Did the presumptive 08 nominees: Kerry, Clinton, Edwards, Clark

say anything about the Schiavo vote?

Or were they thankful that they were not forced to take a position?

If they have, I missed it. I regressed to tune out details about Schiavo, except for headlines of where the case was on the court ladder.

I wish all will study the way the Alan Alda character in the West Wing talked about religion and politics.

He had a press conference where he told reporters that if they were seeking questions about religion they should go to church. Also, that if any politician is talking about religion they, the reporters, are being lied to.

at least in my mind. I have nothing to add to the substantive part of your posting. I just want people to start thinking of her as presidential material.

She will get my money and support if she is a nominee.

Hey, don't flame me. When I lived in California she was my senator and I always voted for her and communicated with her.

She showed a great courage questioning the Ohio votes and grilling Rice.

But she has to come with positive plans for the country. As we have seen during the last elections (and with every other issue) it is not enough to be against something; you have to come with positive proposals.

She has to come with lifetime security for the people of this country: security of education, of health care, of jobs and of retirement.

She has to come with a strong plan for security in our streets and our borders. The threat of terrorism is not going to go away and she'd better present a hawkish side..

If she will, I will stand by her. After all, she has never been a Republican...

None that I know of. :shrug:

Not that anything is wrong with this. Mature people constantly view the world around them and change their positions if they conclude that their earlier position was wrong, or if the conditions are them have changed. A major example, of course, was Kerry's stand on the Vietnam war. The pugs call this "flip-flop" we call this maturity and the ability to think and to admit that things have changed. A difference, also, in seeing the world as black and white or one with shades of gray.

Except that it appears that such "dark roots" occasionally appear, mostly to lend the candidate a "centrist" stand.

Thankfully, Boxer is not striving, as far as I know, to place herself as a "centrist" - whatever that means - even though her daughter is married (still is, I hope) to Hillary Clinton's brother.

Edit Sorry, I posted to early. Clinton's brother and Boxer's daughter are no longer married, I think.

I really was hoping that at least on these pages people check their facts, first, before making a statement.

and their relatives being married, sorry, not to anything else. I know it is not obvious from my answer, but I was not talking about anything else (frankly I dont care what Clinton was 30 years ago. FGS, Zell Miller was a Democrat then, so what).

I was in fact in the process of editing my thread to add about Kerry and his position about VietNam and the VietNam War, as I dont think he changed it. But may be you have some references concerning your affirmation?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Boxer

About Kerry, if you've seen the excellent movie about him "Going Upriver" you could see that at first he supported the need to intervene in Vietnam and, as we all know, he volunteered.

Later, of course, he realized the futility of this and changed his mind.

Perhaps I should have emphasized that Kerry changed his mind about Vietnam before he entered politics, back in the 70s.

This clarified the question for me.

...were Republicans.

Wes Clark has never been a republican. I have no clue if Hillary has or not. Yes, Wes voted for some republicans in his past, but then if George McGovern can forgive him for that, then I think I can, as well.

By the way, he voted for Clinton, Clinton, Gore and Kerry... oh, and hardly a centrist - read his policy statements, if you care to.

I'm an avid Boxer supporter and a California resident...I have the highest regard for this one in a million woman. But I want her to stay in her senate seat doing exactly what she does best.

We don't need a "congressional" on the ticket. It hasn't worked successfully for the party since John F. Kennedy.

Harding and Kennedy... both won

Here's my point, some senators make bad presidential candidates, some could make very good ones. This is because some Senators, and sorry to Kerry fans but he was a perfect example of this, start voting to the center right before it comes time to run for POTUS and then they can be accused of being professional politicians and not standing for anything.

Russ Feingold, on the other hand, has proven that he stands up for what he believes in even though it may not be politically popular.

Also, I like Clark, but other than Clark we really don't have a lot of non-senators that I could support in '08. Dean is DNC Chair and most of our other governors are either weak public speakers, too old, complete DINOs, or simply haven't been in office long enough to give it up and run for President.

I see a lot of potential rising stars from our governors or soon to be governors, such as, Schweitzer, Spitzer, and Corzine, but we need to focus on '08 right now.

Like a governor, an attorney general or even a CEO..

And I think that Kennedy was an aberration that cannot be repeated. For that matter, I don't think that any political campaign from the 20th century can be looked upon as an example. Why? Because of the Internet. We have now news, and stories, and allegations, and opinions spread by a simple click and this has changed the way candidates, and their opponents, communicate with the voters. It has changed the way voters want their news and information.

Just as Kennedy ushered the TV era to politics, so has the Internet changed it.

Only in a "just" America I'm sad to say.

There's still large pockets of covert sexism (and racism) that will NOT allow this ... Besides, the corporate media get their orders from our Executive Branch.

Additionally, those ole' power drunk coots who now control Our Government (the inner circle) will allow a woman or black to be President of the United States ---> when pigs fly! And the foregoing you can bank on. :P

for a "Republican".
I have not heard anything, thankfully, from Kerry, Clinton, Edwards or Clark.

themselves in their own feet for once but be watchful for any evilness in turning it in their favor with lies. Poor Terri, her husband, and the rest of her family.

:kick:

And I still do wonder. But, in the end, it really wouldn't have mattered. I can't forgive the existing congresspeople who didn't vote against it, but other than that, since the country is so united in their beliefs against this, it probably all goes without saying that this was wrong.

I also wondered whether they should have said anything really. Doesn't that just make it worse? This never should have been a story. It's one family's struggle and should have stayed that way.

I think, maybe, they should have said that. Just a statement. Quick press release. "I think that Congress overstepped its bounds." Then no further comment. I think that would have been best. I think I wish Clark would have done that.

I think that this was the mistake during the past campaign, with the Iraq and other problems. The "experts" said that one does not stand in the path of destruction - or something like that.

I think that this was and still wrong. Sure, we can let the Republicans be exposed in all their ugliness, but staying quiet does not post as alternatives. And the other phrase of "if it ain't broke don't fix it" still holds true for many.

The only reason why voters would like to change leadership is if they see a clear alternative. And saying nothing is not an alternative, just as ABB was not enough.

Someone had a wonderful post last week, that the Democrats should use Terri Schiavo for a bill - one that restores Medicare funding, one that provides heath care for everyone..

I've only watched up to Season 3 of the West Wing, but that show is far too generous to Republicans. It needs to start portraying Republicans as they actually are: lying, hypocritical, greedy, hysterical screaming banshees.

who is pro-choice, pro death penalty, anti deficit and pretty much a common sense guy who is alienating, of course, the loudest part of his party by being pro-choice.

I don't think that it is a question of "too generous" to Republicans. It tries to reflect reality of a Democratic President having to work with a Republican Congress, where compromises have to be formed.

The Alan Alda character is not afraid to say what's on his mind and where he stands while the Jimmy Smits character, a practically unknown, has to pander to the special interests in New Hampshire, Iowa and, most recently, in California.

As my spouse commented: this program is a must for anyone who wants to understand how these things run.

And, frankly, I doubt that we will ever have a Democratic president and administration like Bartlett's.

This is really what is sad about the Republican party of the last 20 years. It used to be the party of "live and let live." Sure, they wanted a small government, they did not like to spend money on the poor and the sick, the elderly and those whose luck simply ran out. But at least they were educated, articulated and were not ashamed of that. At least one could debate such issues.

Starting with Reagan in 1980, when the religious right decided to take over, and continuing with replacing the coastal leaders with bigots from the South - it has deteriorated to replacing thoughtful debate with sound bites. Now god commands this and that, now they talk in absolute terms and that's the end of the discussion.

When you see Randal Terri attacking Jeb Bush in the Schiavo case; when you see the protesters in front of the hospice - you have to wonder what happened to hundred years of education and of wealth and of privileged life.

It's not so much that Vinnick is a moderate from California, it's that he actually has a brain of his own. The higher-ups know that they would never be able to control him once he's in the white house and therefore they would make sure that he would not get the nomination.

Although, he's more populist about it in a sense and he's definately better than Bush on economic issues. He's not necesarilly pro corporation and he's against big government. He frames the trade issue by saying that families should be able to go into Wal-Mart and buy what they need for little money. He frames the farm issue as farmers should be allowed to make a living growing what they want to instead of having the government tell them what to grow or not to grow at all. Also, he seems pretty much against corporate welfare.

I definately agree with Santos more on education and healthcare but it's definately hard to dislike Vinnick since he made that comment about how his faith is nobody's business.

particularly when it comes to the link between religion and politics.

There are Republicans like that, however, they would not be nominees in the current situation.

Speaker Haffley is introduced in Season 5 as a Gingrich-like slime ball.

Rob Ritchie, Bartlett's opponent for re-election is based on Dubya and tries to attack Bartlett for being an intellectual out of touch liberal. Bartlett kicks his ass in the debate and ends up winning in a landslide carrying states that Democrats could never carry in real life such as Nebraska and the Dakotas.

Oh yea and then in Season 1, there was that time when Josh told the Senate Majority Leader to shove his legislative agenda up his ass. I love that scene.

April Boyd, a spokeswoman for Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., said the former presidential candidate agreed that Schiavo's parents should be given a final appeal but "any intervention by Congress is temporary and Mrs. Schiavo's family must come together."

"It's a question for her family, and their doctors, and their faith," he said.

Levin, Wyden & John Warner all spoke out against it.

The most vocal person from Congress has been Chris Shays, (R), Ct.

I know that Barney Frank (D-MA) spoke against Congressional interference in a judicial matter on the floor of the House last week. I don't recall anyone else on the Dem side being that vocal.

I am torn on this. There is a Constitutional issue at stake about the sepration of powers. On the other hand, the Rethugs are doing a great job of shooting themselves in the foot. I'm not sure what should be done by Dems. I guess I lean towards extending sympathy to the families.

several years ago, no one would have tried to come forward to "save her from her death penalty."

Mostly, that Congress waited to the last minute to pass the law showed that they really did not care about her.

This is no way to pass any law - without any debate. And I still don't know how any law could pass without the Senate voting on it except for a Republican and a Democrat to... shake hands?

What would prevent Congress to pass a law attacking Iran under similar circumstances?

So the answer is no, he did not.

No Senators that are rumored to be candidate for 08 has expressed publicly his opinion on this case. The closest I have seen are these two lines by Kerry. As the two lines are simply incoherent and contradictory, I would assume that there was something in between that was not reported by the reporter that would allow us to know how to interpret this.

They may be others by now, I dont know.

If this is all he said, I am frankly disappointed. It seems like he is on all sides of the issue. What does "any intervention by Congress is temporary?" What about the "rule of law", Senator Kerry? Does he approve on Congress' intervention or not?

I hope there is more to his statement than what you have quoted.

In a article, a reporter reported what one of his spokeperson said, and this is all there is.

I agree that what is reported is very inadequate, but without a full statement, it is difficult to understand what that means.

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/politics/content/news/epaper/2005/03/25/a6a_SCHIAVO_WASH_0325.html

April Boyd, a spokeswoman for Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., said the former presidential candidate also agreed that Schiavo's parents should be given a final appeal but "any intervention by Congress is temporary and Mrs. Schiavo's family must come together. It's a question for her family, and their doctors, and their faith."

__________________

In contrast, from this same article, Rep. Jim Davis on Congress' involvement in Schiavo case:

Rep. Jim Davis, a Democrat from Tampa who is running for governor in 2006, and also led the House Democratic opposition, would not comment on his Senate counterparts' actions.

"I did what I felt was right," Davis said, adding that when he learned of the scheduled vote, "I felt compelled to go back to Washington and object. I felt very strongly it was wrong to insert politics into this issue."

As I said, this is the only thing I found.

If it is, it is inadequate, but as he has been mainly silent and I have no divining abilities, I just dont know.

Actually, this statement is totally incoherent. First sentence seems to say that he agrees with the vote, second one that he does not. I would hope he makes a statement that makes his view clear, whatever his view is, rather than staying silent or putting out totally incoherent statements.

lame

now that every Christian wacko conservative is on TV prefacing their comments about Schiavo with, "Well the Congress, both Republicans and Democrats resoundingly supported the Bill to give this case another look and keep Terri alive, so you really can't say this is a liberal vs. conservative, republican vs. democrat issue. It's clear that it's a constitutional issue about Terri's rights, and the rights of all helpless disabled Americans."

:eyes:

Each and everyone of them, not just for president.

they supported it. It's called tacit support, and while it obviously doesn't apply to everyone or everything, it does apply to legislators who allow votes to be recorded as unanimous. There were Democrats in the House who clearly voted against the action. There were none in the Senate.

only a handshake between Harkin and First and Santurum (I think) and I still don't understand how a law could pass this way

It's mind boggling, to be sure.

The Supreme Court didn't want to grab this tarbaby nor would I. There is absolutely no way to pick this baby up without getting shit all over your hands.

by Congress. Apparently in the Senate, some kind of deal was reached between our leader and their leader where only a few Republicans would show up, the Democratic Senators would stay home (thus saving them from having to take a stance), it would not be debated, and it would be called a "unanimous vote."

Normally, in these times, I do not mind some Democrat ducking some issue or other to save their seats. (Keep in mind that at that time they did not know what the response of the American people would be).

But I felt this was very close to being a constitutional issue and most certainly was setting the precedent for Congress abusing its powers in other ways to circumvent the rule of law--a dangerous precedent. So, because I fear our democracy is at risk, this was one of the very few things I would want them to show up for, speak about, oppose, and fall on their swords for.

While I realize we can all have different views about the Schiavo issue and even different views on the rights of parents vs. spouses, when it came to this point, it was no longer about that, but about our Democratic Senators and Representatives duty to defend our democratic system of government, its separation of powers, and the rule of law.

Hence, I wrote the following letter to each and every one of our Democratic Senators:

What in the world are you guys doing with the vote on the Schiavo case? I am not all that radical a Democrat, but even from a place a little bit left of center, your acceding to the bill is atrocious.

Don't you realize that this is a misuse of Congressional power? (And yes it is a misuse even if technically you have the right to do it!) I’m not concerned with the wording about it not being a legal precedent. What it does is it sets a precedent in the minds of the public that it is perfectly dandy to circumvent our previously agreed upon system of government. You are undermining our democracy and the separation of powers and I am ashamed of you. And horrified that people I trusted would make such a mistake.

I then followed the House debate on CSPAN, took notes on who among the Democrats spoke out in opposition, and afterwards got a list of roll-call votes. I am in the process of either writing congratulatory letters (or making phone calls to) those who spoke up against or voted against this travesty, including the 5 Republicans.

at least, right to our Senators and at least chastise them for not taking a roll call.

What would be next, having a "unanimous vote" on invading Iran? Or. N. Korea?

House Members Who Showed Up and Voted Against the Special Measure

The *** beside the name means I know they spoke out on the floor against the bill--however, I think I missed at the very least a couple of names

Matsui, D, CA
Schiff, D, CA
Larson (CT), D, CT
Davis (FL), D, FL ****
Hastings (FL), D, FL
Wasserman Schultz, D, FL *****
Wexler, D, FL ****
Lewis (GA), D, GA****
McKinney, D, GA
Evans, D, IL
Gutierrez, D, IL
Carson, D, IN
Visclosky, D, IN
Capuano, D, MA
Frank (MA), D, MA ****
Olver, D, MA
Cardin, D, MD
Hoyer, D, MD ****
Van Hollen, D, MD
Conyers, D, MI
Levin, D, MI ****
Carnahan, D, MO
Clay, D, MO
Cleaver, D, MO ****
Thompson (MS), D, MS
Butterfield, D, NC
Miller (NC), D, NC
Price (NC), D, NC
Watt, D, NC
Holt, D, NJ ****
Pallone, D, NJ
Pascrell, D, NJ
Payne, D, NJ
Rothman, D, NJ
Berkley, D, NV
Bishop (NY), D, NY
Israel, D, NY
Nadler, D, NY ****
Weiner, D, NY
Kaptur, D, OH ****
Strickland, D, OH
Wu, D, OR ****
Doyle, D, PA
Murtha, D, PA
Schwartz (PA), D, PA
Kennedy (RI), D, RI
Clyburn, D, SC
Spratt, D, SC
Moran (VA), D, VA ****
Scott (VA), D, VA
Dicks, D, WA
McDermott, D, WA
Baldwin, D, WI

Shays, R, CT ****
Castle, R, DE
Brown-Waite, Ginny, R, FL
Dent, R, PA
Reichert, R, WA

Campbell Brown asked him about it on the Today show:

BROWN: The Terri Schiavo case is getting enormous attention. Do you think it was right for Congress to step in?

Mr. EDWARDS: I think this is one of those things, first of all, that is a horrible, tragic situation. I mean, it's heart breaking. You listen to the husband, you listen to the parents. And, you know, I think all of them are trying to do the right thing. The reason we have laws and courts is so that we can decide what public policy should be in a non-heated political environment. I think the last thing we want is to have partisan politicians deciding something in the heat of the moment. Nobody should be trying to take political advantage of what is a very tragic situation.

video: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7274704/

Why didn't he start by just saying "No, I don't, and here's why." Instead, he goes on and on about how horrible it is, and how it shouldn't be political, but never says who made it political or how or when. He clearly disagrees with the Congressional action. Why didn't he just say so?

Kudos to him and others for staying out of this drama.

He clearly opposed the action by Congress, he just didn't say so in a fashion that would be immediately understood by Joe Blow watching a sound bite. He was cautionary without being clear, and that's where Bush beats the crap out of us every single time. Clarity trumps nuance.

I'm not wading in on whether the Dems should have stood up or not (at least not here), I'm railing against politicians who don't give direct answers to questions. I think we need a lot less "Let me say first of all," and a lot more "Yes/No, and here's why..."

In this rare case, I think they should have spoken up both clearly and beforehand.