolution - and he clearly didn't care what was in the resolution. Note the new DSM has him manufacturing a "cause" if needed - this shows he would have used his power of CIC to invade.

As to the reasons in the text -Remember that Democrats got some reasons explicitly removed. - That reasons like Saddam's role in the area were taken out in negotiations makes it a more damning case, when the new and old DSM show they were the reason. The IWR was never honest. Kerry has admitted that he was wrong to trust Bush because Bush lied even on things that should have been sacred -risking the lives of our soldiers.

[MH1]

15. You may also want to click on the link and read what JK says about Iraq

From the link in the OP:

Iraq: "I think we have to get out of Iraq as fast as we can. ... Our guys are in the middle of a civil war. Who's kidding who?"

[babylonsister]

16. He did say it; you need to edumicate yourself:

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2005_10_26.html

snip//

The country and the Congress were misled into war. I regret that we were not given the truth; as I said more than a year ago, knowing what we know now, I would not have gone to war in Iraq. And knowing now the full measure of the Bush Administration’s duplicity and incompetence, I doubt there are many members of Congress who would give them the authority they abused so badly. I know I would not. The truth is, if the Bush Administration had come to the United States Senate and acknowledged there was no “slam dunk case” that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, acknowledged that Iraq was not connected to 9/11, there never would have even been a vote to authorize the use of force -- just as there’s no vote today to invade North Korea, Iran, Cuba, or a host of regimes we rightfully despise.

snip//

And while you're at it, this might help:

http://www.returningsoldiers.us/whatskerrydoing.htm

[karynnj]

19. The returningsoldiers link is great - thanks, Babylonsister

[babylonsister]

20. It is great, isn't it? I have it bookmarked

for clueless people! :evilgrin:

[MrTriumph]

33. If I knew Bush's case for war was phony, how come JK did NOT?

Seems like selective memory. Millions of us took to the streets to protest and contacted our gov't representatives to say we should not go to war in Iraq. The Democrats in the Senate knew better, but did not want to appear weak. Now they appear foolish at best.

[ProSense]

37. I believe Bush committed war crimes.

Is there a massive outcry for him to be tried in the Hague? Tried right now? Democracy is a process, which is why I suspect Feingold called for censure over impeachment. I will accept nothing less than impeachment for Bush, but all I can do is urge elected officials toward that end. I also understand that a trial has to come first, evidence has to be weighed. I prefer justice be achieved the democratic way, not the Bush way.

[MH1]

38. First, you didn't KNOW. Second...KERRY DIDN'T START THE WAR.

KERRY DIDN'T START THE WAR.

KERRY NEVER SAID WE SHOULD "GO TO WAR" IN IRAQ.

Why is that so friggin hard to understand? Have you read ANY of his speeches?? (Scratch that...obviously NOT).

As for "KNOWING" that Iraq didn't have WMD and wasn't working with terrorists..YOU COULDN'T POSSIBLY HAVE KNOWN. To say otherwise is the height of arrogance, and I'm getting pretty tired of hearing of it from the so-called "left".

Unless you are a CIA agent or other well-placed intelligence asset posting here for God knows what reason, you didn't KNOW. You have NO IDEA what is going on in these other countries. You really don't. You don't know what they are doing, and you don't know what our agents are doing, and you have no friggin clue what the best response is to a situation THAT YOU DO NOT HAVE THE FACTS ABOUT.

You may have guessed, and you may rightfully feel some vindication about your guess now, but it still was never more than a guess and never could have been - unless of course you ARE a CIA agent who was involved in Iraq intelligence.

Regardless Bush was going to war ANYWAY. You completely and totally ignore every fact that has been placed in front of you - the IWR vote made zero difference to whether Bush invaded, and it potentially made some difference to whether certain Democrats got re-elected in 2002. I guess it wouldn't have mattered to you if we lost a few more seats, if only the vote on IWR was 61-39 instead of 71-29? That would have sure been some victory, huh?

[LittleClarkie]

39. Indeed, even just yesterday, we're finding out just how

set on war Bush was. Just when he was saying he was looking for any way to avoid war, he was set on it. I'm thinking, if Congress had not voted for the IWR, he would have fallen back on the earlier resolution that was passed right after 9/11, and argued that he already had the authority. Not much was stopping him, I'm thinking.

We need to remember who's war this is. It belongs to Bush.

[MrTriumph]

45. MH- I knew invading Iraq was a terrible idea. Why was Kerry a fool?

Get real. Millions of us told Congress BEFORE the IWR passed that invading was a terrible idea for any number of reasons.

The point, MH, is that even if Saddam has WMD, he had NO delivery system, except to throw them at an invading army on Iraqi soil.

The point is there was no reason to go to war in Iraq and no reason to vote for the IWR.

[MH1]

48. Kerry was not a fool. As for certain other people...

Someone who has facts presented to them over and over again and refuses to listen - that is a fool.

And that is not the situation with Kerry (nor was it at the time of IWR deliberations), but it certainly applies to some other somebodies.

[LittleClarkie]

53. Invading Iraq was supposed to be last resort

And Kerry has already apologized for trusting Bush to use the authority for leverage and not to rush into war. That was NOT the plan.

Bush lied. Bush was the fool.

[MrTriumph]

79. Oversight was dead. Of course Bush ignored provisions in the IWR

At the time of the vote on the IWR, congress had established a record of NO oversight of the executive. That Bush would ignore the provisions of the IRW was absolutely no surprise.

Millions of us knew Bush was a liar and untrustworthy and would make a terrible blunder by invading Iraq. Whe it comes to Iraq, Senator Kerry and the other Senators who voted for the IWR have been proven dead wrong and fools.

Let me guess, now you'll tell me you also support the REPUBLICAN Senators that voted for the IWR.

[blm]

83. That's why Kerry was for war ONLY as a last resort and ONLY after weapons

inspections and diplomacy failed.

Kerry always said Bush shouldn't go to war unless every other remedy had been exhausted.

You blame IWR, yet the IWR would have PREVENTED war if administered honestly. When you blame IWR as the bogeyman here you let Bush off the hook for violating the IWR.

[karynnj]

42. Millions took to the streets in early 2003

(I went (with husband and 3 teens) to DC in January and NYC in February - Presidents' weekend 2003 was when there were simultaneous protests in London, Rome and many US cities including NYC. Kerry spoke out in Jan 2002 - ending his speech with a demand that Bush not rush to war.

The vote was in Oct 2002. If you read Kerry's floor speech - he is skeptical, but can't rule out the possibility that there were no WMD in a place where we had no inspectors for 4 or 5 years. (Consider that AQ Khan did sell technology to North Korea, Libya, and Iran - was it possible that Iraq could have received some too - they didn't, but it wasn't outside the realm of the possible. The prudent course was to look.

Also, Kerry mentioned that Bush allowed several reasons to be removed as reasons - including the real reasons Bush went. Is it possible that negotiating these out were the reason for some Democratic votes? (Note that with the original IWR, Bush could not have been said to have lied. With the changes he lied. Could this be part of the reason that Kerry said Bush personally lied to him and other Senators?) The entire Senate would likely have passed the original language.

[jillan]

23. Bsh also told the Congress

that 'a vote for war is a vote for peace'

Kerry's only mistake, along with the rest that voted for this war, is that they
believed the President. Yes. Now we know it was a huge mistake. Kerry was not the only
true liberal that fell for bsh's bs.

[LittleClarkie]

34. So if someone disagrees with you, they're an "apologist"

Well that's one way of not having to deal with opposing viewpoints I suppose.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch...

It's his war?

He cooked up the intelligence and the evidence?

He pushed and bullied all the parties involved?

Goodness, I didn't know he was that close to Cheney and Rumsfeld that he helped plan the thing. I didn't think they even LIKED Democrats enough to let one help.

I wonder why he was left out of the Downing Street Minutes then, as well.

Hm. His war, you say? Are you sure?

You'd think he was president or something.

His Senate speech clearly states what he wanted to see happen (Bush Co. had better cough up evidence of WMDs), and what he would do if that didn't happen (he would be among the first to yell bloody murder). They didn't and he did.

That's just the facts. Not sure how that would be apologizing for the man.

It's hardly his war. But he did have a hand in it's beginning. A fact he's acknowledged. A fact he's apologized for. And he's offered a plan to get out. Did you know those things?

[MrTriumph]

46. He should have voted AGAINST the IWR. No excuses.

And, yes, you are making excuses for bad judgement.

[LittleClarkie]

51. And you're dilluting the blame by putting it on the wrong man

Bush is your guy, not Kerry.

Bush gets all of it.

[sandnsea]

62. It's 2006. He vote for the IWR. It's not friggin news

Feingold voted for Ashcroft and Roberts. Boxer voted for the Patriot Act. Harkin voted for the IWR. That's life. Deal with it unless you're plan is to throw out all the Democrats in DC.

[still_one]

66. THIS IS FAR WORSE

The IWR IS A CLEAR VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, and CONGRESS SHOULD HAVE NEVER ALLOWED

You can brush it off, but what they did was give the Excutive branch exclusive rights to declare war on ANY country they deem a threat, NOT JUST IRAQ. READ IT

THAT IS LIFE, you, me, your children, and my children will have to deal with it NOW

Congress gave up their oversight and seperation of powers, IT IS THE MOST SERIOUS THING, and you brush it off as trivial

THE CONSTITUTION IS NOT TRIVIAL

STARTING A PRE-EMPTIVE WAR IS NOT TRIVIAL

and the DEMOCRATS had better come to terms with it, because the REPUKES NEVER WILL

[ProSense]

76. Bush could have gone to war without consulting Congress

Bush didn't have to consult Congress to wage war, he can do it then provide justification within 60 days. That is what the War Powers Act allows.

Bush violated a a clear authorization that was in line with the War Powers Act, which allows the president to go to war without prior consent of Congress. What you don't understand is that he could have gone and would have gone without the IWR. The IWR set restrictions on his ability to wage war without consent. Bush violated the IWR.

[still_one]

80. You are right, the war powers resolution gives him 60 days

but after 60 days, without congressional approval, and with NO valid reason why he invaded Iraq, It would have been over for his administration. What Congress has done with the IWR is effectively superceed the war powers resolution which was created precicsely to avoid that situation.

Personally, I believe the war powers resolution might also be argued as unconstitutional, but notwithstanding the IWR is even more expansive than the war powers act. It gives the president authority to attack any country without congressional approval.

Congress has one power which it can still exercise, and that is to stop the funding

[ProSense]

86. The IWR did not supersede the War Powers Act

Bush would simply give the reasons he's giving now and be supported by the Republicans in Congress. Here is what the IWR (H.J.Res.114) states:

(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

Here is section 5(b) of the War Powers Act

(b) Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required
to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the
President shall terminate any use of Untied States Armed Forces with respect
to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the
Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for
such

http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/laws/majorlaw/warpower.htm

[still_one]

88. I appreciate the information, seriously

So what happened after the 60 to 90 days after the IWR, what did congress do?

[blm]

84. In what world is the IWR to blame for Bush's invasion of Iraq? Bush went

to war in violation of the IWR.

You blame IWR and you let Bush off the hook.

[still_one]

10. it isn't my war in Iraq, but somebody made it so

[Mass]

11. Yes Bush.

But feel free to absolve him of all crimes, if you feel inclined to do so.

Kerry did not send 1 soldier in Iraq; Bush did.

[still_one]

40. You are correct, but if I remember correctly a bunch of people

in CONGRESS SHIFTED THEIR RESPONSIBILITY TO THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH, which enabled him to do it

CONGRESS VIOLATED THE CONSTITUTION BY DOING SO, and abdicated their responsibility


That included both democrats and repukes

[sandnsea]

63. #62 for you too

Can I expect to see a "voted for the" post for every single official? Every single one of them has voted for something stupid over their lifetimes. Enough of this shit.

[still_one]

65. bush is responsible, but like it or NOT CONGRESS violated the constitution

ONLY CONGRESS CAN DECLARE WAR, and what they did by the IWR is NOT only UNCONSTITUTIONAL, it was WRONG!!!

The IWR gives this ILLEGITIMATE PRESIDENT BUSH the authority NOT ONLY TO GO INTO IRAQ, BUT ANY COUNTRY HE DEEMS A THREAT WITHOUT HAVING TO GO THROUGH CONGRESS

READ IT

There was a very REAL REASON WHY FEINGOLD, BOXER, BYRD, and some other TRUE PATRIOTS AND HEROS VOTED AGAINST IT

[sandnsea]

67. You didn't answer my question

Are you going to spew shit on Feingold, Boxer and Byrd threads with Patriot Act, Bankruptcy, NCLB, Ashcroft, Roberts, Alito and garbage that they voted for??

[still_one]

68. First of all Feingold and Byrd DID NOT support the Patriot Act.

The IWR IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, and took away the power of Congress to declare war. That is as bad as it gets. It was a violation of constitutional LAW.

Unless the Democrats realize just how bad it was to approve this open ended IWR, and do everything to negate it, then bush and company can go into any country, including Iran, without their approval.

The FISA act was also a violation of law, and I do NOT hear much support for censuring bush for it.

Feingold DID NOT vote for Alito's confirmation, but if he did it would NOT have been a violation of the law. Yes, I was not happy that he voted to confirm Roberts, and other things, but those were NOT violations of the law. The Patriot Act, the illegal wire-tapping, and the IWR were violations of the law

[sandnsea]

70. Not my question

Are you going to piss on every thread of every other Dem with their erroneous votes? Yes or no. Simple to answer.

[still_one]

72. First of all I am stating my opinion as you are

What is an erroneous vote? Is it something I disagree with?

If someone votes to confirm Roberts as Supreme Court Justice, you are damn right I will critisize that vote, and any vote I do NOT agree with. At the same time, I will praise someone who I believe makes the correct judgement. Example:

Kerry's plan for getting out of Iraq has substance, and is viable in my view, and I praise him for it.

So in summary my answer to your question is I will critizie those views that I do NOT agree with, and I will praise those views which I agree with.

[sandnsea]

89. Then here

Here's a thread to criticize all of Feingold's bad votes.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2541107

Shall I find you some more?

[still_one]

90. the first thing that needs to be done is public financing of elections

NO MORE LOBBYISTS

As long as that exists then the government will be run by the corpoations through legalized bribes

[sandnsea]

92. What's that got to do with crapping in threads?

Are you going to go crap in that thread or not, since you're so concerned about everybody being properly critiqued and all. What's up with that, where's your big splats of doo in the Feingold thread? :shrug:

[still_one]

93. you have a real problem friend

the link you gave me had to do with lobbyists

I have had enough of this supposed intelligent conversation

Obviously you have little tolerance for people who don't walk the line in your view. You sure have a way to persuade people to your line of argument, NOT!!!

Have a good day, I am putting you on ignore

[sandnsea]

94. You can't answer a question, that's the problem

You're the one with diarrhea of the mouth who can't stop yourself from shitting in Kerry threads and won't admit it when confronted. Ignore is a very good place for you.

[ProSense]

78. Feingold says the Patriot Act is flawed, but supports most of the bill

Snip...

I also want to clear up one related misconception. I have never advocated repeal of any portion of the Patriot Act. In fact, as I have said repeatedly over the past four years, I supported most of that bill. There are many good provisions in that bill. As my colleagues know, the Patriot Act did a lot more than expand our surveillance laws. Among other things, it set up a national network to prevent and detect electronic crimes, like the sabotage of the nation's financial sector; it established a counterterrorism fund to help Justice Department offices disabled in terrorist attacks keep operating; and it changed the money laundering laws to make them more useful in disrupting the financing of terrorist organizations. One section even condemned discrimination against Arab and Muslim Americans.

more...

http://feingold.senate.gov/statements/05/12/200512144.html

And still more fixing when on after this statement, and a bill for the remaining fixes was introduced:

S.2369
Title: A bill to require a more reasonable period for delayed-notice search warrants, to provide enhanced judicial review of FISA orders and national security letters, to require an enhanced factual basis for a FISA order, and to create national security letter sunset provisions.
Sponsor: Sen Specter, Arlen (introduced 3/6/2006) Cosponsors (12)
Latest Major Action: 3/6/2006 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COSPONSORS(12), ALPHABETICAL : (Sort: by date)
Sen Cantwell, Maria - 3/9/2006
Sen Craig, Larry E. - 3/6/2006
Sen Durbin, Richard - 3/6/2006
Sen Feingold, Russell D. - 3/6/2006
Sen Feinstein, Dianne - 3/6/2006
Sen Hagel, Chuck - 3/6/2006
Sen Kerry, John F. - 3/6/2006
Sen Leahy, Patrick J. - 3/6/2006
Sen Murkowski, Lisa - 3/6/2006
Sen Obama, Barack - 3/6/2006
Sen Salazar, Ken - 3/6/2006
Sen Sununu, John E. - 3/6/2006

[MrTriumph]

87. To just said Kerry's IWR vote was "stupid". Why do you aplogize for him?

x

[still_one]

69. voting for something that is NOT constitutional

I don't think so...

The IWR IS unconstitutional

Congress has the right to declare war, under Article I. It has the right to approve funding for a war, or other military action, or to withdraw such funding, under its appropriations powers granted to it under Article I.

They only option they have at their disposal now is to stop funding this war

[still_one]

73. are you using me as a straw man, because it won't work

that is NOT what I said, and attributing things to me which I did NOT say is not particularly polite

[Sydnie]

14. Thank You for posting that n/t

[_dynamicdems]

21. Great article! Once again, the voice of reason. n/t

[ohtransplant]

24. He gets it. Plain and simple...

No politician is perfect but John Kerry doesn't need anyone to apologize.

[MH1]

26. Yes, Kerry gets it.

I think you meant "John Kerry doesn't need to apologize to anyone".

And you are absolutely right.

[ohtransplant]

31. Sorry

I meant to say John Kerry doesn't need anyone to apologize for him.

Thanks, My fingers are slower than my brain. I guess that's better than vice versa...:-)

[MH1]

41. 'sokay.

And that's a good way of putting it, too.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LittleClarkie]

52. You're kidding, right?

He released most of his records. It didn't matter though, because the swift boat liars didn't care about the truth. Kind of like the Schiavo situation. Even the autopsy didn't stop the family from declaring that Terri was awake and aware.

And they're ALL rich boys. What, you think someone can wage a campaign with no money? (Not to mention that it's Teresa and not John who has all the money.)

And if you were out there campaigning with that attitude, I think I know why we lost. Both Gore and Kerry would have made most excellent presidents. THEY deserved to have their party behind them.

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WildEyedLiberal]

60. What records?

Are you on crack, Mr. I-Have-Five-Posts-All-Of-Which-Have-Attacked-Democrats?

[LittleClarkie]

61. Not a lock stepper either

But I also didn't swallow the lies of the Smear vets. I didn't say he released them all. I said he released most of them, and what he released should damned well have been enough.

I'm for supporting good candidates when we have them. I have something against not doing that when we have the chance. I'm against letting the Republicans set the agenda and telling us what's wrong with our candidates and having us believe them.

ABB was never going to be enough. Being against the Republican and not FOR the Democrat in any election will never be enough. That's why I did my level best to get to know Kerry. What I saw, I liked. He would have been a mighty fine president. Same with Gore.

Unless we get behind our candidates, NO candidate will EVER be good enough, let alone better. We can't let the Republicans and the "liberal" media get away with smearing our candidates. Do YOU have a problem with THAT?

A good source for what I'm talking about is the Daily Howler. His archives show exactly how much distortion came from the media regarding Gore and Kerry.

By my lights we had the better candidate.

[still_one]

71. I definitely agree with you on the lies that were spread by the media

against Kerry helped seal his fate in 2004, but I will also believe he was not the strongest candidate. It is very tough when you have the media against you. Just look at what they did to Dean. Dean was a strong candidate who spoke truth to power, and they portrayed him as a crazy man. Looking at the way things were, I am NOT sure if any candidate could have won against that...

[MH1]

82. I definitely agree

with your last sentence.

Of course that's why it makes some of us so crazy when people blame Kerry, as if anyone else could have overcome the RWCM. Maybe someone else could have...but they didn't do it in the primary, so that's not an encouraging sign. IMO we should all focus on making the media work better for us...then whatever candidate we select will have a better chance.

[still_one]

91. the big question is HOW?

The corporations are in control

It can only happen if the people wize up, and realize that they are being taken for a ride

[karynnj]

75. The medical records were shown to the press

[Mass]

54. It makes no sense to me.

He did not hide anything. He was attacked by RW liars and you are repeating their lies.

[WildEyedLiberal]

59. What the fuck are you talking about?

Are you on crack?

[karynnj]

74. He released more records than anyone ever

He had around 140 pages of his service records on line for anyone to see - The Boston Globe when they got the records after the election received only 1 additional page. (A very positive summary page of Kerry's last fitness report from VN - giving him the highest possible rating and a recommendation for fast promotion. Kerry didn't have this page earlier and given the content he clearly is not lying.)

Kerry openned his medical records from VN to the press to see, but didn't put copies on the web. This is a privacy issue. The NYT reviewed his current medical records and reported on them - just like with every other candidate ever. It was Bush who delayed having the normal phyisical.

Kerry's life has been more public than any other candidate we've had in my life time.

[blm]

85. Keeping your medical records private when everything ELSE in your life is

a completely open book is way too private for you?

What planet does one have to reveal every last medical detail in an election?

[wisteria]

28. He is absolutely right. It is our money!

I don't mind when it is spent on important and necessary things, but I draw the line on waisting money for a bridge for 50 people to cross and paying the salaries and pensions of crooked politicians like Cunningham and Delay.

[ginnyinWI]

29. That's a very good way to define what Dems believe.

Once again JK's nailed it. Dems want government to address real people's problems--infrastructure, education, and what have you. Responsible solutions that only government can provide.

Republicans don't govern well because, basically, they hold government in contempt. They don't think government should really be responsible for anything in a perfect world. So they screw up everything they touch--they aren't serious about it. If the program fails, well then fine, it just shows how government isn't the answer!! If it can't be run on the pawltry funding they provide, that only proves their point. The only thing they really believe in is the military. Everything else should be shoved back onto the states, business and the individual. And dont' forget to give those states unfunded mandates.

Any Republican who thinks he's making it on his own should just look around and see how many things government has done for him all his life.

[ProSense]

30. Excellent statement. n/t

[second edition]

43. he is absolutely right on the money on this! Kerry always makes so

much sense to me.

[burrowowl]

56. Why I don't like Libertarians and Repukes

Want potholes repaired without taxes! Want to use public roads for free.
Libertarians believe potholes repair themselves. Repukes want you to pay taxes for repair, not repair them and hire Haliburton to do it at the taxpayers expense (lower and middle-class) and potholes still not repaired but monies paid to Haliburton and Repuke stockholders.
Lower and middle-classes screwed!

[Clarkie1]

57. Well, yes. Obviously. n/t

[Raksha]

64. "It's not the government's money, it's your money."

WHEN are people going to wake up and realize that the government's money *IS* our money? That means that when the neocons steal it, there's nothing left to fix potholes with, not to mention all the other worthwhile things the government is supposed to be doing with OUR money!

[MH1]

81. That's exactly what Kerry was saying.

The first clause was merely to point out how appealing the phrase is that the repubs like to use - "it's my money" - how people can get suckered by it - but then he goes on to point out that if you look at it that way, then it is "my pothole", "my sshool" and so forth, also.

I think we agree. You just put it differently.

:toast: