Who was the best possible Democrat VP choice?

[Billiken Rich]

[MUTGR]

for where the democrats are, idealogically, Edwards was the best possible choice. It's really amazing where the democratic party has gone. The most liberal senator in America and the fourth most liberal senator in America. At least Clinton ran as a "new" democrat. This is truly a contest of whether you hate Bush enough to vote for a couple of left wing wackos (although they do make a good looking couple, I must admit), or are you serious about terrorism. I mean Liberman was the only dem to take the whole issue seriously. We'll see. The one solace I take is that if Kerry/Edwards do win, I'm confident they will screw our country up enough to be a one term deal.

[TheA_Bomb]

I voted for Steve Rodgers. He is the only Democrat I know that has actually done something for me. Usually Democrats are doing something to me.

[billiken_roy]

NM

[Basketbill]

it is more a statement of politics today. A vote for a tax makes a politician liberal, and a vote against abortion makes one conservative. Barry Goldwater would be considered Liberal by todays standards, the damn Grand Canyon tree hugging Liberal. I find it interesting that you comment on Clinton being a New Democrat, while if you listen to Rush he is a damn liberal.....It appears to me the line seems to move with every election.....

One thing for certain the most dissapointed Democrat yesterday was......Hiliary for IF Kerrry-Edwards wins, then Hiliary has a formidable opponent in Edwards in 2012. (doubt she would run in 2008)(nor do I want her to)

[aj_arete]

That's one of the most irresponsible comments I've ever heard. Do you read a newspaper?? Is the label based solely on geography and criticism on the war of terrorism?

Wake up and get a clue. Criticism on the war on Iraq is receiving bipartisan support. You have Conservative Right Wing Wackos, who resent that Iraq and the rest of the Middle East wasn't turned into a parking lot. They deeply resent the many billions of dollars sent to rebuild a people that hate us. Then there's another staunch conservative faction, who's bitter about the bludgeoning budget deficit, and very disturbed that the spending on the war on terrorism isn't balanced with severe cuts in education, transportation and social services. Then there's political moderates on both sides and independents, who are deeply concerned about the misleading information supporting the war and were disillusioned on how difficult and expensive this Iraq war is becoming. Then you have the liberals, who have that told you so look because they realize that attacking Saddam Hussein was like attacking a beehive. Not only are we not safer now, it's worse. Who knows who'll be the new leader of Iraq? It could be someone worse than Saddam or Iran.

Also check Kerry's and Edwards' senatorial records. You'd realize that they are political centrists, who are similar to Clinton.

[SLU8592]

Beautiful retort. First criticizing someone for labels and then similarly throwing labels about on your own. Ah, hypocrisy, I'm glad to see it's in full bloom.

Things are sure horrible-- check this out:

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/business/...ar+in+2+decades

If Daschle and his followers will appoint conferees so the new tax legislation gets passed (repatriation provision), there will be an influx of cash in the US to be spent on US investment. Do you think that will further bolster the economy? You don't think Daschle would intentionally "kink the hose" of the economy until after the election do you?

As one prominent economic professor has noted with regard to tax increases-- a tax increase takes money from its most efficient use (i.e., the private sector) and puts the money into a medium of inefficient use (i.e., the public sector).

You think the problem with education is a lack of funds? Didn't the City of St. Louis just recently offer the top job in the schools to the ex-NYC school chief at a salary in excess of $225K per year? Apparently, the funds are available. Look, though, at who controls the purse strings-- that's right-- the school board. I'm all for spending money on education, but certain criteria must be met.

Oh, and of course, the Republicans always seem to spend money on defense-- the fools. Anyone see a correlation with defense spending cuts under Mr. Clinton and our woeful state of readiness in intelligence and response? Apparently, it's just "right wing wackos" who want to help their buddies in the defense industry.

I believe before you insinuate someone is assinine in their opinions, you should look in the mirror.

[TheA_Bomb]

The Vote to allow the president war powers in Iraq:

House Vote 296-133

Senate Vote 77-23

That is an overwhelming majority in a very evenly partisan congress.

74% of the American People Supported it at the time.

What has changed? We didn't find stock piles of weapons that is all. Well, personally I am sorry about that but if you let a crack dealer know 3 months in advance you are going to raid his crack house at midnight on the 18th of March do you think there will be any crack there? Probably not. What a surprise Saddam didn't have weapons stockpiled either. Taking over a country and building a democracy is not like cooking something in the microwave it takes time. Germany, Japan and South Korea seem to be doing alright. If you disagree with the war that is fine but my problem is that everyone seems to make their complaints retroactive.

[Alonzo P Hawk]

Boy, I thought it would have been Al Sharpton for sure.

[SLU8592]

It appears that many people are short sighted and memory challenged. IMHO Bush acted prudently. The only question really is whether something could have been done, after we took control of Iraq, to better facilitate the restoration of an independent Iraqi government. While eveyone seems to be an armchair quarterback and suggest Bush and the administration screwed up the post war installation, no one has given precisely what plan they would have followed that would have been much better than what has been done.

So, Bush has aggressively addressed terrorism, his administration's policies are now poised to thrust the economy into some of its greatest growth in the last two decades (see above cite)... why is it that the media says "everyone" hates Bush? The thrust again is Bush's moral conservativism. Hollywood hates Bush because his policies are focused on traditional family values (less sex and violence on TV because parents can't or won't monitor their own children). The media hates Bush because his policies espouse traditional family values. The media is shaping public opinion to serve its own purpose. The media is pushing individual rights seemingly at the expense of any overall social right. Our individual rights are necessarily limited in many circumstances to achieve social goals.

As far as I'm concerned, this election is about one issue- morality. Are we better off as a society following conservative moral values or liberal moral values? I obviously chose traditional family values.

[Sheltiedave]

Traditional family values...

Abortion - Bush is for abortion, according to his voting record

Death Penalty - Bush is for the death penalty, according to his voting record and non-use of pardons

Universal health insurance - Bush is against health insurance for all

Family value issues all.

If you want to pick and choose, Bush has voted close to, or identical to, Kerry on many of the divisive issues. Holding Bush out as a paragon of morality is similar to asking Clinton to chaperone your 17 year old niece to a prom.

Bush's time on the straight and narrow path pretty much coincides with his first term as govenor of Texas, and for many support for Bush is due to his ability to be reelected, not his sterling moral fibre. I would urge some not to walk too far out on the morals plank unless they have better firsthand information on Bush's past behaviour than I.

By the time our archbishop concludes enumerating what is a mortal sin in this election year, we may not have anyone we can cast a vote for in 2004.

[Billiken Law]

I'm not Catholic myself so I have been wondering about something. The Archbishop here says pro-choice legislators should not receive communion because it is in direct conflict with the stance of the Church. Furthermore, Catholics should vote for only those candidates whom stand in line with the Church (which FoxNews would lead us to believe is Bush). However, doesn't Bush's pro-death penalty stance contradict the Church? Didn't the Church oppose the war in Iraq? Sean Hannity never brings those issues up. If you are going to be a good Catholic in the eyes of the new Archbishop who is there to vote for??

[Box and Won]

My confession in November should be interesting...

Box: Bless me father, for I have sinned. It's been about 14 years since my last confession.

Priest: Yes, my son. Tell me what you would like to confess.

Box: I voted for Kerry.

Priest: Um, okay. Say ten Hail Marys, an Our Father and only vote Republican from here on out.

Box: I also voted for Clinton and Gore. Will I have to say extra Hail Marys for that? What exactly is the statute of limitations for voting Democrat?

Priest: Your penance for voting for Kerry will suffice.

Box: Thank you, father. I feel like a huge weight has been lifted from my shoulders now that I no longer have to consider any issues besides abortion before casting my vote in future elections.

[aj_arete]

but let's just ensure that the label coincide with the characteristics. I have yet to hear any convincing arguments that Kerry is a true liberal. He supports our presence in rebuilding Iraq (albeit would request more international help), against tax increases (sorry, repealing the tax cut on the rich is not the same as an increase), fought against affirmative action, voting record that is close to middle of the road...exactly what is liberal about this guy??

[aj_arete]

if everyone had all of the correct information. I don't know why everyone is surprised about people changing their minds based on new information. It happens all of the time. This situation is analogous to buying a used car. It looked good coming off the lot, but then as we learned more about it, it started looking like a lemon.

[aj_arete]

It's true that money spent in the private sector moves through more efficiently than the public sector. However, that fact alone doesn't mean the public sector shouldn't receive funds. There are other issues to consider such as the needs of our constituents.

Could you imagine private enterprise running our federal highway system?

Would you like paying tolls every exit?

Do you not enjoy our public parks and other amenities?

Without the less efficient public sector around, you probably wouldn't enjoy these luxuries if you applied the professor's comments in all instances. Unfortunately, we have this phenomenon called public goods which the free market hasn't found a way to supply at an adequate level due to the free rider issue.

Now if you have a problem with Social Security, subsidizing health care, subsidizing farmers, funding education, I encourage you to continue campaigning for staunch conservatives. However, good luck in persuading many Baby Boomers and other Americans to join forces with you.

As for the recent economic news, this is certainly timely for Bush. However are we to judge a presidency over two quarters or four years? If you were to review Bush's overall economic record in terms of GNP and job creation, it would fall woefully short of Clinton's administration.

As for your rationalization that the City of St. Louis has sufficient funding because they offered Rudy Crew in excess of $300K (not $225K), please be aware that Civic Progress was prepared to pay a significant amount of that. Also your inference that the St. Louis Public School system is full of funding is at odds with the State of Missouri and the management team themselves. Even if the St. Louis Public Schools go through with their drastic budget cuts, they will still have a significant budget deficit of over $54 million(?).

[Tonka]

Law – This is a tough question and one many Catholics are struggling with. Actually, if you sin you’re not supposed to go to communion. So, it goes well beyond the abortion / capital punishment thing. There is a big debate in the Catholic Church now about all of this. The Archbishop of St. Louis stated what you said, but apparently these decisions are different from diocese to diocese. So, that makes it even hairier. To take it one step further, there is a faction of the Church that follows what St. Thomas Aquinas said in that capital punishment is an execution, where as abortion is not an execution. Abortion is a cold blooded killing. Then there’s the group who argue what constitutes a fetus and at what stage. This is a whole complex thing and not a conversation for this board. In fact, the Vatican is getting grief over a lot of this as certain diocese are saying what you stated, yet people feel this is hypocrisy since the Catholic Church allowed some priests to continue practicing even after they knew they had abused some children. Again, another topic not for this board. The Catholic Church has a lot to work out and I hope they do soon. Personally, I am against abortion and not capital punishment. I go to communion and I don’t claim to be sin free, but I do try. Personally, I don’t think anyone should vote for a candidate based on a moral or social issue, but that is just my thought process. There is enough other reasons, not to vote for Kerry. Hah – sorry, Steve – had to throw that in there.

[TheA_Bomb]

To further the St. Thomas Aquinas point:

St. Thomas saw capitol punishment as the natural right of self defense of the state therefore in his rationale it was permissable.

I have no problem with the church being anti-death penalty (I'm not sure it is an official position). That is the Church's place to believe everyone can be saved and that all life is sacred. This role needs to be fulfilled in society. I would be willing to make a trade no more death penalty for outlawing abortion in the US.

[DeSmetBilliken]

As far as I know, the Catholic Church is clearly against abortion, but doesn't have a set position on capital punishment. While they're are groups within the Church that are against capital punishment, and Pope John Paul II has made clear his opinions against it, the Church's position on capital punishment is more open than its stance on abortion.

[tseugnekillib]

I agree with the The A_Bomb: no abortion / no capital punishment.

I will never support any candidate that directly or indirectly supports child abuse. I see abortion as the most extreme form of "child abuse". Since 99.9999% of all people would never support a child abuser, how can anyone support abortion?

I wonder quite often how many great athletes, how many great musicians, how many great doctors, how many great medical researchers, how many great (fill in the blank) have been aborted?

[Billiken Rich]

Though in my defense the late Fred Rogers had a better chance of getting the nomination

[Billiken Rich]

Comparatively YES. Compare them to moderates like Lieberman. Lieberman was the only reason I wasn't planning some sort of "black op" against Gore. After reading "earth in the balance" and wasting three full pens highlighing the absurd passages, I was amazed that anyone could take him seriously.

[courtside]

All I can say is that there has not been a Catholic US Senate Chaplain in over 100 years because of Republican anti-Catholic bias on the hill lead by Mr. Mississsippi and Dennis Hastert who voted 2-1 against of all people Dick Gephardt to not have an extremely quailified Catholic Chaplain and appoint a far less qualified candidate. Sad.

As for Catholics, of which I am one...scary conservative Rome so tiresome...the discussion of women priests and possible married priests etc....as discussion, not necessarily automatic yes this yes that is so long overdue...that is truly sad.

Former Aux Bishop Tim Dolan a friend and I disagree on this a lot. and I am neither a republican or democrat.

I never did understand party line voters. I always had a mind of my own.

[SLU8592]

Absolutely my position as well. I see abortion as nothing more than infanticide. Abortion is completely about selfishness, which appears to be a trait upon which our society is more completely based. The "mother" doesn't want to be burdened with a child. Where is the difference between a baby in the mother's womb and a three year old? I guess it's what we can't really see-- somehow not really seeing a baby makes killing it okay. How hypocritical is it that Hollywood every year shows "It's a Wonderful Life" as a supposed Classic? Hollywood doesn't mind hypocrisy, certainly not at the expense of dollars.

As to the death penalty- I, personally, don't agree with the death penalty. I can see a different argument, though, for the the death penalty as opposed to abortion.

Hopefully most voters will recognize that these are key issues to the shape of our society in the future. We all focus on the economy, defense, education, etc., but the right to life (inalienable right to life?) and how we view and respect life shapes our social attitudes. Can we overcome selfishness, greed? We have to take things one step at a time. While I don't claim to be the most moral person in the world, I am consciously trying to improve.

[SLU8592]

As to your comment that Kerry is a centrist- this is the first time I've seen anyone refer to Kerry as a centrist or moderate. In fact, some commentators are questioning whether the Democratic party is going from the more moderate policies of Clinton/Gore (conservative fiscal/liberal moral) back to a more left wing base. After all, Kerry voted with Ted Kennedy on key votes 94% of the time. Hardly indicative of a moderate.

Of course, I am not advocating the complete elimination of the public sector funding. We can't simply assume more money will solve all of our problems. Education is one good example. Is it possible that some of our problems in education are due to lack of parental involvement in the education of their children? Do parents properly nurture and support their children and the teachers at the school. If we want our children to learn and grow, we have to take some ownership of their education. Again, I'm not for cutting education spending at all-- I'm merely suggesting that there may be more deep seeded issues than just money.