The OFFICIAL Unofficial Achewood Message Board
Trivial Pursuits => History => Topic started by: JorgeFabregas on October 07, 2004, 04:35:18 pm
-
Also remember that each of the things on the list would not be legislative items by themselves but parts of much bigger legislation. What you vote on is the major part of the legislation; amendments and riders are always added on.
That may be the case for SOME of the votes mentioned, but Edwards specifically mentioned that Cheney was one only a few congressmen to vote against a couple of these measures.
"Edwards responded sharply, reaching back to Cheney's years in the House in the late 1970s through the 1980s and citing a number of his votes, including opposition to a federal holiday honoring Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday, a resolution calling for the release of anti-apartheid leader Nelson Mandela in South Africa, the Head Start education program and funding for the Meals on Wheels program for seniors. "
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/latimests/20041006/ts_latimes/cheneyandedwardstradeaccusations
Funding for Meals on Wheels very likely could've been in an apporpriations bill, but I highly doubt that the aforementioned Mandela and King resolutions were part of any such thing. Vote-smart.org doesn't go back far enough to find out for sure, but I did find out that he voted for funding Contras. So I guess they were the better freedom fighters.
Edit: Here's the exact quote from the debate:
The vice president, I'm surprised to hear him talk about records. When he was one of 435 members of the United States House, he was one of 10 to vote against Head Start, one of four to vote against banning plastic weapons that can pass through metal detectors.
He voted against the Department of Education. He voted against funding for Meals on Wheels for seniors. He voted against a holiday for Martin Luther King. He voted against a resolution calling for the release of Nelson Mandela in South Africa.
http://www.wave3.com/Global/story.asp?S=2395356&nav=0RZFRhZa
-
My point was that both debaters tended to make accusations in the form of contextless statements that are meaningless without further research, and that such rhetorical calisthenics are detrimental to communicating honestly with their audience.
I agree that Mr Cheney did some partisan voting during his tenure. I doubt that he managed to earn a title similar to "most liberal member of the Senate" (from a non-partisan research organization) as did Senator Kerry, particularly against competition as stiff as the Senior Bloviator from Massachusetts, though. Senator Edwards placed third or fourth in that category.
Also, Vice President Cheney represented Wyoming at the time. As a responsible representative of the State of Wyoming, he is bound to their interests. I assure you the majority of them are both AGAINST gun control and AGAINST Federal entitlement programs in general - also Western States generally do not vote for and often do not accept Federal Program Funding that is not in the form of "Block Grants" because they are very much against Federal involvement in the details of their spending. State's Rights states are very picky that way and so are their Congressional Representatives. Because they want the people of that State to Elect them, the represent them as well as they can.
It makes perfect sense and the voting records of State's Representatives to the house or Senate on many domestic issues should vary widely because of this, especially on issues that impact programs administered at the local level.
What is indefensible is voting against supporting the military that you just voted to send into conflict, regardless of the circumstances of the original decision. Once you send them, they should be supported. I don't think this issue should vary much in across party lines; a protest vote against your own people, who you sent into harms way is treasonous in my opinion.
-
There was an AP story a few minutes ago about how Cheney is using the final report that conclusively proves there were no WMDs in Iraq to JUSTIFY our invasion. Black is white and up is down.
Upon returning to the news site, the AP story has vanished. I'll post a link if I can find one.
-
Assuming, of course that the AP hasn't fallen to the same disease CBS seems to have at epidemic levels right now.
Journalism during this election has taken a horrible turn.
-
First off, here's the link (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=703&e=1&u=/ap/20041007/ap_on_el_pr/cheney).
Second: Aloha, what disease are we talking about, exactly?
-
You're just trying to start a fight, Limmo. You have no idea how hard it is for me to live in Hawaii during a political year. I can't get any kind of decent news here without spending time online trying to sort the crap from the objective.
Recently:
1) The mainstream media's obvious left-leaning agenda which culminated in Dan Rather's embarassing wetting of himself in his gleeful excitement to present some forged documents.
2) CBS' Mary Mapes committing a monumental lapse of journalistic ethics by contacting the Kerry Campaign directly with the 'Good News'. This, by the way, may well prove felonious intent to affect the outcome of a federal election using forged documents.
Less recently
3)Every media outlet except for Fox calling the 2000 election well before it was over and BEFORE THE POLLS WERE CLOSED ACROSS THE COUNTRY. Also, according the very quietly released final recount numbers done by the Miami Herald and the NYT, incorrectly.
There is so much obvious bias in the media that you just have to hope that they start leaping at each other's throats when 'mistakes' are made in the spirit of competition, because obviously there is nothing life of journalistic standards or integrity.
-
Well, I agree with you that journalistic standards have gone straight to hell.
-
There was an AP story a few minutes ago about how Cheney is using the final report that conclusively proves there were no WMDs in Iraq to JUSTIFY our invasion. Black is white and up is down.
Upon returning to the news site, the AP story has vanished. I'll post a link if I can find one.
Black is white, up is down, and spin is always spin.
-
Now who's trying to start a fight?
-
Now who's trying to start a fight?
I'm not sure. I'm attributing Cheney's 'interpretation' of the report and following statements as heavy spin. What else could it be?
Both sides are saying dumb stuff and spinning like madmen.
-
Sigh.
It seems to me that Cheney's the one saying the dumb stuff and the other people in the article are justifiably expressing their disbelief that anyone could be that cynical and manipulative.
In any event, having breathed a sigh of relief that the recent influx of trolls has vanished, I don't want to be seen as the one who's disturbing the newfound peace of TOUAMB. So I'm bowing out of this thread.
My final thought: your kitty-litter-cake recipe? Frikkin' awesome.
-
I think both of us are struggling to be so darn reasonable that it doggone took any semblance of fight out of both of us.
-
Less recently
3)Every media outlet except for Fox calling the 2000 election well before it was over and BEFORE THE POLLS WERE CLOSED ACROSS THE COUNTRY. Also, according the very quietly released final recount numbers done by the Miami Herald and the NYT, incorrectly.
From what I've heard, Fox called the election for Bush before any other network did, and well before the results were conclusive, and did so based on the judgement of a consultant who is a first cousin of George Bush's.
I will site two sources. If you call them dubious, I will find further sources.
Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_2000)
CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/11/14/politics/main249357.shtml)
I agree that the state of political news media in our country is repulsive, but I contend that Fox News has contributed far more to that end than any other group. I lean conservative on a great many issues, but I loathe Fox News and the copy-cat effect other news organizations are falling into.
-
No no - Tom Brokaw called it for Gore first, then once Fox called it for Bush for some reason all of the networks retracted and called Bush. I went to sleep that night thinking Bush had won outright and that meant that Alec Baldwin was leaving the country to go live in France (which would have been reason enough to vote for Bush).
But alas, Bush didn't win outright, and Alec Baldwin went back on his word and never left the country. Sigh.
-
More or less my point; everyone called it WRONG and, especially, before the polls were closed nationwide. Fox finally called Bush, pretty late too - if it was after midnight, at least all the polls were closed, which was correct, and definitely only after careful (and apparently, the only correct) interpretation of the results.
Your cynical opinion of Fox notwithstanding, I didn't see too much reporting on the other networks about the supposed "draft bill" that the scaremongers were using to whip up the college kids into a frenzy. It just got voted down, notably by Charlie Rangel, the DEMOCRATIC sponsor of the thing. Talk about 'Vanity Legislation'. And talk about selective reporting, while you're talking.
-
So much for me being reasonable and staying out of this thread.
Scaremongers? I got your scaremongers right here (http://geekt.org/gopconstrm.mov).
You think Pedro was cynical about Fox? Would you like my copy of the Outfoxed (http://www.outfoxed.org/) DVD? I will send it to you free of charge if you PM me your address, which I no longer have.
And check out this tidbit (http://www.boingboing.net/images/wbay.jpg)which appeared on the AP wire today. AP claims it was a "test article." Who writes test articles a month in advance? "Left-leaning media"?
-
i take the simple view that all of them are out to get me equally, just some of the time some of them might be doing a better job than the others.
i mean, it _is_ hard to find good help.
-
i take the simple view that all of them are out to get me equally, just some of the time some of them might be doing a better job than the others. i mean, it _is_ hard to find good help.
Most of the time I agree with you. But this election is different. At least it feels that way to me. On the other hand, I'm a liberal.
-
i really don't know what i am, politically. i like to think of myself as GDI, but i dunno. However, i certainly don't see myself as a donkey or an elephant.
that being said, my parents are, and have been forever, staunch democrats.
the sad thing, though, is that for this presidential election, i really don't care about the things that i feel i should care about: policy, politcs, etc, etc.
it's just i fear and mistrust the current administration so much, that i'm ready to try what's behind Door Number 2 because i just can't take the current situation anymore.
it's entirely emotional rather than rational reaction to the elections.
-
Fear and mistrust are a perfectly rational response to this administration. Especially with this week's Iraq revelations and their responses to it.
I call myself "liberal" even though I have conservative leanings in some areas. Rather than running from the label, I'm embracing it. On the other hand, I wouldn't call myself a Democrat - the current Democratic party makes me ill. But I usually wind up voting for them anyway, because there are currently no good alternatives. If I had to give letter grades, I'd give Kerry maybe a C-. But Bush is the biggest F since McKinley, if not the biggest in American history. Even Nixon had some things going for him in the foreign policy area...
I dunno, I just get too riled up about this stuff.
-
I don't think a protest vote (they indeed did first vote for the bill you are alluding to when it included a measure to roll back some tax cuts to pay for said bill) is treasonous especially when it's just that, a protest vote...meaning it wouldn't have affected the outcome. You really buy that bit about Kerry being the most liberal senator?
In a recent issue, the magazine noted that Kerry and Edwards, busy campaigning, were absent from the Senate for many of the votes that went into the latest index, so only certain votes entered the formula. Although Kerry has scored consistently on the liberal end of the journal's index since coming to the Senate in 1985, 10 current senators have a higher lifetime average, the magazine said. Edwards, just finishing his first term, has a lifetime score that "puts him in the moderate wing of his party."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A60419-2004Jul18.html
-
Your cynical opinion of Fox notwithstanding, I didn't see too much reporting on the other networks about the supposed "draft bill" that the scaremongers were using to whip up the college kids into a frenzy.
My opinion of Fox is not cynical. Negative, but not with the world-weary context that cynicism requires. I simply have watched Fox News and found it to be unceasingly editorial in nature, speaking with the same voice on the same sides of the same issues, and claiming fairness and balance. It's editorial programming masquerading as news. That's false advertising. Personally, I don't think they do that because they have a political agenda (though I don't discount it entirely). I think they saw an opportunity to make money that only bends the rules a little, and took it. That is my opinion based on my observations.
As to the "draft bill", I'm not sure how much publicity it warrants. It seems to me like the more publicity it got, the more it would serve it's authors. But if you say it was under-reported, I will take your word. I don't watch news on television, so I have no guage of their coverage of current stories.
(I think it's a sneaky underhanded little trick, but House members are always pulling that. They had drafted a bill at one point that basically said that the Supreme Court didn't have the power to strike down laws. How would that have worked? It would have been struck down immediately. This junk legislation is always flying around the House. Go to thomas.loc.gov and search for "sugar".)
The real problem here is that the news is supported by advertising dollars. That makes them beholden to their advertisers, and it makes their business to draw viewers. So what they report is what people will want to see, not necessarily what is important or relevant. That's why it's always about either murder, beautiful women, or the murder of beautiful women. The whole institution is ridiculous. In this light, I shouldn't hate Fox News so much more than other outlets, but Fox so blatently panders to a conservative audience while at the same time claiming balance. It's frustrating.
-
Limmo and Jorge:
You are awesome and I love you like brothers. I'm also pretty sure no one's mind is going to get changed here. But I do like the discourse and you are both articulate and rational.
I would fear and distrust Kerry more than Bush because flat out I don't believe Kerry. I don't think he can be trusted to hold a course because I think he's more interested in his own popularity and legacy than he is in the course of this Nation. I just don't think there is anything behind the image or his history that makes me see a person that I trust.
-
I would fear and distrust Kerry more ... a person that I trust.
I appreciate your expression of measured distrust of Kerry. But I about pissed myself when I read your signature just after it.
I can see the pundits arguing over whether it is really two shits or three.
-
I voted for the two shits before I voted against them.
-
I think voting like that would be kind of squishy.
-
i take the simple view that all of them are out to get me equally, just some of the time some of them might be doing a better job than the others.
i mean, it _is_ hard to find good help.
http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2005/11.html