Democrats Debate in Los Angeles

All Critical of Pres Bush

Published on February 26, 2004 By aconservative In Democrat

I watched from the TV the Democratic Debate in Los Angeles. Participants were Kucinish, Sharpton, Edwards and Kerry. Larry King was the moderator.

All the debaters were critical of Pres Bush regarding health care, education, the economy, immigration, gay marriage, jobs, and foreign policy. Larry King admonished them by saying, “This debate is about the 4 of you. Why are you debating Pres. Bush?

Which was a very good question. Why are they blaming Pres Bush when all, except foreign affairs, fell under the purview of the legislative branch of the government. Kucinich, Edwards and Kerry are all members of the legislative branch. Is it not their responsibility when it comes to the economy, immigration, gay marriage, jobs, education, etc?

Last time I read the Article I, US Constitution – the responsibility to enact and fund for all of these is the responsibility of Kucnich, Edwards, Kerry and the rest of the legislative branch. Why then are they blaming the President?

Kerry is also blaming the President about Iraq. Kerry is signatory to the resolution authorizing the President to do whatever is necessary (i. e. a blank check) about Iraq. What part of the resolution in the mind of Kerry did not give the authority to the President when it was considered by all signatories that it was a blank check?

I realized that what they are doing is to get votes from those voters who are very ill informed. I know that readers of this blog do not belong to this uninformed group. I need your comments to see if I am wrong. But before you do, please go back and read the US Constitution then let me know what you think.

Hasta La Vista!

Comments (Page 1)

bakerstreet

on Feb 27, 2004

Kerry is the enevitable pick, but without going through the motions they'd lose the primary focus of the media and the public. Once their candidate is a forgone conclusion, their platform will have to share an equal volume with Bush publically.
The Democratic primary is a sideshow now, but they'll make it seem like a main attraction to keep the spotlight on them.

eieio

on Feb 27, 2004

This is a trend that has progressively gotten worse over the last few election cycles.
Rather than candidates speaking about what they can do for the country and the populace, much of their platforms are based on how horrible the other guy is. Maybe it's the media's fault for focusing on the 'controversial', or maybe that's just what sells.

Either way, the voter seems to come away from it with little understanding of a candidates position, views, or plans and, quite often, becomes polarized with extreme views one way or the other.

Pam Johnson

on Feb 27, 2004

What you are bringing about is very true; it is one of the reasons the Supreme Court shot down the line item veto (thank you very much). The whole idea was to keep control of the money to the whole of congress, and not just one person. Thank of the problems we would have if they hadn't. Can anyone say, "Imperial President." I keep the Constitution bookmarked in Encarta for easy reference.

Pam

jeblackstar

on Feb 27, 2004

Plus, one of the duties of the president is to, from time to time, suggest legislation to the congress. True, the legislative branch passes it, but the president, and anyone else, can come up with some ideas. Since the president is the leader of the party, usually, it only makes since that he would make suggestions for bills to the legislature. So it's kind of silly to suggest that EVERY PRESIDENT SINCE WASHINGTON, has been acting outside the purview of their office.

Cheers

aconservative

on Feb 27, 2004

You are all correct.

Kerry with all his years in the Senate, can offer 3 legislations to marked his career. Somehow these politicians forget their job description once elected.

Today a lib talkshow host, was saying the reason why the Patriot Act was passed, was because members of the congress and senate did not "read" it. Maybe because they can't read.

aconservative

jeblackstar

on Feb 27, 2004

They probably couldn't read because Republicans constantly gut education spending.

Cheers

aconservative

on Feb 27, 2004

jeblackstar

Are you referring to "No child left behind"? Are you? With all the millions appropriated into "education", Johnny still can't read. Because we no longer have the likes of Mrs Everett, who dedicated her whole life, to ensure that Johnny can read. Our education system is now controlled by the union, who had their paws stretched begging more money, so they can contribute more to get their liberal candidates elected.

Visit any school today then look at what resources they have compared to what that school had before 1945. You'll be surprized that prior to World War II, all the Johnnys can read and write when they reached 3rd grade. Today, Johnny goes to college and he can't hardly read. Why?

Liberals complain why jobs are being exported overseas.

Because the Chinese, Japanese and Indians etc are more prouductive than the products of our educational system. Compare the funds that their governments allocate to education to that of the US and you will be surprized.

You don't have to go overseas. Here in the US, Public education spends $5,000 per child while private education spends $1500 per child. Public education spends 3 times more. The child that goes to public schools should be smarter. The Clintons knew the situation. Their only child went to a private school.

aconservative

Don Bemont

on Feb 27, 2004

Back to the orginal question -- the Democratic candidates are debating President Bush because he is the leader of the party that controls not only the presidency but both houses of Congress, thus holding control not only over the the results but even over what can reach the floor for a vote. For better or worse, health care, the economy, foreign policy, etc. have been in the hands of the Republicans for the past two years, if not the past four. Like every other administration, this one must run on its record.

Democratic voters are interested to hear where each candidate would call for change, and so the candidates are addressing that. I am sure that Republican would prefer that these guys bash each other (and I'm sure they will), but it seems like just a partisan complaint to cut them down for what they are doing.

As to Kerry being signatory to the the resolution authorizing the President to do whatever is necessary in Iraq, that is a reasonable point for the President to make, and I am sure that he will do so. Mr. Kerry, meanwhile, can point out that he believes that the president has stretched and/or misused that blank check (or that the resolution, as offered, made "aye" only the lesser of two evils). In any case, this is far from an open and shut matter, and it is up to the public to decide blame. However, I don't think you will get very far arguing that a minority Senator is equally responsible as the President in any national matter, and certainly not in a matter of foreign policy -- and I'll bet my bottom dollar you wouldn't try to make the argument if it were the Repulicans running against an incumbernt Bill Clinton.

aconservative

on Feb 28, 2004

Don Bemont

Welcome!

You said:

Back to the orginal question -- the Democratic candidates are debating President Bush because he is the leader of the party that controls not only the presidency but both houses of Congress, thus holding control not only over the the results but even over what can reach the floor for a vote. For better or worse, health care, the economy, foreign policy, etc. have been in the hands of the Republicans for the past two years, if not the past four. Like every other administration, this one must run on its record.

My reply:

If your job description based on the US Constitution says, that you are responsible for healty care, the economy, etc., why would you criticize the President just because he is the leader of the party who controls the Presidency. If I criticize another because I did not do what I am supposed to do based on my job description isn't that called deceiving just to get votes?

You said:

Democratic voters are interested to hear where each candidate would call for change, and so the candidates are addressing that. I am sure that Republican would prefer that these guys bash each other (and I'm sure they will), but it seems like just a partisan complaint to cut them down for what they are doing.

My reply:

Same as my above reply. I give credit to the Democratic voters than you are given them. I am quite sure that majority of the Democratic voters read the papers, listen to the radio and watch television without listening to candidates who don't have any track record. When the Democrat wanna bes first debated, 64% of democrat voters did not know them.

You said:

As to Kerry being signatory to the the resolution authorizing the President to do whatever is necessary in Iraq, that is a reasonable point for the President to make, and I am sure that he will do so. Mr. Kerry, meanwhile, can point out that he believes that the president has stretched and/or misused that blank check (or that the resolution, as offered, made "aye" only the lesser of two evils). In any case, this is far from an open and shut matter, and it is up to the public to decide blame. However, I don't think you will get very far arguing that a minority Senator is equally responsible as the President in any national matter, and certainly not in a matter of foreign policy -- and I'll bet my bottom dollar you wouldn't try to make the argument if it were the Repulicans running against an incumbernt Bill Clinton.

My reply:

Mr Kerry said that Nr Bush lied to the American people, but I haven't heard him explain which part of the resolution that authorized the President "whatever means that is necessary" that be considered a lie. Mr Kerry said when he was not contemplating to be President, that he was for gays to marry. He voted against the Defense of Marriage act. Now he said he is against man to man and woman to woman marrying. Mr Kerry said that he is a champion in the defense of his country - but he voted against all types of defense systems, i.e. missile systems, stealth bombers, etc. Mr Kerry said that he was very proud of his service in Vietnam and compared the service of the National Guard as the same as those defectors that ran to Canada. The fact is when he returned to the US he condemned his fellow servicemen in Vietnam worst that the army of Genghis Khan. He was seen in a picutre with Hanoi Jane. He said that they did not know each other. When I mentioned this to my wife - she remarked "Birds of the same feather, fly together."

What more can I say. Anyway welcome and hope to read your comments again.

aconservative

Don Bemont

on Feb 28, 2004

To paraphrase the adage, when the law is on your side, you argue the law. When the facts are on your side, you argue the facts. The Constitution is largely on your side, so that is what you are agruing. But the de facto situation is that the sitting president, given his party's control of congress, has controlled the country over the past 2-4 years, so that is what I am arguing.

We all know that many things in the Constitution are not exactly descriptions of real life, and, throughout the 20th century the presidency has, for better or worse, gained enormous power at the expense of the legislature. In fact, if the Congress were to insist on its right to substantially interfere with the president in foreign affairs during times of crisis, those congressmen would be preceived by most Americans as working against the best interests of the country.

The flip side of this is that, when elections are later held, the public will hold the president far more accountable for foreign affairs than they will hold the congress, and certainly far more than any particular congressman. That may not be what the Constitution says, but I think it is silly to think that the political issue of accountability is going to be decided on a contitutional rather than a pragmatic basis.

On the subject of lying, it is my sense that neither of these two gentlemen would benefit by a truly impartial in-depth investigation into their veracity.

aconservative

on Feb 28, 2004

Hi Don,

I agree with all you said, but if we know that it is not what it should be do we consider that to be the right way?

On the subject of saying things that can not be substantiated, this will be the subject of discussion when the selected Democrat candidate is authorized to debate the President. At that time, we the people, will decide.

aconservative

jeblackstar

on Feb 28, 2004

Ah yes, no child left behind, a program which admits that they are in fact leaving children behind. It's really easy to spend money on rich white kids, the place where most state and county money goes.

No Child Left Behind? Yeah right.

Cheers

aconservative

on Feb 28, 2004

Can anybody please explain to me why public schools spend $5,000 per child while private school spend $1500? And when given the same test, the private school student gets better.

What about the home-schooled children. The government does not give them a dime. Yet they excel better in grades.

aconservative

BulbousHead

on Feb 28, 2004

Can anybody please explain to me why public schools spend $5,000 per child while private school spend $1500?

Source?

jeblackstar

on Feb 29, 2004

I believe he's trying to base this off of tuition rates, of course he neglects the whole issue of alumni support

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!