PDA

View Full Version : Has there ever been a more liberal ticket?


GWB
07-07-2004, 06:54 AM
The nonpartisan National Journal magazine ranks Mr. Edwards as the fourth-most-liberal member of the Senate, with a composite liberal voting score of 94.5 percent for 2003. That's more liberal than Sen. Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, but not as liberal as Mr. Kerry, who is rated by the magazine as the Senate's most liberal member.

First and fourth place, can you be much more liberal than that?

I never thought the liberal standard of the Mondale/Ferraro ticket would ever be surpassed.

nicky g
07-07-2004, 06:57 AM
Given that the US Senate is not exactly a hotbed of radical leftism, yes.

ericd
07-07-2004, 07:18 AM
So, if you were to lose, would that equate to the team that loses to either the Red Sox or Cubs in the World Series?

GWB
07-07-2004, 08:08 AM
[b]Unlike Kerry, who served in Vietnam, Edwards, who is the son of a millworker, has no military experience. The New York Times notes that in a January debate Kerry made fun of Edwards's lack of military experience: "When I came back from Vietnam in 1969, I don't know if John Edwards was out of diapers then."

GWB
07-07-2004, 08:10 AM
[b]Edwards is a trial lawyer, Nader is the country's leading champion of trial lawyers, and, as the Village Voice points out, Nader actually urged Kerry to pick Edwards.

Kurn, son of Mogh
07-07-2004, 08:30 AM
These guys are downright conservative compared to the LBJ/HHH ticket. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

GWB
07-07-2004, 08:35 AM
Kerry Attacked Edwards’ Maturity And Experience;
‘When I Came Back From Vietnam…I Don’t Know If John Edwards Was Out Of Diapers Then.’ “‘In the Senate four years – and that is the full extent of public life – no international experience, no military experience, you can imagine what the advertising is going to be next year,’ Mr. Kerry said. With a grin, he added: ‘When I came back from Vietnam in 1969 I don’t know if John Edwards was out of diapers then. Well, I’m sure he was out of diapers.’” (Adam Nagourney and Jim Rutenberg, “With Hopes Up And Elbows Out, Democrats Give Iowa Their All,” The New York Times, 1/19/04)

Kerry Attacked Edwards’ Experience.
“‘I think the American people want an experienced hand at the helm of state,’ said Kerry, who has spent 19 years in the Senate compared with Edwards’ five. ‘This is not the time for on-the-job training in the White House on national security issues.’” (Mark Z. Barabak, “Diverse States May Reshape The Democratic Race Today,” Los Angeles Times, 2/3/04)

Kurn, son of Mogh
07-07-2004, 08:46 AM
What's your point? Like, candidates never make nice at the convention after ripping each other in the primaries? Like the GOP didn't do a hatchet job on McCain in South Carolina in '00?

I even recall GHWB and Reagan ripping each other pretty good in '80.

GWB
07-07-2004, 09:04 AM
My point is that Kerry knows he appointed a basically unqualified candidate for VP because he had no better choice.

Those candidates that are qualified, like John McCain, know that Kerry would not be a good President, and are supporting me.

W

ThaSaltCracka
07-07-2004, 10:35 AM
[ QUOTE ]
First and fourth place, can you be much more liberal than that?

[/ QUOTE ] What is your point? The vast majority of Americans support supposed "liberal" views. I think that these views are closer to center than anything else. The biggest problem for these two though is that some of their views contradict each other. ie Kerry against the death penalty, Edwards is for it.

Talex
07-07-2004, 10:51 AM
McCain is stuck in a party that's screwed him over time and again, but he's spent his political life in it so there's not a whole lot of options for him. Also, Edwards is 51, the diapers joke is just that; a joke.

-Tim

SinCityGuy
07-07-2004, 10:53 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I even recall GHWB and Reagan ripping each other pretty good in '80.

[/ QUOTE ]

"VooDoo economics".

El Barto
07-07-2004, 11:12 AM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
First and fourth place, can you be much more liberal than that?

[/ QUOTE ] What is your point? The vast majority of Americans support supposed "liberal" views. I think that these views are closer to center than anything else. The biggest problem for these two though is that some of their views contradict each other. ie Kerry against the death penalty, Edwards is for it.

[/ QUOTE ]

If "the vast majority of Americans" really supported liberal views, I doubt 95% of the Senate would be more conservative than what "the vast majority of Americans" want. We elect them after all - I think you fell into a logic trap here, please try again.

juanez
07-07-2004, 11:53 AM
I have heard it said that as few as one million votes will decide the election in November (no clue where I heard or read that) and it's the swing voters that will make the difference. I believe that most Americans are basically in the center and not radically left OR right. With Kerry/Edwards being sooooo liberal, I'm not sure that the middle-of-the-road voters will respond well to them.

Not sure how many Americans respect attorneys either. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Talex
07-07-2004, 11:55 AM
[ QUOTE ]
If "the vast majority of Americans" really supported liberal views, I doubt 95% of the Senate would be more conservative than what "the vast majority of Americans" want. We elect them after all - I think you fell into a logic trap here, please try again.

[/ QUOTE ]

This presupposes that the vast majority of Americans are involved in the voting process. This is not the case.

-Tim

cardcounter0
07-07-2004, 12:16 PM
The constant harping on the word 'liberal' by the right wing hate mongers and media has made every one afraid of using the disgusting 'L' word.

SO if you ask some one on the street, they will say they are a 'conservative', or 'independant', or anything ... but a *gasp* 'liberal'.

But then ask them their stance a a few issues: They are all 'conservative but ... ' the 'but' part being they probably take the liberal stance on the issue for the most part.

So you have a large part of the population calling itself 'conservative' and giving the nod and okay to the far right whackos and religious extreme, while all the while they actually have 'liberal' type viewpoints and beliefs on 90% of the issues. They just differ on which 10% they believe strongly 'right' about, so we get stuck with 100% 'right' leaders.

Look at the title of this post. "Has there ever been a more Liberal Ticket" I guess the assumption is that since it contains the word 'Liberal' that it is a bad thing.

How about this: "Has there ever been a bigger Corporate Shill/Self Interest Serving Ticket than Bush/Cheney". "Has there ever been a bigger disregard for the sentiment of the people or the law since Bush/Cheney?" "Has the Federal Government ever grown so fast and large before, under a supposedly Conservative Administration, since Bush/Cheney?" "Have the Oil Companies/Drug Companies ever given more money to a ticket than Bush/Cheney?" "Has an Administration ever had more convicted Felons working for it than Bush/Cheney?"

ThaSaltCracka
07-07-2004, 12:31 PM
look at what people consider to be liberal views though. Gun control, affirmative action, abortion, death penalty, welfare, foreign relations, lets be honest most people in America support these things. Just because someone is a republican, that doesn't mean they are conservative, and just because someone is a democrat that doesn't mean they are liberal. Bush is actually a good example, he does plenty of things that are considered conservative but he also does many things which could be considered liberal. This whole notion that "liberals" are somehow wackos and way out on the left is ridiculous. You'll notice that a lot of republican pundits throw this term around as if they are a bunch of Nazi's or something. "He's a liberal, watch out! he may want to increase the size of the government and spend more!"(which Bush has done) "He's a liberal because he wants the more government control over what you do!"(which Bush has done).

ericd
07-07-2004, 01:28 PM
The one point I'd like to zero in on is spending. As I recall, liberals are tax and spend while conservatives are for small governments and balanced budgets. Where does the current administration fit in?

This is the second time the country has been led by Reaganomics/Supply Side economics. As I recall, George H. W. Bush had to go against his "read my lips - no new taxes" pledge to begin the reversal of the runaway budget deficits. The Clinton adminstration continued along that path until there was eventually a surplus.

This issue is going to become more critical because 2014 is quickly approaching. The reason that year is so important is that is when the "Baby Boomers" are scheduled to begin collecting Social Security. There are lots of them, they are living much longer and the boomers continue entering the system in large numbers for several years thereafter.

Where is the money going to come from? Supply Side economics has over a 10 year track record of increasing deficits. As the deficits grow more and more of the budget will be needed to finance the debt. The deficits were reinstitued under the Conservatives. It doesn't seem that the Liberals, if elected, will have any money to spend anyway.

cardcounter0
07-07-2004, 02:09 PM
I think that is the secret plan the Bushites have. They don't like social security. They don't like the other social safety nets the government supplies.

So when you bankrupt the government, there will be no money for medicare, or social security, or head start programs, or emergency food aid, or any of that nonsense.

So when everyone gets stiffed because the govt. is broke, Bushites will just lean back and blame the free spending "liberals" for the budget mess. How to get rid of social programs you don't like, without actually having to vote on getting rid of them -- Just Bankrupt Everything!

ericd
07-07-2004, 02:32 PM
Thanks for the insight. And to think I always thought the current adminstration, especially their leader (in title only that is), was not very bright. Actually, they are extremely clever when it comes to slanting something to prove their point regardless of its validity.

Phat Mack
07-07-2004, 07:20 PM
My point is that Kerry knows he appointed a basically unqualified candidate for VP because he had no better choice.


Edwards is more liberal, but Cheney is more compassionate. When I was in the 5th grade my mother made an appointment for me with the dentist. When I asked her if she was going to pick me up after school and go with me, I was informed that I was a big boy and could go by myself. When you went before th 9/11 committee, Cheney subjected you to no such trauma. Nobody has to ask what kind of president Cheney would make, we've been watching him perform the job for over three years.

Rooster71
07-07-2004, 09:28 PM
[ QUOTE ]
The constant harping on the word 'liberal' by the right wing hate mongers and media has made every one afraid of using the disgusting 'L' word.

SO if you ask some one on the street, they will say they are a 'conservative', or 'independant', or anything ... but a *gasp* 'liberal'.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think the reason the word "liberal" is considered to be so bad in modern society is largely due to Rush Limbaugh's constant use of the word to identify anyone who does not agree with him. The same people who barrage us with the "L word" are just simply parroting Limbaugh.

[ QUOTE ]
But then ask them their stance on a few issues: They are all 'conservative but ... ' the 'but' part being they probably take the liberal stance on the issue for the most part.

So you have a large part of the population calling itself 'conservative' and giving the nod and okay to the far right whackos and religious extreme, while all the while they actually have 'liberal' type viewpoints and beliefs on 90% of the issues. They just differ on which 10% they believe strongly 'right' about, so we get stuck with 100% 'right' leaders.

Look at the title of this post. "Has there ever been a more Liberal Ticket" I guess the assumption is that since it contains the word 'Liberal' that it is a bad thing.

[/ QUOTE ]
I have asked a few Limbaugh-style "conservatives" to define the word "liberal", all I get is a blank look.

[ QUOTE ]
How about this: "Has there ever been a bigger Corporate Shill/Self Interest Serving Ticket than Bush/Cheney". "Has there ever been a bigger disregard for the sentiment of the people or the law since Bush/Cheney?" "Has the Federal Government ever grown so fast and large before, under a supposedly Conservative Administration, since Bush/Cheney?" "Have the Oil Companies/Drug Companies ever given more money to a ticket than Bush/Cheney?" "Has an Administration ever had more convicted Felons working for it than Bush/Cheney?"

[/ QUOTE ]
Those are some very good titles for future posts!