Jump to content

Home

Presidential Election 2004: Info & News


SkinWalker
 Share

Recommended Posts

If you are new to the thread, please read the following:

[align=center]

***************** Thread Description ******************

 

** The purpose of this thread is to provide a source of information and a place for discussion of the United States Presidential Election 2004.

 

** Please keep posts on topic, relevant and informative. But bear in mind that questions can be informative because of the answers they might get, so ask questions.

 

** Flames will not be tolerated, but one can be terse or enthusiastic without going over the top by providing supporting references or links. For instance, saying in a post that, "republicans are a bunch of losers and if you vote that way you're a loser too," would be considered a Flame. But stating that "democrats are ignorant of the facts, which are:

," would not be considered a Flame. The difference is that one comment provides specific points for the opposing view to rebut.

 

** The topic of the thread is the Presidential Campaign and Election of 2004 and related news or information. For instance, the first few posts will be informative ones that can be updated as new information is found or discovered. In fact, I'm going to reserve the first few posts with Headings or Titles until I can fill them in. I would love some help with this, so if you have information for these reserved posts, make a post of your own and I'll cut & paste to the relevant post. Be advised, your post will likely be deleted, as the content will be moved.

 

** Be aware that this thread will likely as not be moderated heavily. Politics always provides a wonderful source of debate, and in the past, debates on political issues have gotten quite heated here in the Senate. If I (or C'Jais) edit a post for profanity or flames, I'll indicate what was changed in italics at the bottom. If your post just went poof, it's likely that there was nothing worth saving ;) I might also be inclined to edit the quotes of others if the offending word(s) were there as well.

 

** Use the George W. Bush thread for continued discussion about specific topics related to Bush. Likewise, use the Howard Dean thread…(there is one from a while back, I'll bump it tonight)

 

***************** End Thread Description ****************** [/align]

 

The 2004 Presidential Campaign is under way. The Democrats are battling for a candidate and President George W. Bush is the incumbent for the Republicans..

 

I realize that there are many younger members of LucasForums that visit the Senate Chambers, after all, the forums here are based upon the Star Wars universe and nearly all of us are fans of Star Wars. That having been said, it follows that there are many among us (adults included) that might not know what the process is for a Presidential election (or any election, for that matter). So I'd like to use this first post to outline the process of electing a national President.

 

First, one has to register to vote. Declare Yourself, a website devoted to encouraging and helping eligible young people register to vote, reports that "only 36 percent of eligible young people voted in the 2000 Presidential Election. It’s a fact that 45 million young people don’t vote, but it’s also a fact that a mere fraction of this group -10 percent, even 5 percent - can change the course of an election if they understand the power of democracy and its ultimate tool, the vote."

 

Click on this link to register to vote if you are eligible.

 

To be eligible to vote if:

  • You are a citizen of the United States
  • You are at least 18 years old on or before the day of the general election. If you will be 18 on or before November 3, you may vote in the primary election for candidates only, but not on issues.
  • You will be a resident of Ohio for at least 30 days before the election.
  • You register to vote at least 30 days before the election.

 

Once you've registered, it'll be time to use your right to vote. If you plan to vote Democrat, then you'll want to vote in the Democratic Primary. That link will send you to a site with the calendar for the Primary in your state. Simply click on your state for more information.

 

The Democratic and Republican parties can choose their candidates by either a primary election or by a party meeting. If a party uses a primary for the November election, it will be held on the second Tuesday in June. If you are a registered voter, you can vote in any primary election. If both parties are holding a primary in your election district, you can vote in only one party's primary. You must choose either the Democratic or Republican primary.

 

National Conventions

 

At the end of the primaries and caucuses, each party holds a national convention to finalize the selection of one Presidential nominee. During this time, each Presidential candidate chooses a running-mate (or Vice-Presidential candidate).

 

The Voting Process

 

Once you've registered, you then have to go vote!

 

First, find out when and where your local election day is (both for Primaries and the General Election). For the Primaries, consult the link above. But for the General Election, it'll be the same day across the country on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November of 2004. Look at this schedule to find the times of your state's polling as well as whether a picture ID, Voter ID or a Signature is needed to vote. These two tables will also provide other information such as whether or not your state makes Election Day an official holiday, whether there is a mandatory "time off work" policy, or whether electioneering or exit polling are allowed.

 

The Electoral College

 

This is another misunderstood feature of the election process of the United States President.

 

In the Electoral College system, each state gets a certain number of electors, based on each state's total number of representation in Congress. Each elector gets one electoral vote. For example, a large state like California gets 55 electoral votes, while Rhode Island gets only four. All together, there are 538 Electoral votes. To see a breakdown by state click on this link.

 

In December (following the general election), the electors cast their votes. When the votes are counted on January 6th, the Presidential candidate that gets more than half (270) wins the election. The President-elect and Vice President-elect take the oath of office and are inaugurated two weeks later, on January 20th.

 

Valuable Links

 

The Federal Election Commission

Candidate Bios (at Declare Yourself)

Electoral College Box Scores

Grolier's Encyclopedia Entry on "Primary Election."

An Electoral College Calculator

History of Presidential Elections from History Central.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Democrat

 

Retired Army General Wesley K. Clark - 16 September 2003: Announced candidacy.

History: Chairman CEO Wesley K. Clark & Associates; 34 years Army, 4-star general; NATO Supreme Allied Command (1997-2000); 1966 West Point Graduate.

 

Vermont Governor Howard Dean - March 2002: Announced candidacy.

9 December 2003: Endorsed by former Vice President Al Gore.

History: Vermont Governor (1991-2002); Vermont Lieutenant Governor (1986-Aug. 14, 1991); became Governor upon the death of Republican Governor Richard Snelling; Vermont State Legislator (1982-1986)

 

North Carolina Senator John Edwards - January 2, 2003: Setting up exploratory committee. 2003 September 16: Formally announced candidacy.

History: lawyer (1978-1998); North Carolina US senator (1999-present)

 

Former Vice President Al Gore - December 15, 2002: Stated that he will not run for President in 2004. On 9 December 2003, Mr. Gore endorsed former Governor Howard Dean for President.

 

Missouri Congressman Richard "Dick" Gephardt announced that he will file papers on Monday, January 6, 2003 to establish a presidential exploratory committee.

History: Lawyer, Missouri US Representative (1977-present); St. Louis Board of Aldermen (1971-1976)

 

Florida Senator Bob Graham - October 6, 2003: Withdrew. February 20, 2003: Stated that within a week, he will file FEC papers to form a Presidential Exploratory Committee. February 27, 2003 update: Senator Graham filed papers to form a Presidential Campaign Committee. October 6, 2003 - "Tonight I am announcing the end of my campaign for President of the United States."

History: Florida US Senator (1986-present, up for election in 2004); Florida Governor (1978-1986); Florida State Senator (1970-1978); Florida House of Representatives (1966-1970)

 

Massachusetts Senator John Kerry - December 1, 2002: Announced he was forming an exploratory committee.

History: Lawyer; Massachusetts US Senator (1985-present); Massachusetts Lieutenant Governor under Governor Michael Dukakis (1983-85)

 

Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich - February 17, 2003: Announced he planning to file papers to form a Presidential Exploratory Committee.

History: Ohio US Representative (1997-present); Ohio State Senator (1995-1997); sought nomination for US House (1988, 1992); Cleveland City Council (1983); Cleveland mayor (1977-1979); candidate for US House (1974); candidate for US House (1972); Cleveland City Council (1969-1975)

 

Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman - January 12, 2003: "I am a candidate for President in 2004...."

History: Connecticut US Senator (1989-present); 2000 candidate for Vice President; Connecticut State Senator (1971-81); Connecticut Attorney General (1983-89)

 

Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. - announced candidacy December 27, 2000

 

Ambassador Carol Moseley Braun- September 22, 2003: formal declaration of candidacy; February 18, 2003: The former Illinois Senator announced plans to file papers for a Presidential Exloratory Committee.

History: Illinois US Senator (1993-1998); Cook County recorder of deeds (1988-1992); Illinois State Representative (1979-1987)

 

Bill Pearman - July 2001: Announced candidacy. Unsuccessful candidate for Reform Party presidential nomination in 2000. Considering run for Democratic nomination in 2004.

 

Rev. Al Sharpton - August 20, 2001: Announced he was forming an exploratory committee.

History: Preacher, founder of National Youth Movement and National Action Network; ran for New York State Senate (1978, removed from ballot); candidate for US Senate (1992, 1994); candidate for New York City Mayor (1997)

 

Republican

 

President George W. Bush - May 16, 2003: Filed with the Federal Election Commission (FEC Form One and FEC Form Two) as "Bush-Cheney '04 Inc.".

History: 43rd President (2001-present); Texas Governor (1995-2000 [resigned to assume the office of President])

 

(Vice President Richard "Dick" Cheney - May 6, 2003: Announced that he has agreed to be George W. Bush's running mate in 2004.)

History: Vice President (2001-present); Secretary of Defense (1989-1993); Wyoming Congressman (6 terms); Ford Administration (1974-1977); Nixon Administration (1969-1974)

 

Kenneth Scot Stremsky - of New Hampshire (added 12 July 2002; withdrew 25 March 2003).

 

Green

 

No significant candidates yet.

 

Libertarian

 

Gary Nolan

 

N. Ruben Perez

 

Independent

 

Ralph Nader

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Democrats are committed to:

  • Winning the war on terrorism and making our country more secure.
  • Protecting your Social Security, pension, and retirement savings.
  • Investing in America to create good jobs.
  • Cutting prescription drug costs and providing Medicare drug coverage for every senior.
  • Improving education by reducing class size with additional, qualified teachers.
  • Keeping our air and water clean.

 

 

Social Security

** Democrats created Social Security and will fight to protect it.

 

Prescription Drug Costs and a Medicare Drug Benefit

** Democrats will halt the skyrocketing cost of prescription drugs for all Americans, and provide a Medicare drug benefit for every senior.

 

Education

** Democrats will work to improve education by reducing class size with additional, qualified teachers.

 

Pension Protection

** Democrats will provide real pension protections and impose stiff new criminal penalties for corporate pension fraud.

 

Air and Water

** Democrats will enforce clean air and water laws and ensure that polluters will pay.

 

Abortion

** The Democratic Party is pledged to upholding a woman's right to choose, consistent with Roe v. Wade. However, there are many Pro-Life members as well.

 

Gun Control

** Democrats have been historically hostile to the rights of gun owners in the past, favoring more restrictions on gun ownership, particularly with cheap pistols and military/assault type weapons. This stance is likely to show change in 2004 according to many analysts. See the link below.

 

Sources:

http://www.democrats.org/issues/

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20031016-104703-1418r.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Economy

Strengthening America’s Economy for All Americans

** As a result of the 2001 tax relief law, Americans were due to receive additional tax relief in 2004, and again in 2006.

Encourage Job-Creating Investment in America’s Economy

** Provide significant dividend tax relief

** Increase incentives for small businesses to grow

Help Unemployed Americans Find Work

** Extend unemployment benefits

** Create new Personal Re-employment Accounts

 

Education

No Child Left Behind

** Stronger Accountability for Results.

** Greater Flexibility and Local Control.

** Expanded Options and Choice for Parents.

** Emphasis on Teaching Methods that Work.

** Resources to Support the Reforms.

 

Health Care

** Every American Can Choose Affordable Health Care That Meets Their Needs

** Improving the Quality of Health Care

** Effective Support to Increase Biomedical Research and Strengthen the Health Care Safety Net

 

Abortion

** Generally Pro-Life, but there is a large Pro-Choice membership as well.

 

Gun Control

** Generally in support of all NRA agenda.

 

Sources:

http://www.rnc.org/Issues

http://www.rnclife.org/brochure/rprolife.html

http://www.issues2000.org/Celeb/George_W__Bush_Gun_Control.htm

http://www.rpcc.org/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Democrats believe that:

 

** Republicans are spending your Social Security money on tax breaks for special interests, and have a plan to cut your benefits and raise the retirement age with a risky privatization scheme.

 

** Republicans will protect the big drug companies and have proposed a drug benefit that covers only 6 percent of seniors.

 

** Republicans have broken their promise on education by making 28 education cuts totaling more than $1 billion, including technology training and after-school classes.

 

** Republicans tried to give Enron a $254 million retroactive tax cut. They will offer token protections for employee pensions while they coddle the corporate executives who mismanage them.

 

** Republicans will turn our air and water over to the polluters and force taxpayers to pay the clean-up bill.

 

** Republicans support the influence of special interests in our government by opposing meaningful reforms to the system. In the Senate, Republicans fought the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill, and used gimmicks and procedural technicalities in the House to defeat the Shays-Meehan bill. Consistently, Republicans have held up reform efforts through filibusters and other devices, avoiding a real vote to restore government representation to the people.

 

** President Bush has proposed cutting 2,500 kids from the Head Start program and by his Administration's own estimates, Head Start will fall 84,000 children short of a Democratic goal to ensure that one million children receive Head Start by FY 2002.

 

** President Bush and Republicans use strong anti-crime rhetoric, but they have opposed some common sense solutions. Bush tried to cut the highly successful COPS program by 17 percent in his 2002 budget, and cut programs designed to get drug dealers out of public housing. Bush and Republicans have also stood in the way of pro-civil rights, anti-crime laws that protect Americans from hate crimes.

 

** President Bush and Republicans have proposed a plan to overhaul our nation's military. However, they have yet to explain how they will pay for such changes, given that their tax cut has already demolished the surplus and returned us to deficit spending.

 

** In just one year, President Bush and congressional Republicans have managed to undo eight years of hard work and fiscal discipline. Bush's policies have already wiped out our hard gained surpluses, returned the nation to deficit spending, put Social Security in danger and slowed down efforts to pay down the national debt.

 

** One year into the Bush Administration, more than one million jobs were lost, the unemployment rate increased by 1.8 percent and about 2.6 million more people became unemployed. Now that the country is in a recession, President Bush and Republicans have proposed an economic plan that does little to stimulate the economy and consists mostly of giving profitable corporations and wealthy individuals $100 billion in tax cuts.

 

** Unlike Democrats, the Republican Party does not believe in a national standard for all elections nor do they fully fund national mandates for elections.

 

** President Bush is strongly anti-choice and has indicated that his administration may challenge Roe v. Wade. Since he took office, Bush has taken every opportunity to chip away women's reproductive rights by reinstating the Mexico City Policy, a Reagan-era funding ban on family planning services worldwide; trying to eliminate guaranteed access to contraceptive coverage; and undermining the legal logic of Roe v. Wade.

 

** The Bush Administration showed that issues affecting women are not its priority when it closed the White House Office for Women's Initiatives and Outreach and proposed to abolish regional outreach offices operated by the Women's Bureau at the Department of Labor

 

Source:

The Democratic National Committee website

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Republicans believe that:

 

** Democrats unanimously oppose the President's policy of pre-emptive self-defense.

 

** Democrats unanimously support massive tax increases.

 

** Democrats are coalescing behind an “aftermath policy” toward potential threats that is naive in the post 9-11 world. It is a passive, reactive approach that fails to connect the dots and would put America’s fate in the hands of people who seek to destroy us.

 

** Democrats are unwilling to stop terrorist activity. Our choice is confronting terrorists in Baghdad or Boston, in Kabul or Kansas City.

 

** Americans trust Republicans much more than Democrats to protect our homeland.

 

 

Sources:

RNC to Run Ads Around Democratic Presidential Debates

RNC Talking Points, Jul 24, 2003.

 

I used information for this post from the GOP and RNC websites. This was all I could find there.. it wasn't laid out as well as the DNC site as far as getting a perspective on the opposition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by NileQueen

Are the electors of the Electoral College accountable in some way to vote in a way representative of their constituency? Or can they just go and vote for who strikes their fancy?

 

Yes and no respectively. Whichever party slate wins the most popular votes in the State becomes that State's Electors-so that, in effect, whichever presidential ticket gets the most popular votes in a State wins all the Electors of that State.

 

The Electoral College is set up so that individual states hold a popular vote. Each candidate "wins" various states. The number of states won by a candidate are then 'added up' and the winner is declared.

 

This makes it very possible for the total number of popular votes to favor one candidate, while the electoral votes favor another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by NileQueen

And basically a Libertarian is never going to win an election, right? They can voice their concerns on various issues but not take a large chunk of the votes.

 

Alternative parties like the Libertarian and Green Party are highly unlikely to win, however, they do have an influance on the outcome of the election. Many Democrats and Republicans refer to this as the "throwaway vote." If you cast your vote to a Green Party candidate whereas you might normally vote Democrat, you've thrown your vote away. Add all of these up, and the Democratic candidate might have won enough Electoral Votes.

 

Such was the case with Bush/Gore where many Democrats and swing voters threw their votes to Nader.

 

Originally posted by NileQueen

I really don't see the sense in the two party system.

 

You aren't alone. It has pros and cons, but I believe it sets up a dichotomy and forces people to choose "lesser of evils:" do I give up a good health care plan because I'm against abortion? Do I sacrifice homeland defense because I'm anti-gun?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by SkinWalker

The Democrats believe that:

 

** Republicans are spending your Social Security money on tax breaks for special interests, and have a plan to cut your benefits and raise the retirement age with a risky privatization scheme.

 

** Republicans will protect the big drug companies and have proposed a drug benefit that covers only 6 percent of seniors.

 

** Republicans have broken their promise on education by making 28 education cuts totaling more than $1 billion, including technology training and after-school classes.

 

** Republicans tried to give Enron a $254 million retroactive tax cut. They will offer token protections for employee pensions while they coddle the corporate executives who mismanage them.

 

** Republicans will turn our air and water over to the polluters and force taxpayers to pay the clean-up bill.

 

** Republicans support the influence of special interests in our government by opposing meaningful reforms to the system. In the Senate, Republicans fought the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill, and used gimmicks and procedural technicalities in the House to defeat the Shays-Meehan bill. Consistently, Republicans have held up reform efforts through filibusters and other devices, avoiding a real vote to restore government representation to the people.

 

** President Bush has proposed cutting 2,500 kids from the Head Start program and by his Administration's own estimates, Head Start will fall 84,000 children short of a Democratic goal to ensure that one million children receive Head Start by FY 2002.

 

** President Bush and Republicans use strong anti-crime rhetoric, but they have opposed some common sense solutions. Bush tried to cut the highly successful COPS program by 17 percent in his 2002 budget, and cut programs designed to get drug dealers out of public housing. Bush and Republicans have also stood in the way of pro-civil rights, anti-crime laws that protect Americans from hate crimes.

 

** President Bush and Republicans have proposed a plan to overhaul our nation's military. However, they have yet to explain how they will pay for such changes, given that their tax cut has already demolished the surplus and returned us to deficit spending.

 

** In just one year, President Bush and congressional Republicans have managed to undo eight years of hard work and fiscal discipline. Bush's policies have already wiped out our hard gained surpluses, returned the nation to deficit spending, put Social Security in danger and slowed down efforts to pay down the national debt.

 

** One year into the Bush Administration, more than one million jobs were lost, the unemployment rate increased by 1.8 percent and about 2.6 million more people became unemployed. Now that the country is in a recession, President Bush and Republicans have proposed an economic plan that does little to stimulate the economy and consists mostly of giving profitable corporations and wealthy individuals $100 billion in tax cuts.

 

** Unlike Democrats, the Republican Party does not believe in a national standard for all elections nor do they fully fund national mandates for elections.

 

** President Bush is strongly anti-choice and has indicated that his administration may challenge Roe v. Wade. Since he took office, Bush has taken every opportunity to chip away women's reproductive rights by reinstating the Mexico City Policy, a Reagan-era funding ban on family planning services worldwide; trying to eliminate guaranteed access to contraceptive coverage; and undermining the legal logic of Roe v. Wade.

 

** The Bush Administration showed that issues affecting women are not its priority when it closed the White House Office for Women's Initiatives and Outreach and proposed to abolish regional outreach offices operated by the Women's Bureau at the Department of Labor

 

Source:

The Democratic National Committee website

 

DEMOCRATS:

1) Believe Republicans take our social security for tax breaks. (from SkinWalker)

2)Oppose tax breaks because they support the rich.

3)Created a special Congressional bill in which most to all Democrats supported. The bill gives them a bunch of money to the Congressman/woman, and to his/her spouse.

4)Hillary Clinton has a good chance of running in 2008, since she is a WOMAN running.

 

Even though Democrats oppose tax cuts, it is a proven fact that they benefit from it. Look up your sources, and compare the spending of the Democrats as compared with each tax cut. They benefit it.

 

AND DO NOT interpret what I said to be biased. I tried not to be, but facts can become that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by MennoniteHobbit

DEMOCRATS:

1) Believe Republicans take our social security for tax breaks. (from SkinWalker)

 

Are you saying that I've assigned this belief to Democrats in general or that this is my personal belief? I don't think I've seen where this is a belief of Democrats nor is it a basic belief of mine. I merely believe that social security is one of many social programs that are threatened by tax cuts. Others include the No Child Left Behind program of the current admin.

 

Originally posted by MennoniteHobbit

2)Oppose tax breaks because they support the rich.

 

Source? In every source I've seen about tax cut opposition it was due to the resulting deficit. Not enought income to pay the bills for the government.

 

Originally posted by MennoniteHobbit

3)Created a special Congressional bill in which most to all Democrats supported. The bill gives them a bunch of money to the Congressman/woman, and to his/her spouse.

 

Which bill?

 

Originally posted by MennoniteHobbit

4)Hillary Clinton has a good chance of running in 2008, since she is a WOMAN running.

 

Source? In every source I've read about Democratic support for H. Clinton, it was because she was well-known and informed. Being female might have it's advantages, but I don't think Democrats at large think this is the reason.

 

Originally posted by MennoniteHobbit

Even though Democrats oppose tax cuts, it is a proven fact that they benefit from it

 

Of course they do. They're in the right income bracket. I'd say it says a little about their dedication to their consitituents and the loyalty to the nation by opposing that which could easily be left to the status quo. ;)

 

Originally posted by MennoniteHobbit

AND DO NOT interpret what I said to be biased. I tried not to be, but facts can become that way.

 

You were unsuccessful. Most of your "facts" about Democrats were spurious at best. :cool:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

It seems clear that Kerry is the likely choice for Democratic Candidate to the 2004 Presidential election.

 

It seems appropriate to post a few links about Kerry here.

 

The John Kerry for President website.

 

Politics1.com and the John Kerry factsheet. It provides a biographical sketch of Kerry as well as many links to other Kerry-related sites, not all of them favorable...

 

...including: Vietnam Veterns Against John Kerry....

 

....and: John Kerry Sucks!

 

...but not: The John Kerry - George Bush Military Comparisson.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

dubya:

 

- Is opposed to the Kyoto Protocol.

 

- Supports Israel's Wall.

 

- Has trouble putting together a coherent sentence.

 

- Relies heavily on advisors who are, diplomatically put, dubious.

 

- Is on speaking terms with the last facist leader in Europe (the Pope).

 

- Interferes with public health care and medical science. Fields in which neither he nor any of his dubious advisors have any competence.

 

- Is working like hell to destabilize NATO, UN, The League of American Nations, and virtually every other international organisation that he gets in touch with by his aggressive, imperialist policies.

 

- Interferes with WHO work. Which is none of his business!!

 

- Insists on maintaining the unfair financial support to American industry, all the while demanding that import taxes, trade limitations, ect. be abolished everywhere else in the world.

 

- Sends American soldiers to the Middle East, which is somewhat like sending a rouge elephant into a store full of Venetian glassware.

 

How the man even was (almost) elected in the first place is a mystery to me...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • 4 months later...
Mother Jones and Alternet interviewed Joe Trippi,the guy behind the Howard Dean campaign ('the candidate lost but the campaign won'). He has a new book out, 'The Revolution will not be Televised' (click for excerpt), about how the Internet is radically changing the way politics is done. Choice quote from the interview: 'The open-source stuff was amazing. I mean, 650,000 brains are a lot smarter than the 50 [...] They spotted stuff that we didn't see, came up with ideas we wouldn't have thought of, and made the campaign a lot stronger. Just like how open-source works in running software -- it's the difference between Linux and Microsoft.'"

 

http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/04/07/22/1251250.shtml?tid=95&tid=149&tid=103&tid=17

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 3 weeks later...

PS: David Cobb is the official Green Party Candidate. Ralph Nader is officially running as an "Independant."

 

A good (non-partisan) site to check the views of politicians on the issues, those running for office, etc. is http://www.vote-smart.org

 

Interestingly enough, Bush, Kerry AND Nader have all refused (on multiple occasions) to tell Project VoteSmart their views on the issues (Ie: they refused the survey, and so their views don't appear on the site).

 

Here is a list (from their site) of all current presidential candidates (list is long, includes minor candidates from many third parties):

 

http://www.vote-smart.org/election_president_party.php?party_name=All

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I found a very handy looking website that analyses the ads and statements of both candidates and tells you if they are true (and what the real facts are). it seems pretty impartial (it criticises and defends both on occasion). As far as i can tell most of the claims by both parties turn out to be false and you shouldn't believe anything you see in an ad. :(

 

http://www.factcheck.org/

 

few highlights:

The Bush-Cheney campaign released a television ad August 23 accusing Kerry of casting "98 votes for tax increases." The number is an improvement on Bush's earlier claim that Kerry cast 350 votes for "higher taxes," which we described as inflated. But even the new, reduced total is padded.

Of the 98 votes for "tax increases," 43 were cast on budget measures that only set targets and don't actually legislate tax increases. Often, several votes are counted regarding a single tax bill.

The ad also strives to blame Kerry for raising taxes on the "middle class" and says "There's what Kerry says and then there's what Kerry does." But a close look shows the votes cited in this ad are in fact fairly consistent with Kerry's promise only to raise taxes on those making over $200,000 a year.

 

"Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" announced a second anti-Kerry ad Aug. 20, using Kerry's own words against him. It features the 27-year-old Kerry in 1971 telling the Senate Foreign Relations Committee stories about American troops cutting off heads and ears, razing villages "in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan" and committing "crimes . . . on a day-to-day basis."

The Kerry campaign called it a smear and said his words were "edited" out of context. The ad does indeed fail to mention that Kerry was quoting stories he had heard from others at an anti-war event in Detroit, and not claiming first-hand knowledge. But Kerry passed them on as true stories. The ad characterizes Kerry as making "accusations . . . against the verterans who served in Vietnam." The Kerry campaign denies that, saying Kerry was placing blame on the country's leaders, not the veterans. But Kerry himself said earlier this year that his words were those of "an angry young man . . . inappropriate . . . a little bit excessive . . . a little bit over the top."

Kerry's critics point to a 1978 history of Vietnam that challenged some of the witnesses Kerry quoted. But other published accounts provide ample evidence that atrocities such as those Kerry described actually were committed.

 

The Bush campaign accused Kerry of "a pattern" of trying to cut intelligence funding. Bush personally accused Kerry of attempting to "gut the intelligence services" with a "deeply irresponsible" 1995 proposal.

It's true that Kerry proposed cuts in 1994 and 1995, and the his 1994 proposal was criticized on the Senate floor by some members of his own party. But the proposal Bush criticized would have amounted to a reduction of roughly 1%. And senior congressional Republicans supported a cut two-thirds as large at the time.

 

and a less pro-deomcrat one for kicks:

An Internet ad by the anti-Bush group MoveOn PAC paints Cheney as a fear-monger and Edwards as a candidate of compassion, trust and hope. It uses snippets from speeches by each of the candidates, artfully edited and enhanced with music and sound effects that play on emotions.

Opinions will differ on whether this ad is misleading or not. Viewers not paying close attention could get the false idea that Cheney was predicting "the end of America" when in fact he was quoting an al Qaeda operative -- and scornfully at that.

What we offer here is added context to show what was left out of the ad, and our observations on some of the persuasion techniques used by all political admakers to influence what viewers will think and feel about what they are seeing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Originally posted by ShadowTemplar

When was that ever news?

 

Because they can...:(

 

Originally posted by NileQueen

If Dubya is opposed to Kyoto, what is Kerry's stand on that?

 

Seems he doesn't like it

 

John Kerry and John Edwards believe that the Kyoto Protocol is not the answer. The near-term emission reductions it would require of the United States are infeasible, while the long-term obligations imposed on all nations are too little to solve the problem. Unlike the current Administration, John Kerry and John Edwards will offer an alternative to the Kyoto process that leads the world toward a more equitable and effective answer, while preserving coal miners’ jobs.

 

Originally posted by NileQueen

How will Kerry handle Iraq?

 

Read his website.

 

Originally posted by NileQueen

Which if any supports research into alternative sources of energy?

 

Seems both are quite supportive:

 

Bush(you may need to scroll down a bit)

Kerry

 

Originally posted by NileQueen

Why hasn't Skinwalker run for President?

 

Good question...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...