http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040301/ap_on_el_pr/kerry_edwards_3 Kerry-Edwards Ticket Has Advantage WASHINGTON - John Kerry (news - web sites) and John Edwards (news - web sites) are still fighting for the Democratic presidential nomination, but a new poll puts a Kerry-Edwards ticket ahead of the incumbents, President Bush (news - web sites) and Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites). Both Kerry and Edwards are basically tied with Bush in head-to-head matchups in a CBS News poll released this weekend. But when Kerry-Edwards are matched against Republican Bush-Cheney, the Democrats lead 50 percent to 42 percent. None of the hypothetical matchups included independent candidate Ralph Nader. When CBS' Dan Rather asked Kerry and Edwards during a debate Sunday in New York about the possibility of joining forces on a Democratic ticket, both said such talk was premature. Kerry, the front-runner for the Democratic nomination, said he's not prepared to talk about running mates "and I don't think John Edwards is prepared to say he would run with me." Edwards agreed. "I think there's no way to say that. We're still in a fight for the nomination." The CBS poll of 1,545 adults was taken Feb. 24-27 and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points, the same for registered voters.
The problem is that for people on the fence like me, there is no way in hades we can support Kerry. He is all over the place in what he does and doesn't support. He was against the first gulf war, now he supports it. He was for the removal of Saddam, now he is against it. He simply does not have the convictions necessary for someone I want as my president. I don't like Bush much, but at least he is consistent. DD
I don't like Bush much, but at least he is consistent. You really believe that? I like free trade... except for steel tariffs. Gay marriage should be a state issue ... but I support a constitional amendment. I want to reign in government spending ... but I'll let it grow faster than ever. You can call Bush a lot of things... consistency is not one of them. At least not if you have any interest in being accurate.
I'm a uniter... not a divider. I pay homage to science, and then make purely political decisions. Tax cuts primarily benefit the middle class, except that they don't really. I'm for No Child Left Behind, unless I actually have to fund it. I'm for helping AIDS in Africa, except when I have to fund it. I'm for a budget-busting Mars mission, unless everyone else isn't. In public, I am appalled at the notion of the Plame leak while in the Oval Office, eh, not so much. I was undecided about War with Iraq until it was forced upon me except for the months before when I decided we would have a war. I'm for accountability as long as it comes after my re-election. I value firefighteres and first-responders, unless I actually have to provide funds. In public, I'm for healthy forests and clean air, while in the oval Office, I'm definitely not. I'm for an investigation into 9-11 unless I can figure out some way to get out of it.
rimrocker, nice post. But I hope this thread stays on topic. We can defend Kerry and Edwards without setting the ever flammable GW on fire yet again. It's too easy. This "Kerry flip flops!" thing has been largely a media/Rove creation. Even over the span of 30 years, his statements and beliefs have been fairly consistent, especially for someone who makes a living in politics. And personally, the fact that he changed his mind concerning Vietnam is moving to me. I know some vets are mad at him, but many are not. He saw what was happening, he served his country proudly, and then he had the courage to say, in essence, this policy is f***ed up. As for his Senate work, look up Aristotle's definition of politics, and then tell me anyone but a madman would not change his stance slightly on occasion. His environmental views are especially encouraging and consistent to me, and I like the lead role he took in investigating the travesty of the Iran-contra affair. People like little soundbites they can run with without reading and studying the issues in detail. I'm the same way -- it's easy. But fight the current. Read, study, decide for yourself instead of letting NPR or FOXnews tell you the easy answer.
I'm a uniter... not a divider. I am against a Department of Homeland Security. Under political pressure, I am now for DoHS but they can't unionize! I am against an independent commission to investigate 9/11. Under political pressure, I am now for it as long I can appoint the commission members and not cooperate with their requests. I am against an independent commission to investigate Iraq WMD intel. Under political pressure, I am now for it as long as I can appoint the commision members and force them to deliver their reports after the 2004 election. I am against asking permission of an irrelevant debating society (UN) to invade Iraq as I see fit. Under political pressure, I ask the UN for permission but don't push for a final vote since I would lose. etc.
Whoa, too Bad Johnny E got a little hot under the collar yesterday and starting ripping into JFK. Kiss the ticket goodbye.
well reagan got over bush sr calling his policies voodoo economics and bush got over reagan calling him a wimp at the 1980 repub NH primary. running mates don't really have to like each other personally.
outlaw, outlaw, outlaw... don't you ever read comic books? The forces of evil will always join forces with each other to defeat the Do-Gooders wearing stretch pants.
Ooops. I fogot to fund Afghanistan, had to ask for a huge supplemental on Iraq, miscalculated the Prescritption Drug thing, can't figure out if I'm for or against my own week-old economic projections, but I sure can take care of myself and those around me. It's almost like I'm sure I'll win in November... just got to make sure those Diebold machines are working in Ohio. _____________ Bush Wants Transition Cash to Train Aides ALAN FRAM Associated Press WASHINGTON - President Bush is making an unprecedented request to use up to $1 million budgeted for a possible presidential transition to train top officials who would join his administration if he should win a second term. The proposal, which will require Congress' approval, is the first time a president has sought to use public transition funds to prepare officials to enter a re-elected administration, White House officials and others say. Critics say the money should come from existing agency budgets, especially as Bush is proposing to curb spending for many programs because of soaring federal deficits. The White House is defending the request as a way to cope with the spate of departures that usually marks an incumbent's second term. Officials say the money would be used for briefing materials and other training expenses for which agencies have not budgeted. "We're trying to use a modest amount of resources to make sure they are trained and prepared," said White House budget office spokesman Chad Kolton. He said new officials "need to be walked through what the parameters are, where things stand with ongoing projects." Democrats and experts on presidential transitions say the funds should not be used when a sitting president is re-elected. "It isn't really forming a government" like newly elected presidents must do, said Charles O. Jones, a University of Wisconsin-Madison political scientist who has studied presidential transitions. "There are all kinds of existing apparatus in the White House, in departments and agencies, for orientation sessions." Congress routinely provides money every four years for office expenses, briefings and other potential costs incurred by a president-elect and his or her aides waiting to move into the White House and other federal offices. Bush has proposed $7.7 million for a possible transition. He also asked Congress to amend the Presidential Transition Act to allow using up to $1 million from that amount "for training and briefings for incoming appointees associated with the second term of an incumbent president." Some 3,000 political appointees are in the executive branch, said Paul Light, a professor of government at New York University who has studied presidential transitions. "It's unbelievable that the same budget proposal that asks Congress to cut money for education, veterans and port security would propose to set aside $1 million to take care of themselves," said Sen. Patty Murray of Washington state, top Democrat on the Senate Appropriations subcommittee that oversees White House spending.
