Really? What about Norm Mineta? Further, although not a Dem, Bush had to know that Powell would be well received by both parties. Further still, Dubya did make an attempt to court some other Dems but they didn't appear to be interested. I'm pretty sure Breaux was one of them and Sam Nunn another.
You are comparing Sen. William S. Cohen as defense secretary to Norm Mineta as sec of transportation? And you think those are comparable examples of one side reaching out to the other? The Defense Secretary is a position CENTRAL to your administration. Sec of Trans is clearly not. You are kidding right? There is little doubt in anyone not interested in spin that Clinton really worked across the isle in a way that meant that bills that got passed had some "republicaness" to them. But Bush never reached out that way. Bush expected the Demmos to always be the ones compromising. And only when they did compromise did anything get done. When Demmos finally began to say no and insist that the Republicnas needed to at least "give a little", they got attacked as "blocking Bush's grand plan". And I got this information from reading about 2 newspapers a week for the last 3 years and NOT from Kerry's web site. Nor have I gone to the Demmo web site or some other Demmo group to "get my talking points".
i'm voting for kerry. simply because my friends and I are of the appropriate age to be selected to go and die in a war i don't believe in. (i'm sounding vietnamish i guess). but i don't like some things bush's administration tried to slip by. (changing the draft age, and making the draft genderless) i live in NY so my state is going to Kerry anyway. but every vote counts. since i will be voting for kerry if bush wins i have the right to complain.
I don't recall making any such comparison. You stated, "Clinton had a good number of Republicans in his cabinet. Bush never has". I merely pointed out that the only one I could recall was Cohen and that Bush had appointed Mineta. And his other choice was ________? I mean, he had to deal with a Congress that was pretty much controlled by the GOP. How could he have hoped to get anything accomplished otherwise?
Shouldn't women also be drafted since national policy is that they can also be put in harm's way as combatants. Remember that this insane gender neutral policy came from the Democrats! :guns: The Kerry campaign has been claiming that Bush wanta to have the draft. The fact is that the draft legislation pending in congress came from Democrats.
That is blatantly false. The republicans intentinally brought up a draft proposal just 2 weeks ago with the specific intent of voting it down in a political effort to prove that they aren't planning on having a draft. The thing is this. Any party can say they won't bring back/don't intend to bring back the draft...and the truth is they mean it. The problem is that if the US ends up in another major conflict in another part of the world (North Korea, Iran, etc) we simply do not have the troops to sustain all 3 major fronts. We're already forcing National Guard and reserves to serve in active duty FAR longer than they were ever told they might have to. Our major military divisions are staying in the field far longer than they're supposed to all b/c they troops are already spread so thinly. So, if we were to get involved in another major conflict what options would there be? Congress would and either president would immediately vote (reluctantly with sad faced appeals in nationwide speaches) to reinstate the draft.
I am not sure that the removal of the electoral college would be a good thing. By making sure all of the states have some say in the election, you can ensure that everyones voice is heard. A straight popular vote would give a lot of power to the states with the largest populations.
Maybe I'm missing something, but I'm pretty sure Bush has had a few Republicans in his cabinet. :wink:
tag, I can't think of another one either. But the 2 examples you found, about how Bush ran his government as if he had a mandate when he didn't, while Clinton never did, support my case stronger than I ever could. Thanks again. Cyndrax, Why is it that treating people equally will be bad to small states? It may indeed be true that a future candidate will go to high population states more than small population states. But the reason they would go to the high population states is because that is where the people are. Low population states have low density of people per square mile. In some ways, there is more real estate than people. But peope vote, not real estate. But this does not change the value of your vote. Your vote carries exactly the same weight as any Californian or Texan.
I voted for Bush. Arnold is the Man here in California... And Arnold votes Bush. So I have to go with Arnold on this one. He’s done right so far. I don't think it’s going madder here, but I was surprised at the number of Californians voting for Bush. Every person I know is voting for Bush expect my Dad.
According to www.house.gov and www.senate.gov: S.89 Title: A bill to provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes. Sponsor: Sen Hollings, Ernest F. [D-SC] (introduced 1/7/2003) Â Â Â Â Â Cosponsors (None) Related Bills: H.R.163 H.R.163 Title: To provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes. Sponsor: Rep Rangel, Charles B. [D-NY-15] (introduced 1/7/2003) Â Â Â Â Â Cosponsors (14) Related Bills: S.89 The Cosponsors are: Rep Abercrombie, Neil [D-HI-1] - 1/7/2003 Rep Brown, Corrine [D-FL-3] - 1/28/2003 Rep Christensen, Donna M. [D-VI] - 5/19/2004 Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy [D-MO-1] - 1/28/2003 Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [D-MI-14] - 1/7/2003 Rep Cummings, Elijah E. [D-MD-7] - 1/28/2003 Rep Hastings, Alcee L. [D-FL-23] - 1/28/2003 Rep Jackson, Jesse L., Jr. [D-IL-2] - 7/21/2004 Rep Jackson-Lee, Sheila [D-TX-18] - 1/28/2003 Rep Lewis, John [D-GA-5] - 1/7/2003 Rep McDermott, Jim [D-WA-7] - 1/7/2003 Rep Moran, James P. [D-VA-8] - 1/28/2003 Rep Stark, Fortney Pete [D-CA-13] - 1/7/2003 Rep Velazquez, Nydia M. [D-NY-12] - 1/28/2003 These bills were introduced will over a year ago by leading democrats with democrats as the cosponsors. You might want to double check your source!
Perhaps you need to re-read the blog you referenced. Both votes for the draft were democrats. The republicans pushed the vote because the false rumors were blaming the republicans for wanting the draft. In reallity, as pointed out by the bill listings on the congressional sites above, all the backers of the bills were democrats 'nuf said!
"Nuf said"--says who?? 2 democrats out of the entire House doesn't exactly show a democratic movement for a draft now does it? The fact of the matter is that that bill shows that the Democrats do NOT have the only bill for a draft, there is no such project pending and no one...I repeat no one WANTs a draft to be reinstated. That doesn't mean it won't be reinstated if/when it's needed by a vote of both parties. Now, if you feel there's been "'nuf said" we can agree to end this pointless debate.
Jayson, Not to get personal, I really don't mean to, but when I read that, my first thought was something a co-worker told me Tuesday morning: Her 9 Y/O son's class 'voted'. She asked him who he chose. He said "Bush". She asked what factors he used to make his decision. "Ryan's older brother likes Bush". Just because a high profile politician you agree with votes party line, does not mean that YOU agree with the policies of the candidate. According to the 'votes by county' stats, that would be because you live in Riverside, not on the coast ;-)
Ok, my misunderstanding of the circumstances...sorry. The actual bill that was voted on was Charlie Rangle's bill (a democrat). The bill was forced to a vote by republicans. The 'forced to a vote' part is what led me to believe the bill had been introduced/proposed by republicans. Not that that matters much, the whole vote was for show b/c obviously it isn't going to pass (even Charlie Rangle didn't vote for his own bill) in the face of an election. This is all political BS. The democrats certainly don't truely want the draft reinstated (we're weak on defense anyway, right). The republicans don't want to, but now with their public 'mandate' are free to do so when they deem it necessary....I pray it won't become so.
