Democratic Presidential Candidate Discussion (aka "No Bush in '04!")

[Arden]

Yes, no president is perfect, but Clinton did lots of good and bad. I have yet to see much good come out of the Bush administration.

Around the end of Clinton's administration, the (predominantly Republican) Congress voted to impeach him because he covered up an alleged affair with Monica Lewinski. Recently, the Republicans in California, most notably Darrel Issa, decided to get a recall movement going to oust Grey Davis from office because of the economic problems California is having, despite the poor condition of the economies of both many states individually and the US as a whole (as in CA isn't the only state having problems), adding an unnecessary burden on California voters and the economy. Republicans often seem to get away with pointing the finger at their enemies (usually the Democrats) while avoiding responsibility themselves, much like Microsoft.

If Bush wins the '04 election, I think I can kiss many of the programs at my college away. I will vote against him, no matter who is the other candidate. If you don't like either Bush or the Democratic candidate, vote for someone else entirely.

[mdnky]

Clinton was impeached. Surprises me that alot of people think he wasn't. All impeachment is is the actual hearing (i.e. trial). Impeaching doesn't necessarily mean they give him the boot, just put him on trial. It's a "fancy" term for the trial. Of course party bounds had some to do with it, but none the less he did lie to investigators under oath. He should have admitted it outright, then there would been no cause for the impeachment.

The Davis recall is a much needed thing, Cali is on of the most politically scewed states in the Union. Not to knock on anyone there, but there is some MAJOR reform needed in Cali. I feel bad for anyone living in a state that is that anti-constitution. As far as the Republicans causing it Arden, I doubt that's the main problem in the recall. A majority of voters asked for the recall, after a similar majority had elected Davis in the first place. That tells me they're sick of the BS.

Regardless of who wins in 04, there's alot of work that needs to be done. The major concern for that person will have to be the economy as a whole, nationally and locally.

[Arden]

Yes, Bill Clinton was impeached but not removed from office. He was the second president in history to be impeached, and fairly undeserving, considering the nature of his original transgression (as in not important enough or too common to care about too much).

I don't know that this recall is going to help anything. I doubt anybody else can swoop in here and save California from itself, and I don't think the corrupt politicians are going to pay much attention or think this will apply to them. This recall could start a chain of events, where governors get recalled all the time for doing little things. Granted, it may make them shape up, but I don't think this is a very good or cost-effective idea.

A majority of the voters did not ask for the recall. Darrel Issa spent a million dollars and got a million people to sign their names in favor of the recall. Yes, a million is a lot of people, but we are a state of 25 million (and probably more), and 1 million is hardly a majority. I, and many around here, feel that those who started this, especially Issa, should foot the $30 million dollar bill. One dollar for each who signed the petition enabling the recall in the first place, one dollar for each citizen of the state.

BTW: Did you mean "screwed" or "skewed?"

[Ugg]

Originally posted by mdnky
<< Info regarding Clinton from above site is in italics >>
The President signed into law the Brady Bill, which imposes a five-day waiting period on handgun purchases so that background checks can be done to help keep handguns away from criminals.

This is a mood point as this is no longer the case. Now it's fill out a yellow form and the dealer calls a FBI hotline. Takes a total of 15mins to decide on what you want and fill the form out, have the check, then pay and leave the store. As far as keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, that's a complete joke. Criminals don't buy guns legally...they buy them on the black market or steal them. The only thing this did was limit law abiding citizens from being able to defend themselves. And since it'll be brought up, NO police force in the US is responsible for protecting individual citizens. They are responisble for protecting the public as a whole, not individually. Another example is the states with the harshed, tightest gun control laws have extremly high levels of violent crime rates, yet those with lax laws have very low levels. Every state that has passed CCW (Concealed Carry of Weapons) legislation has seen a large drop in the violent crime rate. Maybe Califorina, Illionis, Ohio, New York, and etc. would take a hint.

The President's Crime Bill will put 100,000 new police officers on the street. More than 1,200 communities have already received grants to hire 27,000 additional officers.

This is good, but he comprimised. Well over 500,000 new officers could have been put on the streets, but to keep peace within his party and garuntee his re-election he didn't aggressively persue this issue.

President Clinton granted waivers to 25 states -- half the nation -- providing for comprehensive welfare reform demonstrations.

All they did was demo ideas, showed no improvements. Waivers never should have been issued. They should have been forced for REAL REFORM before receiving the waiver.

Charter School legislation signed by President Clinton encourages states and localities to set up public school choice.

Public School Choice severly hurts the nations schools. Taxpayers SHOULD NOT have to fund private education with their tax monies. This is also a clear violation of seperation of church and state.

The Clinton Administration forged a bipartisan coalition to pass NAFTA, after concluding tough negotiations on side agreements covering workers' rights, the environment, and import surges. Exports to Mexico rose 23 percent in the first 11 months of 1994.

One of the main problems with our economy is the loss of jobs, something NAFTA has a direct impact on, allowing companies like General Motors to move jobs outside the US to Mexico with no penalities.

------------------------------------------------

I was not a supporter of Clinton, but I will give him credit for doing some good while in office. He also did some things that were not good. His handling of the economy was excellent.

Most of the states with low crime rates and little or no gun legislation are rural not urban. Concealed weapons invariably lead to more violence not less and it has been proven numerous times that homeowners who own guns are more likely to be injured by their own gun during a robbery than those who don't own guns. The idea that guns lead to safety is naive.

Additional police on the streets do little to deter crime in those areas where it is most prevalent. Take those officers off the streets and the crime rate drops substantially. Clinton was instrumental in getting those guys out of their cars and onto bikes and their feet.

The headlines of the last few days show that welfare rolls are substantially lower than during any previous economic downturn. This is due largely to those Clintonian waivers. The states have proven very effective, creative and compassionate in revising welfare.

Charter schools are a mixed bag. Some work and some don't but they are public not private. The vouchers that gw & co. would like to put in place would clearly destroy public schools. Charter schools are different in every state but those that do work show once again that education is most successful when the community gets to make its own choices about it, not when the Fed. Govt. does. Bush' "No Child Left Behind" has only made schools worse, not better.

My biggest complaint about Clinton was NAFTA. It was too much too soon, has devastated employment in the US, Mexico and Canada and has only succeeded in benefitting big business and the transportation industry. Bush has not proven to be any better though.

[Ugg]

Originally posted by mdnky
The Davis recall is a much needed thing, Cali is on of the most politically scewed states in the Union. Not to knock on anyone there, but there is some MAJOR reform needed in Cali. I feel bad for anyone living in a state that is that anti-constitution. As far as the Republicans causing it Arden, I doubt that's the main problem in the recall. A majority of voters asked for the recall, after a similar majority had elected Davis in the first place. That tells me they're sick of the BS.

Regardless of who wins in 04, there's alot of work that needs to be done. The major concern for that person will have to be the economy as a whole, nationally and locally.

Not sure what you think is so "screwed" about politics in CA. The recall process is definitely a mess. The process is about 100 years old and was meant to deal with the problems of its time, not those of the future.

Could you explain why CA is anti-constitution? I've never heard that one before.

~1 million voters signed the recall petition, that is hardly a majority!

Yes, the Republicans are the cause of the recall, but Gray Davis deserves his share of the blame as well.

Yes, I agree that CA's governor, being the leader of the world's 7th largest economy, has his work cut out for him. Of course gw's buddies made it a lot more difficult for him. The price gouging of the recent electricity crisis is responsible for about 40% of the recent budget deficit.

[Arden]

This recall can have two outcomes; either way it'll be lose-lose.

A) Gray Davis could be ousted, putting someone else into place who's not necessarily qualified to govern the largest state in the US. This may set a precedent where we consider it okay to recall our governor if he or she makes an unpopular policy decision, which is completely against the reason for having the recall system in the first place.

B) Gray Davis wins the recall and stays in office. This could send a message to the Issas of the world (or this country at least) that we won't take sh!t from them, but it could also get other corrupt (or not-so-corrupt) politicians comfortable and feeling safe that nothing will happen to them, providing no motivation to shape up.

Either way, this is a mess. I don't see it getting better until Bush is out of office and a strong Democrat is in his place.

[Ugg]

Originally posted by arden
This recall can have two outcomes; either way it'll be lose-lose.

Either way, this is a mess. I don't see it getting better until Bush is out of office and a strong Democrat is in his place.

I agree, CA is going to suffer seriously for a millionaire's whim.

I'm not so sure about Dean. He has a strong showing now but I wonder if he can sustain that for another year? I think he is the best candidate so far. I'm not sure he's going to make it though.

[adambyte]

Originally posted by Ugg
I'm not so sure about Dean. He has a strong showing now but I wonder if he can sustain that for another year? I think he is the best candidate so far. I'm not sure he's going to make it though.

My mother was saying something like this.... As if Dean is going to "peak to soon." What the hell is up with that? This isn't making love, this is a presidential campaign. This is just the start, and it's too early to determine who's going to win. But it seems that Dean has got himself an early lead, and as long as he keeps touring and spreads his message, I think he'll be just fine.

Any more democrats? Anyone?