OGTEleven Posted October 20, 2004 Posted October 20, 2004 All, Please respond truthfully to this poll. A few rules: If you're not voting or going for a 3rd candidate, don't respond to the poll but feel free to comment. If you like one candidate and dislike the other "equally" put a stake in the ground and pick something. Comment all you want. Thanks.
Johnny Coli Posted October 20, 2004 Posted October 20, 2004 I'll be at a conference in DC on election day, so my absentee ballot is already in the mail with a vote for Kerry/Edwards. I chose the "He'll be a good president" vote up top in your poll, but really my vote is not only a vote for Kerry/Edwards, but also a big F-U to Bush/Cheney. Either way, though, it doesn't matter because I'm not in a battle-ground state, so the righties on this board can breathe a sigh of relief. Will Kerry be a fantastic president right out of the gate? Who knows? I do know that he has been a very good Senator in Massachusetts for the whole time I've lived in this state. I'm willing to see how he does. We've seen W. I think he's done a crappy job. I don't have specifics like everyone else has on the PPP board. I could go and cut and paste from Pro-Kerry and anti-Bush websites to satisfy some of you, but really, I'm not voting to make you people happy, I'm voting my conscience and for who I feel will do a better job.
jimshiz Posted October 20, 2004 Posted October 20, 2004 because... 1) he is right on taxes 2) he is right on the "War on Terror" 3) he is right on abortion 4) he is right on the economy 5) he is right on the definition of "marriage" 6) he is right on preventing activist judges 7) HE IS RIGHT !!!
Alaska Darin Posted October 20, 2004 Posted October 20, 2004 I'll be at a conference in DC on election day, so my absentee ballot is already in the mail with a vote for Kerry/Edwards. I chose the "He'll be a good president" vote up top in your poll, but really my vote is not only a vote for Kerry/Edwards, but also a big F-U to Bush/Cheney. Either way, though, it doesn't matter because I'm not in a battle-ground state, so the righties on this board can breathe a sigh of relief. Will Kerry be a fantastic president right out of the gate? Who knows? I do know that he has been a very good Senator in Massachusetts for the whole time I've lived in this state. I'm willing to see how he does. We've seen W. I think he's done a crappy job. I don't have specifics like everyone else has on the PPP board. I could go and cut and paste from Pro-Kerry and anti-Bush websites to satisfy some of you, but really, I'm not voting to make you people happy, I'm voting my conscience and for who I feel will do a better job. 77605[/snapback] A very good Senator in Massachusetts? Care to expound on that?
DC Tom Posted October 20, 2004 Posted October 20, 2004 A very good Senator in Massachusetts? Care to expound on that? 77632[/snapback] That got me, too. His senate record seems to me to be at best mediocre...which certainly isn't the entirety of the job, but neither is it no small part. I'd like to hear the criteria by which he's being judged as "very good".
Johnny Coli Posted October 20, 2004 Posted October 20, 2004 That got me, too. His senate record seems to me to be at best mediocre...which certainly isn't the entirety of the job, but neither is it no small part. I'd like to hear the criteria by which he's being judged as "very good". 77639[/snapback] I'm at work, so I'll have to be brief. OVERALL, I do believe he has represented the people of Mass, his constituents, well. I do not agree with every vote he has made, but it would be assinine to judge him on every vote. For the most part, he has voted the majority of the time the way I would have. I think that's all we can ask of a representative of the people, that overall they will vote the way we would like. He has done, or said some things, or even voted on issues in ways I disagree with. But, I really do feel he would represent me and my beliefs far better than Bush has.
DC Tom Posted October 20, 2004 Posted October 20, 2004 I'm at work, so I'll have to be brief. OVERALL, I do believe he has represented the people of Mass, his constituents, well. I do not agree with every vote he has made, but it would be assinine to judge him on every vote. For the most part, he has voted the majority of the time the way I would have. I think that's all we can ask of a representative of the people, that overall they will vote the way we would like. He has done, or said some things, or even voted on issues in ways I disagree with. But, I really do feel he would represent me and my beliefs far better than Bush has. 77690[/snapback] Fair 'nuff. I disagree with you (though one of the reasons I asked - the main reason, actually - is that as a non-New Englander I don't have the same or even as accurate a perspective on the subject as you do)...but I respect your reasoning.
UConn James Posted October 21, 2004 Posted October 21, 2004 Fair 'nuff. I disagree with you (though one of the reasons I asked - the main reason, actually - is that as a non-New Englander I don't have the same or even as accurate a perspective on the subject as you do)...but I respect your reasoning. 77694[/snapback] Living in a mountainous spot in NE CT, I get tv stations out of Boston better than than some from Hartford.... I gotta tell you that J.C. is right when he says Kerry does a good job for his constituency. That includes uniting across the aisle rather than "Go eff yourself." As far as showing up to vote, well I'm sure that a Senate recognition of X doing Y is really important for a group that made some accomplishment, but it's not exactly major policy.... When it's important for him to be there, he's there. That said, I do think that in today's world there needs to be some kind of remote voting method for Congress.
OGTEleven Posted October 21, 2004 Author Posted October 21, 2004 In the spirit of Mickey's statistical posts...... 68% of you (thus far), responded that you're voting for a candidate due to your positive feelings about him. 92% of threads on PPP are about something negative about "the other candidate". Something doesn't add up.
nobody Posted October 21, 2004 Posted October 21, 2004 In the spirit of Mickey's statistical posts...... 68% of you (thus far), responded that you're voting for a candidate due to your positive feelings about him. 92% of threads on PPP are about something negative about "the other candidate". Something doesn't add up. 79118[/snapback] That's because it's more fun to be mean. Negative campaign ads have brain washed us well.
ExiledInIllinois Posted October 21, 2004 Posted October 21, 2004 Bush because Kerry bad. Reason? Defense. 78740[/snapback] Ya... Like you don't have a vested interest in it? The high horse routine only goes so far. My reason: Kerry becasue he'd make a good prez. Reason? Defense. Go figure?
KRC Posted October 21, 2004 Posted October 21, 2004 Ya... Like you don't have a vested interest in it? The high horse routine only goes so far. My reason: Kerry becasue he'd make a good prez. Reason? Defense. Go figure? 79410[/snapback] A vested interest in National Security? Ummm...Don't we ALL have a vested interest in National Security? Without partisan rhetoric, please explain to me how Kerry is better on defense without using references to Bush.
Mickey Posted October 21, 2004 Posted October 21, 2004 That got me, too. His senate record seems to me to be at best mediocre...which certainly isn't the entirety of the job, but neither is it no small part. I'd like to hear the criteria by which he's being judged as "very good". 77639[/snapback] I think it is a good question, what is the criteria upon which to measure the quality of a Senator's performance in office? I don't think it is fair to just look at the bills he has sponsored. I think it is fair to look at every vote he ever made and ask yourself whether you think he made the right call. At the end of the day, compare the "right" calls with the "wrong" ones and that is pretty much your answer. I think you could also look at the committees he has been on and what he has contributed to its work, reports, hearings, etc. I think it probably is pretty hard to pin down what contributions are made on an individual basis. I know the right likes to say that he has "done nothing" as a Senator but that is because the only yardstick they are using is bill sponsorship or at least that is the stat I here quoted so often. I don't know for sure but I have a hunch that the same criticism could be made against just about every Senator. It is the nature of the Senate beast. It may be that even in that pool his record is less than stellar but, like I said, I have a hunch that his record compares pretty evenly with most other Senators. I seem to remember this same criticism being made against just about every Senator running for higher office that wasn't a senior Senator in place for many years. Longevity is the secret to Senatorial power.
ExiledInIllinois Posted October 21, 2004 Posted October 21, 2004 A vested interest in National Security? Ummm...Don't we ALL have a vested interest in National Security? Without partisan rhetoric, please explain to me how Kerry is better on defense without using references to Bush. 79418[/snapback] Right now the Corps is in emergency breakdown mode because the resources are being diverted to Iraq. Kinda like you can put all the deadbolts on the front door you like but, if you don't fix or maintain the sewer pipe in the basement, the sh*t will get you faster than the nasty guys.
KRC Posted October 21, 2004 Posted October 21, 2004 Right now the Corps is in emergency breakdown mode because the resources are being diverted to Iraq. Kinda like you can put all the deadbolts on the front door you like but, if you don't fix or maintain the sewer pipe in the basement, the sh*t will get you faster than the nasty guys. 79677[/snapback] So...how does this answer my question?
ExiledInIllinois Posted October 21, 2004 Posted October 21, 2004 So...how does this answer my question? 79679[/snapback] I think it does answer your question... We all have a vested interest in national security. Some are being sacrificed for the sake of others. Some are being funded and some aren't. It is all what you want to pay attention too. Don't worry about the terrorists doing a number on a major dam facility because it will happen by itself through the lack of upkeep. But, we won't worry about that until the time comes... Hence "emergency breakdown mode." It is almost laughable in certain situations.
Tux of Borg Posted October 21, 2004 Posted October 21, 2004 I can’t pull myself to vote for Kerry. The guy starts off every sentence with, “I have a plan”, and then never gives you any specific details. Maybe he is coached to say that, but to me he comes off as just another politician saying anything to get a vote. How exactly do you cut middle class taxes, balance the budget, fix social security, medicare and all the other wonderful things he has promised. The simple answer is he can’t. His 20 year record in congress speaks for itself. As far as national security goes, his plan of getting other countries like France to come to Iraq is a joke. I don’t know how he can tell those stories about soldiers not having body armor when he voted against the bill that will supply it to them. Bush may be a terrible president, but this guy is much worse.
Alaska Darin Posted October 22, 2004 Posted October 22, 2004 I think it is a good question, what is the criteria upon which to measure the quality of a Senator's performance in office? I don't think it is fair to just look at the bills he has sponsored. I think it is fair to look at every vote he ever made and ask yourself whether you think he made the right call. At the end of the day, compare the "right" calls with the "wrong" ones and that is pretty much your answer. I think you could also look at the committees he has been on and what he has contributed to its work, reports, hearings, etc. I think it probably is pretty hard to pin down what contributions are made on an individual basis. I know the right likes to say that he has "done nothing" as a Senator but that is because the only yardstick they are using is bill sponsorship or at least that is the stat I here quoted so often. I don't know for sure but I have a hunch that the same criticism could be made against just about every Senator. It is the nature of the Senate beast. It may be that even in that pool his record is less than stellar but, like I said, I have a hunch that his record compares pretty evenly with most other Senators. I seem to remember this same criticism being made against just about every Senator running for higher office that wasn't a senior Senator in place for many years. Longevity is the secret to Senatorial power. 79675[/snapback] Nothing more than partisan issue dodging here. Every other Senator isn't running for President. John Kerry is. If John Kerry were half the leader he claims to be, with half the plans he claims to have, surely there would be many bills relating to these same drafted by him over the last 19 years. He would then be able to point to these bills as proof that he's attempted to solve these issues, but instead he rarely mentions his record. My favorite is what a great champion of veteran's issues he's been. Surely a thrice wounded combat veteran would have sponsored or co-sponsored numerous bills over the years to help those he so closely identified with? NOPE.
KRC Posted October 22, 2004 Posted October 22, 2004 Nothing more than partisan issue dodging here. Every other Senator isn't running for President. John Kerry is. If John Kerry were half the leader he claims to be, with half the plans he claims to have, surely there would be many bills relating to these same drafted by him over the last 19 years. He would then be able to point to these bills as proof that he's attempted to solve these issues, but instead he rarely mentions his record. My favorite is what a great champion of veteran's issues he's been. Surely a thrice wounded combat veteran would have sponsored or co-sponsored numerous bills over the years to help those he so closely identified with? NOPE. 80079[/snapback] One thing that I have yet to see anyone address: Kerry says that he will increase the taxes on the "rich," but has yet to provide his "plan" on how he expects to get tax increases through a Republican controlled Congress.
Recommended Posts