Questions about politics in general

[travelbug]

Hey, I don't have an article to post but I do have several questions, so I thought we could start a thread to answer general politics questions. I have forgotten most of my 9th grade civics, so there's some things about the political process I am confused about. There's also some comments that people have made to me about the election that I would like to be able to discuss.

1) Was told by someone who claims to be a liberal but is voting McCain this election that she liked Obama but his voting record was a dealbreaker. She claims he has voted "present" on most issues, and to her that means he is afraid to take a stand and have it on record because he was afraid that would hurt his chances. She said she wanted someone who was not afraid to take a stand. When asked about Palin, she said she didn't agree with her, but at least she had convictions. Comments?

2) A question that derives from a comment my husband made. Although 9/11 occured during the Bush administration, the attack was carefully planned during Clinton's term. He claims that the Clinton administration left us in a weakened position and vulnerable to attack.

3) A general observation/question. It is said that McCain voted with Bush 90% of the time. Can someone explain exactly what that means? Because Bush was never a U.S. legislator. He doesn't introduce bills and he doesn't vote on them in the Senate. He has veto power only. I have no doubt that McCain and Bush were "on the same page" with the way they think, but isn't this statement a misnomer?

4) I asked this in another thread but it got passed over. Is Hillary really the best person to campaign for Obama? If he wins, she loses, because if McCain wins, Hillary can run again in 2012. Obama would be up for reelection in 2012 if he wins. Do you guys think Hillary's self-interest would sabatoge Obama's campaign?

[travelbug]

Oh, one more question. Does anyone know a nonpartisan site where we can go and look at the candidates' voting records for ourselves?

[laynes]

#2- The attack was planned during the Clinton administration. Clinton did authorize for the execution of Bin Laden but there were issues with the CIA and the FBI etc., etc.
Bush new about the threat of terrorism and yet the attacks still happened. The attacks may have happened even if Gore were in office.. we'll never know??

[McJag]

1) She has a point. But he isn't the only one! It stikes me as almost cowardly of all of them.
2)He is right-but all bare blame. Clinton was never appreciative of even being protected by the Secret Service. A lack of understanding I doubt future Presidents will have. But yes,Clinton could have done more. I don't think any of us really understood,pre-9 11.
3)No it isn't. The President doesn't introduce anything-but he can and does get it done for him. His party will put forth whatever the heck he wants.
4) True,but if she fails to support,her party is going to remember that. It would be a bad idea NOT to help. I do believe she will support it all. She could end up on the Supreme Court or many othe really top jobs to help.
If you just type in "voting records of the candidates" there are several website to browse through.

[witchcurlgirl]

Oh, one more question. Does anyone know a nonpartisan site where we can go and look at the candidates' voting records for ourselves?

yes...you can go to

THOMAS (Library of Congress)

or

U.S. Senate


This is the Senate's own website, and the Library of Congress website has a complete record of all votes.

[*DIVA!]

You can also go to factcheck.org

[dragonlady]

As far as the Clinton administration, I wonder how difficult it was to get anything productive done towards the end, what with everybody busy investigating the infamous BJ. I'd guess that many a critical issue took the backseat.

[twitchy2.0]

Cool link.

Words They Used - 2008 Political Conventions - Interactive Graphic - NYTimes.com

A couple of graphs that show who's talking about what.

[travelbug]

1) She has a point. But he isn't the only one! It stikes me as almost cowardly of all of them.
2)He is right-but all bare blame. Clinton was never appreciative of even being protected by the Secret Service. A lack of understanding I doubt future Presidents will have. But yes,Clinton could have done more. I don't think any of us really understood,pre-9 11.
3)No it isn't. The President doesn't introduce anything-but he can and does get it done for him. His party will put forth whatever the heck he wants.
4) True,but if she fails to support,her party is going to remember that. It would be a bad idea NOT to help. I do believe she will support it all. She could end up on the Supreme Court or many othe really top jobs to help.
If you just type in "voting records of the candidates" there are several website to browse through.

But how can it be proved that it was Bush's idea in the first place? You see the problem of saying McCain voted with Bush 90% of the time? How can that be when Bush didn't vote, he either vetoed or he signed bills into law. So maybe he only vetoed 10% of the bills that McCain voted "yes" on? But that's not really the same thing, now is it?

[MontanaMama]

1) I agree that this is cowardly. I do think that Obama has made this "vote" a disproportionate number of times. I think it was mostly done in the Ill. Senate because as a practical matter, he's been running for Prez since getting to the US Senate.

2) I think there's plenty of blame to go around. But, if the attacks had happened during Clinton's admin., there would have been no traction to backpaying the blame to Bush Sr.

3) Bush has been pretty obvious about what bills he supports and what bills he would veto. I think you can quantify McCain's support for Bush policies based on a voting record. I have heard that support from 80% - 95%, I would guess the truth falls somewhere in the middle. I think Bush is one of the worst President's we've ever had, but his platform is the party platform so a member of the party would tend to vote to support that platform and those policies a large majority of the time. The trouble comes with McCain calling himself a maverick and the change that we need after failed policies. I think he was those things before running for Pres. in 2000. I think he decided after that defeat to go along to get along so he'd have a better shot in 2008 - he's no longer the maverick or the voice of reason. But I do like his position on earmarks and lobbyists.

4) I don't think Obama wanted to have anything to do with Hilary and Bill Clinton, but this uterus thing has a life of it's own. Plus, the Palin buzz is requiring Clinton to hit the stump hard. It would be far politically worse for her to be sour grapes if she is still politically ambitious (I chuckled myself at typing that). That's the type of legacy that would stick for a long time if she undermined Obama now. That said, she's hasn't really even mentioned Palin in her recent speeches and is refusing to challenge Palin (at least what I've read)

I don't know good bi-partisan sites, I freely admit to partisanism in this election, I do like Politico and I tend to watch MSNBC - which is very liberal but have some pretty good discussions with respected conservatives. I actually dislike watching Chris Matthews and Keith Olberman because they are too over the top and don't respect the opinions of the guests if they disagree.

[witchcurlgirl]

But how can it be proved that it was Bush's idea in the first place? You see the problem of saying McCain voted with Bush 90% of the time? How can that be when Bush didn't vote, he either vetoed or he signed bills into law. So maybe he only vetoed 10% of the bills that McCain voted "yes" on? But that's not really the same thing, now is it?

You have a great point.

Another point is that a huge percentage of what the Congress actually votes on is nonsense....Declaring a month "We Care About Trees Month" or other nonsense. The real issue votes are the ones that matter.


You can look at how a politician votes, it will give more insight into what they're really about than any speech by anyone anywhere. Speeches are just words at the end of the day, votes are tangible evidence.

[travelbug]

Found Obama's voting record:

Votes by Barack Obama | Congress votes database | washingtonpost.com

There are a lot of non-votes. What's up with that? Maybe it's just that Obama is so thoughtful that he won't vote on issues that he hasn't had time to learn about completely? How on earth can any of these members of Congress be well-versed on all the various bills that come up? There are so many.

[ana-mish-ana]

I read an article about that many members didnt even bother reading the Patriot Act but they agreed to it and then realised what it entailed.

[kingcap72]

1) Was told by someone who claims to be a liberal but is voting McCain this election that she liked Obama but his voting record was a dealbreaker. She claims he has voted "present" on most issues, and to her that means he is afraid to take a stand and have it on record because he was afraid that would hurt his chances. She said she wanted someone who was not afraid to take a stand. When asked about Palin, she said she didn't agree with her, but at least she had convictions. Comments?

A lot of politicians tend to vote present on certain issues, so that they aren't on record of having committed one way or the other. I was watching the 'Obama Revealed' on CNN, and they covered this topic.

2) A question that derives from a comment my husband made. Although 9/11 occured during the Bush administration, the attack was carefully planned during Clinton's term. He claims that the Clinton administration left us in a weakened position and vulnerable to attack.

That's an old excuse that Republicans have used for years to cover up for Bush's screw-up. Now, Clinton himself has admitted that he made mistakes where Bin Laden was concerned, but, unlike Bush, he wasn't handed memos that said 'Bin Laden Determined To Attack' and ignored them because he was taking too many vacations. And then there's the fact that Bush has allowed Bin Laden to remain on the loose while he started an illegal war in Iraq.

3) A general observation/question. It is said that McCain voted with Bush 90% of the time. Can someone explain exactly what that means? Because Bush was never a U.S. legislator. He doesn't introduce bills and he doesn't vote on them in the Senate. He has veto power only. I have no doubt that McCain and Bush were "on the same page" with the way they think, but isn't this statement a misnomer?

That means that McCain has voted for, or publicy backed, Bush's policies over 90% of the time in Congress.

4) I asked this in another thread but it got passed over. Is Hillary really the best person to campaign for Obama? If he wins, she loses, because if McCain wins, Hillary can run again in 2012. Obama would be up for reelection in 2012 if he wins. Do you guys think Hillary's self-interest would sabatoge Obama's campaign?

I think Hillary could be of some use to Obama on the campaign trail to help sway some of her supporters who may be on the fence about Obama. And maybe dealing with Palin. But I think Bill Clinton is the best weapon Obama can have on the campaign trail.

[McJag]

But how can it be proved that it was Bush's idea in the first place? You see the problem of saying McCain voted with Bush 90% of the time? How can that be when Bush didn't vote, he either vetoed or he signed bills into law. So maybe he only vetoed 10% of the bills that McCain voted "yes" on? But that's not really the same thing, now is it?

Proven??? He announces it! Nobody is hiding anything! Of course Bush can't vote in Congress-he IS THE PRESIDENT!! they will never get to vote on anything together ,except maybe mayor of D.C.