The Town Hall Archives

Jared · Posted: Mon May 12, 2003 9:16 pm Post subject:

Drawing me off topic already, rose? ;)

Oh well, I'm happy to comply. I won't go into this in great detail now, as I'll be covering it more later, but here are a few things to keep in mind:

Liberals and conservatives tend to differ on the purpose and size of government. To the liberal, the government takes the role of father and mother, brother and sister, protector and guide. Under that point of view, the government's role is to help the poor, the uneducated, the unhealthy and the elderly... They pour untold billions into education without asking the funding's purpose or usefulness (they don't see how any amount can't be used for education... after all, "it's for the children"), they want a national health care system so every individual is covered. The government is supreme provider of all things. To the conservative however, the government has a far more limited role: protect the nation, serve justice and perform essential services that can not be handled in the private sector.

These opposite views make a world of difference in the world of tax cuts. Conservatives lament that hard-earned money is being taken from the pocket of the taxpayer to fund obscene art in New York, useless research in Kentucky, objectionable elective studies in New Hampshire and full welfare benefits for the unemployed, even those who are in that position out of laziness.

While the Republican Party supports Medicare, Medicaid and such, the "hard line" conservative position is that taking care of the ill is the job of individuals, not the government. The family has an obligation to help their own and when that fails, private charity kicks in. Conservatives have long argued that this is a generous country. If people aren't taxed exorbitantly, they'll have more money to give to charity. The difference? They choose the charity, meaning that a Christian can make sure his money goes to shelter the homeless (and perhaps even give them the gospel message) rather than pay for an abortion.

The bottom line to many is that the government is not needed or wanted in those affairs... It has constitutionally defined duties and being the wealthy benefactor of every citizen with a want or need is not in that job description.

Personally, I want some balance. I strongly dislike the "New Deal" and think that it has harmed people far more than it has helped them. Those who have paid into Social Security for all these years get their money plus maybe two percent interest -- if they survive long enough to collect the average amount. They would have been far better off if they had invested their money on their own and wouldn't have been much worse off if they had bought some gold and placed it in a shoe-box. But now that Social Security is established and people have paid into it, you can't pull the rug out from under them and say that they aren't going to get their deserved money.

But I digress. Long story made short: conservatives think the government is way too large. They want to cut it... And then, there will be extra money. They think that belongs to the taxpayers, not to the government for use in new big programs. Why so many tax cuts? Well, the government is so bloated that it will be a long time until it's to a decent, acceptable size.

And why a tax cut right now, when we have a deficit? Well, the ideal would be to make room for the tax cut by slashing enough useless government pork to completely cover that, but the Senate thrives on pork and won't give much of it up. So, right now, a tax cut does keep the government temporarily in the red. Bad idea, then? NO! It's a long-term investment in the nation. As the Kennedy and Reagan tax cuts proved, when people have more money in their pockets at the end of the day, they spend more. And when people have more than they're used to having, they end up spending a lot of that extra on the non-essentials. Thus, revenue. Thus, more business. Thus, with more business, more jobs. And with more jobs, more taxes (though at lower rates). It's the old selling strategy: would you rather collect $50 from five people or $65 from three? The Reagan tax cuts took us out of a deficit and into surpluses, actually! It's just good common sense.

Why do people disagree? Well, as I said above, liberals want large government and if you're cutting taxes, you don't leave a whole lot of room for huge new government initiatives. Conservatives think that's a good thing; liberals absolutely hate it.

Besides which, Democrats enjoy whining that tax cuts are for the wealthy. If you read their complaint in detail, it's not that the top one percent are getting too much - as they often allege in stump speeches - but that the bottom 20 percent don't get any tax cuts. Well, that's true. Want to know why? BECAUSE THE BOTTOM TWENTY PERCENT DON'T HAVE TO PAY TAXES IN THE FIRST PLACE! You can't make $0.00 much cheaper! But it looks good on campaign ads to say that the poorest Americans aren't getting tax relief and Democrats aren't about to let the facts stand in their way.

Well, that's enough on this topic for now. I didn't have anything planned for tomorrow (next update scheduled for Wednesday), but I may have to write up something on some extraordinary political events in Texas: to keep Republicans from passing some state legislation they dislike, fifty-nine Democratic state house members have fled the state - and perhaps now the country, leaving too little state representatives left to legally hold a vote. With the Texas government, under the provisions of the state constitution, ordering the governor's task force, the Texas Rangers and the sergeant at arms of the legislature to try to track these people down and apprehend them to bring them back in handcuffs, using force if necessary, well... let's just say that events have become very interesting. I'll be taking a break from the presidential stuff tomorrow to talk about that! Smile

hawkeye · Posted: Mon May 12, 2003 10:52 pm Post subject:

Leiberman, at least on the last election, on the striking (to me) issues, stood for the people's rights to copy music they purchase, and inet downloading of music at a fair price, etc. but He is strongly pro choice.

Jared · Posted: Tue May 13, 2003 6:39 am Post subject:

Coralfish · Posted: Tue May 13, 2003 12:30 pm Post subject:

In response to the section you wrote concerning Lieberman, I did find it very apparent that he seems to avoid forming any opinionated stances on the issues that have significance...and yes I did visit his website and read a bit there as well Wink

, therefore I was wondering, for informational purposes, if you perhaps provide describe a little further some of the issues which he has either opposed or supported as a Senator. Although it is apparent that, being of a certain party, he will oppose and support specific issues, I was primarily wondering if you could provide a few examples of several of the things he has advocated or opposed in the past. More than anything, as a way to see where Lieberman really stands on these issues.

Jared · Posted: Tue May 13, 2003 1:02 pm Post subject:

Well, I want to mention two things, but currently my index finger is bandaged after it got nicely sliced with a piece of broken glass. That makes typing a little difficult, so I'm going to let some already written pieces speak for me.

Coralfish: In response to your query, you can find out where Lieberman stands on the issues at this page. That shows where he stands on all points of the major issues, and if you scroll down to the bottom, he is rated on his stand on each of about a dozen major issues for quick reference. I highly recommend the site, ontheissues.org. They have a terribly dull design but great information.

You could call it...

Loose: Lone-star Leftists, Liberal Lawmakers Leave Legislature, Lay Low

Or maybe ...

Determined, Demonstrating, Disappearing Democrats Deride, Derail DeLay's Districting, Dodge Detention, Desert Domain

Fifty-nine Texas state house members have disappeared, leaving for three different states and possibly even Mexico, to stall redistricting plans. The Republicans have enough votes to pass it, but enough Democrats have vanished so that the minimum required amount of legislators needed to hold a vote would not be present.

The governor has ordered that they, by constitutional rule, be brought back, using force if necessary. But they had apparently crossed state lines... Now, there's word that states to which they have fled are assisting in a limited degree (but aren't willing to break into buildings to arrest them). Some have been found and are refusing to leave a hotel in Oklahoma. Others are rumored to be in New Mexico, Arizona and now, the COUNTRY of Mexico! They fled the country, apparently...

All to stall a vote.

Here's the why behind it: Click

Here's an editorial on it: Click

And here's ALL the details, and I do mean all. From a liberal perspective and praising the Dems who ran away, but all the relevant details are here: Click

I'd comment about this Democratic childishness more, but I'm having trouble typing.

DISCUSSION: Is what the Dems did here ever justified? Forget that the issue is redistricting for a moment. If it were a vote to allow human cloning, would a walk-out and hide-out be acceptable? If so, does that make it acceptable in this case? Why or why not?

(Yeah, I know... I sound like a teacher, don't I? Terrible thought.)

Jared · Posted: Wed May 14, 2003 6:24 am Post subject: Politics 101 - Segment Three!

Kerry, Lieberman, Gephardt...

Also in the presidential race is North Carolina Senator John Edwards, who is considered by some a welcome "new face" in the Democratic Party and is viewed by others as a person with more negatives than one can count. He's southern, which, in national politics, often works to one's advantage. (Think of recent presidents: Johnson was from Texas, Carter from Georgia, the Senior President Bush had relocated to Texas long before his run for the presidency, Clinton was from Arkansas and the current President Bush is from Texas. In that whole line, Reagan, from California, is the sole exception.)

Allow me to discuss the importance of appealing to certain regions before getting back to Senator Edwards. First, some basics: northeastern states are going to go overwhelmingly for the Democrat every time. They've done this since at least the 1950s and in many states, long before. There was a time when "professionals" voted almost completely Republican, but things have changed. Also, these areas have gained large immigrant populations, which go rather Democratic. For the last half a century, the northeast has been reliably liberal.

The same can be said for the majority of west coast states (Oregon, though, is a very mixed state and can go either way, but it's seven electoral votes - more on those and the electoral college overall after the introductions to the candidates are done with - pale in comparison to California's fifty-five and are also surpassed by Washington's eleven). The Midwest, comprised of twelve states, all with "normal," mid-sized populations, splits almost evenly between Republicans and Democrats, which is an interesting swing from years past. These are heavily union worker populated states, but in recent elections, union political control has slipped substantially and voting is nearly 50-50 here.

The Republicans, on the other hand, are strongest in the south and in "the heartland" (or "middle America"), the states boxed in by those on the two coasts (and excluding the Midwest states). Strangely, these two places used to be where the Republicans were at their weakest. The Republican Party was formed in 1850 as the anti-slavery party, forming from disaffected members of the Whig Party, which was giving in on the slavery issue more and more with each passing election. Due to their abolitionist policy, the Republican Party performed terribly in the south and only decently in the middle states, relying mostly on the northeast and Midwest. However, once slavery was no longer an issue, perceptions began to shift and the Republican Party gained a little more power in these areas. But still not much.

Slavery was a non-issue in the middle states by the late 1800s, but those states generally aligned with the Democratic Party, as it by that time was perceived as the party of "the little man." These states, with their farmers, rail workers and such, trended strongly Democratic. In the south, the Democratic Party was the preferred party because it was still the party of segregation, unfortunately a popular issue in the south at that time. Later, though, after the Democrats mostly joined with Republicans in to pass the civil rights legislation of the 1960s, this became much less of an issue and, to many, died away. Yes, there are holdouts, but despite what you may have heard, most of the south is not still fighting the war. (And by the way, keeping elements of the stars and bars on a state flag is heritage and history, not a secret longing for a return to slavery.)

With the segregation issue gone, southerners and, increasingly, middle Americans, began rethinking their party affiliation. Many began to notice that they socially lined up with the Republican Party. True, many still wanted government handouts and a huge education program, but they started to look at the whole platform. And that's when they decided that they wanted to keep their guns, thought abortion was absolutely terrible, actually liked their country and thought military service was a good thing, didn't want all things spiritual banned ... in short, they began to realize that they were better off in the Republican Party. Since this transformation, the south and middle states have been strongly conservative.

Now, the Democrats know that they will win the northeast and the west coast. They know they'll do okay in the Midwest. But they also know that they are going to be destroyed in the south and the "heartland" if they don't work hard in those areas. There's far less of a cultural identity in the heartland than in the south. A person from Oklahoma doesn't feel an affinity for someone from Montana as a Georgian does for a North Carolinian. The first person would tell you that he's from Oklahoma; the second may well just state that he's "from the south." A candidate from Colorado isn't going to get the "home-field advantage" outside of that state, but a candidate from Florida might get a boost all throughout the south. Therefore, the Democrats believe that it is very important for a southerner be on the ticket. On this matter, John Edwards fits the bill.

But whatever he gains by being a southerner is easily negated by other aspects. John Edwards is a freshman senator. He was first elected to office in 1998, a mere moment in time in the scheme of political experience. Others running for office have been in politics for a long time; Edwards is a newcomer. That isn't looked upon kindly when running for the Presidency. Worse yet is why he's running. While you'll never get a Democrat to admit this, many analysts claim that his seat in the trending conservative state of North Carolina is in serious jeopardy. Some polls indicate that the person widely considered to be the Republican challenger, Rep. Richard Burr, would beat Edwards if the Senate election were held today. This is terrible news for an incumbent, as campaigning hasn't even begun yet and a sitting politician can expect to lose percentage points once the challenger comes out swinging in the election.

For this reason, say some, Edwards has decided that he wants to move on. Seeing his Senate seat in jeopardy and, according to some analysts, deciding that even if he were to save it this time, he wouldn't have a long career in North Carolina politics after that term ended, he's decided to take decisive action -- and fast.

The Democrats are looking for a young southerner to woo the voters. And they want someone that the media will call a "moderate," regardless of actual liberal credentials and voting records. Edwards fits the bill.

But besides inexperience, he has something else working against him: his trial lawyer past. There's nothing wrong with being a lawyer, but it's apparent to all that those in that profession are the targets of jokes and ridicule -- some of it deserved. Edwards, particularly, was a personal injury lawyer, which his campaign staff is playing up. You know, the old "I helped regular people" campaign strategy. Unfortunately, "regular people" don't identify with the kind of people Edwards represented, the type who sue cities for millions when they trip on the curb walking onto the sidewalk.

As a lawyer, Edwards made millions. Fine. I'm all for making money and I don't begrudge anyone what they can earn, even if they can do so without working hard. Providing, of course, that they gained the money ethically and legally, why should I be angry at someone for achieving what most Americans want? The problem with Edwards is that opponents charge that he made most of his money in enormous and, it is claimed, frivolous class-action cases. If Edwards ends up on the ticket, you just know that every lawyer joke around will be applied to him. And, in bad news for his campaign, he's just the kind of guy to whom that type of thing would stick.

In more bad news for the campaign, some media commentators go on and on about his looks. He's supposedly good-looking... I wouldn't know. But what I do know is that men overall are going to hesitate about voting for a man that is praised on his appearance.

Senator John Edwards prides himself on being a populist, which is, for all practical purposes, a watered-down socialist. He wants a government program for everything, wants to heavily regulate "big business" (has any Democrat ever stopped to think what would happen if all the bug businesses they targeted had to shut down and all those millions of employees were out of work?), doesn't trust private anything... While all of the candidates in the race could easily claim this title, Edwards truly is the "vote for me and I'll give you everything you want" candidate in this race.

Fortunately, his many negatives lead me to believe that he won't be the candidate. One thing that should clinch his failure: recent allegations and a justice department investigation into illegal giving to his campaign. Nearly two-thirds of his campaign cash came from people in the legal profession and it would appear that there are a lot of improprieties in this giving.

By campaign law, no individual is permitted to contribute more than $2000 to a single campaign in an election cycle. (Note: primaries and general elections are considered separate, so you can give $2000 to the candidate in the primaries and then, if that person wins the nomination, again during the general election campaign, if you so choose.) Some less-than-honest individuals with money to spare have funneled money to campaigns via other people for a long time. Basically, they have a group of people all donate the maximum allowable amount, then secretly reimburse them. This is definitely illegal.

And it's happened in relation to the Edwards campaign. The head of a prominent law firm allegedly had five employees give the maximum (a combined total of $10,000, plus the $2,000 he personally donated) to Edwards, promising these individuals, clerks and paralegals in the firm, that he would repay them. When he didn't, one took the whole story to a local newspaper. The Edwards campaign gave back the $10,000 and the Justice Department is looking into the situation, but it doesn't appear to be an isolated incident. Paralegals and law clerks make $20 to 30,000 annually, hardly enormous pay. People with that kind of salary are very unlikely to donate $2,000 to a political campaign, especially in the primaries. Yet according to Edward's financial filing with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) Most of these people had never given to a campaign before at all, even in the general election, at least forty paralegals and clerks gave the full two thousand to his campaign thus far. Many of these people have never given even a cent to any campaign in the past and a large number aren't even registered to vote.

The Hill, a D.C. paper that focuses on congressional news, called up these individuals. Many didn't know a thing about Senator Edwards. Now tell me: would you send a check for $2,000 to the primary election campaign of a person with whom you weren't even familiar? I thought not. While the evidence is currently circumstantial, it's rather strong. It would appear that much of the Edwards campaign war chest was donated in violation of campaign law. Edwards and his staff have been confronted with the evidence and have declined to look into the giving records, saying there is no reason to think that there are any improprieties in the donations sent to Senator Edward's campaign fund.

It's a dumb move. If Edwards performs better than expected in the upcoming weeks and months, expect his foes to start reminding people of how he turned a blind eye to fraudulent donations coming his way. A while back, Edwards, a southern Democrat, was considered a likely choice as vice presidential running mate to whoever came away with the nomination. By the time the primaries draw to a close, though, I expect that Senator Edward's reputation will have been ripped to shreds by the other candidates, rendering him utterly useless.

Which works out nicely. Because if he doesn't end up on the ticket, he'll probably be running for re-election to the Senate. Once all the other Democrats in the presidential race have dug up all the dirt on him and shown it to the world, well, can you say Senator Richard Burr, Republican, North Carolina?

Josiah · Guest

Some rather random thoughts on the recent posts...

Jared · Posted: Wed May 14, 2003 10:08 pm Post subject:

Jared · Posted: Sat May 17, 2003 7:16 pm Post subject: Segment Four!

I know I'm a day late, but forgive me. I had a very busy day yesterday - and most of today.

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

Now that we've covered the most major of candidates, let's get into some infinitely more bizarre ones. Most of these people won't get nearly as much said about them as they are considered more of "fringe" candidates (although one individual who has not yet been brought up and will not be discussed in this installment, is actually considered a very possible choice for the ultimate winner's running mate). However, I couldn't help but go long on the person I'm covering today.

So, what are these people like? I think I can best give you an example of that if I start with a candidate I personally find utterly hilarious: former Senator and Ambassador Carol Moseley Braun.

Or Moseley-Braun. Or Braun. She's changed her preference several times already. She is the only woman in this race and is one of only two blacks running, the other being Al Sharpton. But we'll get to him later.

A former U.S. Senator from Illinois, she has more than her share of scandal. In 1989, it was later revealed, she and her siblings split an inheritance of $28,750 that was required by law to be paid in part to reimburse Medicaid. She had also inherited a parcel of land and refused to pay property taxes on it. She just completely refused to pay. (After she faced prosecution, she eventually gave up and paid the taxes.) That's enough to tarnish the record of most people, but that's nothing in the litany of Moseley Braun crimes.

A quick note in case you are wondering why Medicaid had to be reimbursed: the fact that there was $28,750 to begin with. Medicaid is only for people with no money to their names, not ones with $28,750. When Carol got the inheritance, she was required to pay Medicaid back for the over $15,000 she and her mother had defrauded the government out of by forcing Medicaid to pay the bills. She has never paid this bill.

After she won her Senate seat, there were strong - and well-documented - allegations that she and her former campaign manager, Kgosie Matthews, who she was dating at the time and later got engaged to, embezzled $281,000 worth of dedicated campaign donations for private use. She spent more than $70,000 of that money on clothing, nearly that much on exotic travel and the rest of vehicles, stereo equipment and jewelry.

It also came out that Carol Moseley Braun had knowingly accepted over $70,000 in illegal campaign contributions. Once Moseley Braun was elected, she continued paying her former campaign manager and fiancé, Kgosie Matthews for no discernable services. She paid him out of the remaining election fund and did so excessively, much to the anger of campaign employees, who to this day have never received payment for their final three months of services under the excuse that there was no money left. No, there wasn't... once Moseley-Braun and her fiancé got done with it all.

By this point, perhaps you are wondering why this woman is running for president and not for some sort of leadership position in her cellblock. You wouldn't be alone in wondering that, but we haven't even gotten to the worst part yet.

You see, Kgosie Matthews wasn't just the campaign manager for Ms. Braun. He was also an agent and paid lobbyist for the Nigerian government. Carol Moseley Braun knew this. He was also not a U.S. citizen. He was here illegally and as such, could not work in the United States at all, let alone as the campaign manager for a Senate candidate. Of course, as his employer, Ms. Braun knew all of this as well.

Ms. Braun never became Carol Moseley Braun Matthews because her fiancé had to flee the country after it became known that he had defaulted on a quarter of a million dollars worth of travel payments and was wanted in relation to wire-tapping and mail fraud.

In 1996, Senator Braun took a trip to Nigeria to meet her old fiancé’s boss, Nigeria's dictator, General Sani Abacha. And what a dictator he is... He has been called Africa's worst dictator and tyrant - and that's in a continent with more than its fair share of tyrants. In Nigeria, those who dare criticize General Abacha or sow dissent or just generally annoy the general are "taken care of" - quite literally. It is one of the most blood-covered governments in the world today.

Senator Braun met with and praised General Abacha. She shouldn't have even been there, as there was - and still is, I believe - a ban on travel to that nation. When she came back, she attempted to win supporters for her cause of lifting sanctions on the Nigerian government. Of course, she wouldn't want you to believe that her trip was anything other than normal or honorable. To those that sharply criticized her trip, she replied "Senators travel. That's what senators do."

Wise words, huh?

Senators travel, yes. But usually not to the private palaces of those responsible for the murders of thousands of their own people.

I could go on with the list. The Justice Department under Janet Reno (during the Clinton administration), refused to investigate Senator Braun, unwilling to bring down one of their own. One of the charges they were asked (and subsequently declined) to look into involved bank fraud and bribery from her time in county government. One thing is certain: Carol Moseley Braun has quite a reputation. (And it's not a good one!)

Columnist George Will wrote a widely quoted column on the subject of Senator Braun's scandals during her reelection campaign. She decided to reply to Mr. Will while being interviewed on an Illinois radio station. Did she try to set the record straight, denying or disproving the charges? Of course not. Here's what she said: "I mean this very sincerely from the bottom of my heart: He can take his hood and put it back on again, as far as I'm concerned." Memo to Ms. Braun: George Will is not, never has been and never will be a member of the Klu Klux Klan.

She lost her attempt at reelection to the Senate in 1998 to Republican Peter Fitzgerald, due in no small part to all of the scandals. A Chicago Tribune reporter asked her after the election if she would ever consider running for office again. She was rather clear on the subject: "Read my lips. Not. Never. Nein. Nyet."

Perhaps a short memory is another one of Ms. Braun's shortcomings. Or maybe it's just plain lying.

Whatever be the case, Ms. Braun has thrown her hat in the ring to the dismay of some, amusement of others and the ecstasy of few. She announced her candidacy in Iowa and made preparations for a series of inaugural campaign speeches. The decision was made to rent a large hall capable of seating at least a thousand people, if I remember correctly (while I can find articles referencing this event, I am unable to locate some of the initial reports that gave the capacity of the hall) and planned on giving a speech there each night for three nights in a row. The event was highly publicized in advance and at last, the time came.

Here's how the Des Moines Register's Thomas Beaumont began his story on the speech: "If Carol Moseley-Braun means what she says about campaigning for president in Iowa one voter at a time, Tom Hanson had all of her attention Saturday." If you are saying something along the lines of "does that mean what I think it means?" ... well, yes. It does. The single supporter that showed up for the first speech, an old college friend at whose home Ms. Braun was staying during her time in the state, clapped as loudly as he could, but somehow, it just doesn't seem right when a presidential candidate can only draw one supporter.

There's a saying that goes that "all publicity is good publicity." Of course, it's hardly a firm rule and I'm sure many politicians would have gladly given up a little of the publicity they were given (Gary Hart, who considered running for the presidency this election cycle - that would have made three attempts - immediately comes to mind... If you want to know what I mean, look it up!), but for many, especially relative unknowns, it doesn't matter what the headline says as long as their name is in it. After the disastrous opening, many political pundits predicted that Carol Moseley Braun's speech the next night would be packed full. After all, the story about her single supporter made the politics section of every paper in the country, was the talk of the cable news commentators and, most importantly, was front-page news where the speeches were being given, in Iowa.

And you could say that the publicity did help. Many politicians would give just about anything to have their audience numbers triple. Unfortunately for Ms. Braun, triple doesn't mean much when you start out with one. So, the next night, she gave the same speech to an audience of three - and one of them was the same friend and supporter who had been the sole attendee the night before.

Eight years after declaring "Read my lips. Not. Never. Nein. Nyet" in response to whether or not she'd ever seek office again, she's running for the presidency. In between her Senate defeat and this presidential aspiration nonsense, she served for two years as an ambassador to New Zealand, appointed by President Clinton. She was once asked why she wanted that position, to which she commented that she'd always loved swimming and New Zealand is great for that. Well, at least she was honest that time. Forget any ideas about Ambassador Braun taking the position to serve her country. She just wanted to take a two-year vacation and get paid for it by the federal government.

But back her current campaign. After the lack-of-supporters fiasco, Ms. Braun decided that if Mohammed won't come to the mountain, you just have to bring the mountain to Mohammed. Or something like that. More accurately, she decided that if listeners wouldn't come to her, she would have to go to them. With this in mind, her campaign worked out an arrangement for her to be on a live talk show on a Chicago area station. It would get her on local TV in the afternoon and would give her an automatic crowd of a hundred or so people.

There was one thing she didn't count on, though: questions from the audience. I'm sure she and her campaign anticipated them and practiced statements on the issues, but she was flummoxed by a particularly difficult (please note the sarcasm) question from an audience member: what was he college major? She had no idea at first, finally (after thinking it over for quite a while) said that it may have been political science, but she wasn't sure and would have to go home and get out her degree to find out. I know what you're thinking: this person wants to be the President!?

At a Democratic event where many of the presidential candidates were present, she got too caught up in the spirit of a speech and proudly shouted to those listening, "I'm a former Senator, a former ambassador..." That's where she should have stopped. But she went on: "... and a former Democrat!" She spent the next few days explaining that no, she hadn't left the Democratic Party. She just got swept up in the "excitement" of her speech.

Democrats laughed hysterically for months on end when then-Governor George W. Bush on the campaign trial infamously declared that there's a question we must ask ourselves: "Is our children learning?" It was a pretty bad gaffe. But can you imagine how much fun a Carol Moseley Braun campaign would be to Republicans - and late night comedians? Of course, to Democrats, it would not be a laughing matter. Which would make it even better!

Former Senator and Ambassador (but current Democrat) Braun doesn't stand for or against a whole lot of things. She was sharply opposed to the war and doesn't like the idea of us ever going to war without the approval of the United Nations (some of these Democrats need introductory courses in the sovereign nation thing), she's opposed to tax cuts and wants a universal health care system. However, she doesn't know how she would pull off the health care issue, as of yet coming up with no plan of how one might work.

She has admitted that she doesn't hold many positions on anything and is proud of this fact, claiming to be running a "listening campaign" where she finds out what the people really want, then, I suppose, adopts those views as her own. That's really great leadership, isn't it?

If I had to guess, I'd say that you can sum up her reason for candidacy in one statement she made: "It's time to take the 'Men Only' sign off the White House." Actually, the White House is far from "men only," with many women working there. Of course, she really means the presidency, not the White House. But constitutionally, there is no "Men Only" sign. Her words are just more hyperbole. And it's pretty bad when a candidate is so devoid of issues that she is reduced to providing one reason for which you should vote for her: "It's time to take the 'Men Only' sign off the White House."

Laugh and the world laughs with you... Have the record of Carol Moseley Braun and the world laughs at you.

rosie · Inquisitive Member Joined: 07 Jan 2003 Posts: 1197