Would-be presidents face hits for missed votes

Miss work, dock their pay. That's how the real world works. But not the senate.

Though the world is probably a safer and better place if these senators DON'T show up

Funny, Barack Obama has an exceptionally undistinguished U.S. Senate career, which followed an undistinguished state legislator career, yet, for the past eight months he has done nothing but run for the presidency.

What exactly are Obama's qualifications other thsn being the Left's poster boy? And what has he done to warrant being president?

Listen to little Johnny D,he wants to know what Obama's qualifications are,yet he supports a President who lied to the American people and will certainly achieve the title of "Worst President in History".

I'll play your little game Johnny,how about he's got a brain.

"Occasionally his schedule is such that that is not possible, for a variety of reasons."

I would think voting should be the FIRST thing on his and all other congress/senate peoples schedule...not just if it fits in! I like several of the candidates on both sides but I will think twice about voting for them if they continue to fly around collecting money every chance they get.

Oh Raving Loon, your boy Jimmy "Peanutbrain" Carter easily has the title of worst president ever. Historians will actually show Bush was a very good president.

But what a great answer to my inquiry about what makes Obama qualified: he has a brain. As usual, you weak-minded loons can't even make a case for your guy!

Raving Loon:

John D's questions are completely legitimate. Obama is running for President. Dubya isn't. So regardless of whom John D may have backed in the past, Obama's credentials are still important to him and everyone else.

So, what are his qualifications? What real leadership and/or executive experience does he have? How is a freshman Senator knowledgable or qualified enough for the highest job in the country? What tells us Obama will be able to get any of his plans, good or bad, to work?

Inquiring minds want to know.

John D and John W,
Would listing his qualifications really persuade either of you or your pals? You and your friends would never consider voting for Obama because his skin is black, his middle name is Hussein, his brother is Muslim, his wife makes 6 figures or some other equally shallow reason. What has Fred Thompson done to merit your serious consideration Johnny D? Where did the "experience" of Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld get us you clowns?

Jethro:

I am not a racist, and I resent your suggestion to the contrary. Given the parade of turkeys currently running for President, I would vote for any qualified candidate regardless of his skin color. My opposition to Obama is practical and political. I don't see him having enough experience in government at an executive level to get things done, and I abhor his (and his party's) collectivist socialist ideology. If, instead, he held the same political views as Colin Powell, he would be a serious contender for my vote. That's all there is to that.

I don't see him (Obama) having enough experiance in government at an executive level to get things done, and I abhor his (and his party's) collectivist socialist ideology"

Posted by John W Jun 11, 2007 2:40 PM

John W,

Did you support all of the "experiance" that W. and Cheney had in 2000 and 2004?

The lockstep Republicans had full control of Congress and the Whitehouse for the last 6 years and they took a $5 Trillion dept and nearly doubled it to $9.5 Trillion in LESS that the full six years that they held power.
This same $5 Trillion dept took over 150 years just to get up to that point before the GOP nearly doubled it in their time.

Get off the "Democrats are Socialists" crap, that's a rightwing spin job if I've ever heard one, "Bill-O"

Yes, the Loony Left plays the race card here. Sorry, Jethro, but I never let skin color get in the way and even voted for Jesse White twice (and he is a Democrat!!), though not this last election. My dream GOP ticket: either Guiliani-Michael Steele or Fred Thompson-Michael Steele. Who is Michael Steele? He was the Lt. Gov of Maryland and unsuccessfully ran for the U.S. Senate in Maryland. He is a conservative black man.

Fred Thompson also was a U.S. Senator for 10 years, longer than Obama, served as a counsel during the Watergate hearings and has done other work. He also has 20 more years of life in his background, meaning experience.

Guiliani is perhaps the most qualified of any presidential candidate, though Bill Richardson has accomplished much as well. Speaking of Mr. Richardson, a Hispanic, he is the only Democrat running that has my respect. My, as a Democrat, Richardson CUT taxes for ALL in New Mexico.

Also, Jethro, having seen several of John W.'s posts, he does not appear to be a right winger like me, but more of an independent. So now, two independents: John W and Leo T have been attacked by the Loony Left. Funny, how I have not seen a conservative attack them.

I didn't say you were racist. I merely listed several of the objections to Sen Obama that have be voiced by John Ds Swamp pals. If you thought I was calling you racist I apologize. Please expound on your claim that he has a collective socialist ideology. Is that in reference to his universal healthcare plan? Why is it socialist to want to not have children suffer from club feet simply because their parents don't have health insurance? Do you think crossing your fingers or praying for charity is a good health plan for sick kids?

John W,when you voted for GWB twice,what was it as far as qualifications,that you felt compelled to vote for him.

Once I know what the standards are,I can easily tell you what Obama's qualifications are.

"...Bush was a very good president...."

I'm all for the "was" part.

Raving Loon posted (above) to ask:

"John W, when you voted for GWB twice, what was it as far as qualifications, that you felt compelled to vote for him.

Once I know what the standards are, I can easily tell you what Obama's qualifications are."

Raving Loon:

You mistakenly assume I voted for Dubya twice. I didn't. I voted for him once, and that was the first time. The second time I didn't vote for anyone because a vote would have been wasted on any of the turkeys running for President.

But I will tell you one of the critical qualifications Duhbya had the first time around, which is also one of the reasons I voted for Bill Clinton when he ran against Dubya's daddy.

Here it is: He was a State Governor.

This means he had first-hand, hands-on experience as the executive officer in a republican government - just like Bill Clinton did. That job has a different skill set than that needed to pontificate about laws and parliamentary procedures - like legislators do. Having that skill set gives one a leg up on anyone having to acquire the skills on the job – if they can. Mind you, it’s not always a good indicator. Jimmy Carter is one example of a former State Governor who couldn’t do the President’s job very well. However, most former governors in the White House did a good job.

The next qualification - that I mistakenly believed Duhbya had - was some respect for the Constitution and laws of the United States. It does no good to lead with an ideology that tends to fracture the Constitution. Duhbya fractured it many times over by being a little dictator. I have good grounds to believe Obama would also fracture it – if elected – by assenting to legislative programs which violate constitutional limitations on the federal government (for which Democrats – and now Republicans – have had a tradition.)

If Obama does get elected, and does follow the Constitution, I will feel very fortunate – but I won’t hold my breath. Democrats have this “blank check” theory of constitutional law that says any good idea is constitutional because the Constitution “evolves” to meet every contingency. It’s hogwash, but it’s why I don’t hold out much hope for constitutional orthodoxy from the Dems. But now, having had a bit of an education, I hold out even less hope for neo-cons to uphold constitutional limitations.

The third qualification – which I had no reason to doubt about Duhbya when I voted for him – was honesty. Well, we all learn from our mistakes, now don’t we?

I will grant the same to Obama. I have yet been given any reason to doubt his sincerity or honesty.

In general, I don’t particularly care for Obama’s collectivist ideology, and I don’t think being a freshman Senator gives him the political experience needed to effectively carry out the job of President.

John E posted again:

“John W,

Did you support all of the "experiance" that W. and Cheney had in 2000 and 2004?”

To which I reply:

1. Sorry about the typo. I normally write my posts in Word – which catches such things. I must have been in too much of a hurry.

2. I don’t support W. and Cheney, although I voted for them in 2000. I didn’t vote for them in 2004. I didn’t hear anyone from Texas complaining about Duhbya’s stint as Governor. If I had, I might not have given it as much weight. As for Cheney, his job is only as important as the President makes it. Who would have known the President would accord him that much decision making clout? I regret my mistake: Mea maxima culpa.

John E then says:

“The lockstep Republicans had full control of Congress and the Whitehouse for the last 6 years and they took a $5 Trillion dept and nearly doubled it to $9.5 Trillion in LESS that the full six years that they held power.
This same $5 Trillion dept took over 150 years just to get up to that point before the GOP nearly doubled it in their time.”

I agree, and I think it is despicable.

John E finally states;

“Get off the "Democrats are Socialists" crap, that's a rightwing spin job if I've ever heard one, "Bill-O"

I don’t take my cues from Bill-O, but I must disagree with you on this point anyway. Just because some on the right claim that leading Democrats are socialists doesn’t mean it isn’t true.

One doesn’t have to be a Marxist to be a socialist. The term “socialism” describes any system of social collectivism which subordinates individual rights to the collective good, and which funds the needs of the collective from a commonly owned pool of capital or periodic wealth redistribution. When the likes of Barak Obama, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards claim that everyone in society is interdependent, that we should be less interested in individual rights than of our collective society, that we have a duty to pay for the needs of those with whom we are collectively interdependent – from cradle to grave – out of out of the common fund of tax money accumulated from the private property of individual citizens, and that wealth redistribution for the benefit of the collective good is a positive national and governmental goal – all of which they have stated repeatedly – then they prove themselves to be “socialists” out of their own mouths. This is true regardless of whether they view themselves as socialists, intend to portray themselves as socialists, or any other group, socialist or non-socialist, defines them as socialists. If you can’t see the truth in this, then you either didn’t know what a socialist was (before I just told you), you resent the negative connotation of the “S” word, or you simply like that label less than the “L” word which is routinely misapplied to Democrats.

In relevant part, Jethro stated (above):

“ . . . . Please expound on your claim that he [i.e. Obama] has a collective socialist ideology. Is that in reference to his universal healthcare plan? Why is it socialist to want to not have children suffer from club feet simply because their parents don't have health insurance? Do you think crossing your fingers or praying for charity is a good health plan for sick kids?”

To which I reply:

1. I am not going to replicate the answer I gave John E as to why Obama, H. Clinton and/or Edwards are socialists. It’s nearby somewhere in this thread. Read it.

2. No, it is not socialist to want to avoid children having to suffer from club feet because their parents don’t have health insurance. But there are ways other than socialism - including free market strategies – to make health care more accessible to more people. For example, try doing something to cap medical costs, like limiting malpractice awards, and you will immediately make running a health care facility vastly cheaper. Doctors and hospitals pay millions and millions of dollars in malpractice insurance every year, and even more if they maintain an emergency room. Include in a liability shield only those doctors or health care facilities which grant lower cost health care benefits to the indigent and low wage earners – and you already have the workings of a cost-effective and less expensive health care strategy. There are numerous similar ways in which to tweak the health care system.

Throwing piles of money at it for the “collective good” only guarantees the prices will spike. Hello: Remember the U.S. Government? You know, the folks that still buy $20 paper clips and $500 toilet seats? Yeah, well if left to their ways, the insurance companies running the health care industry now will soak the government for more money under the guise of higher costs. Other industries have been doing it for years: its called Corporate Welfare.

Also, forcing most or all citizens into the system will do nothing to drive down the costs. To the contrary, it will simply give the government the job of beating the drums to drive us, the game, to the hunters. Then, once everyone howls from being soaked by the medical and insurance industries, the government will have to step in with a book of regulations as thick and as big as a phone book just to keep us safe from what they just forced us into.

I have other problems with this system, particularly with regard to the necessary surrender of constitutional and civil rights involved in such a system. For starters, if anyone still believes in the rationale of Roe v. Wade, then we all have zones of privacy regarding medical decisions, including whether to have medical health care at all. We would have to surrender those rights. In addition, I have a hard time now with the idea that corporate insurance bean counters make life and death medical decisions by determining which ailments to cover and which not to cover. I can’t believe anyone in their right mind would give that kind of power to a large, slow, faceless bureaucracy that is the federal government. If the federal government is paying for it, you better believe they are going to regulate it and, in the process, exert that very power of live and death. Can you imagine the kind of regulatory or judicial nightmare that will arise from litigating claims of entitlements to certain procedures – as would then be required by the Fifth Amendment since the U.S. Government is involved? I can’t. This is just too big a can of worms.

Also, a universal health care plan can’t be constitutional because the “limited powers” granted to the federal government in the Constitution do not include the power to regulate the medical or insurance industries, much less to establish a health care system. Nor are these powers “necessary and proper” to any other express constitutional power. Once the federal government has that kind of authority, its power will be complete and total. What can’t the government regulate if it can regulate our medical health and well being? You can just kiss goodbye the notion of any constitutional restraints at that point. And some of you wonder why I have my doubts about the Dem’s ability to follow the Constitution. This is an example of what I mean.

But what a great answer to my inquiry about what makes Obama qualified: he has a brain. As usual, you weak-minded loons can't even make a case for your guy!

Posted by: John D | June 11, 2007 1:48 PM

For one thing, he can string a sentence together. Bush is the least articulate President in History. He can't even spit out a scripted paragraph without butchering it. As far as articulating on the fly...

"I wish you'd have given me this written question ahead of time so I could plan for it…I'm sure something will pop into my head here in the midst of this press conference, with all the pressure of trying to come up with answer, but it hadn't yet….I don't want to sound like I have made no mistakes. I'm confident I have. I just haven't — you just put me under the spot here, and maybe I'm not as quick on my feet as I should be in coming up with one." —President George W. Bush, after being asked to name the biggest mistake he had made, Washington, D.C., April 3, 2004

And this one by Bush applies to you, Crazy John, and your former job creating tax shelters for the rich:

"The really rich people figure out how to dodge taxes anyway." —explaining why high taxes on the rich are a failed strategy, Annandale, Va., Aug. 9, 2004

John D.,

To Bush's credit, this is one issue he seems to know what he is talking about:

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." —Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2004

John W., many good points and great thinking and debate you have put forth with the likes of John E., Douog Zook, Jethro, etc. However, you will find it is all for naught.

You are relatively new to this Swamp it seems, as the folks mentioned above are some of the sickest of the sick. They don't debate, don't put forth any credible views or insight other than their same ole arguments about Bush being a Nazi, Cheney being Darth Vader, and neocon, neocon, neocon. Heck, after all the years of being a conservative, last year I found out I am a "neocon." Course, these folks don't know what a neocon is and frankly neither did I until I looked it up last year. I am not a neocon, but whatever, I really don't find being called a neocon as a slur, even though that is what the Loony Left means it to be.

By the way, Loony Left is largely relegated to those who believe 9/11 was an inside job, hate Bush 24/7, find fault with Bush on everything 24/7, tend to be from the far left, hate Joe Lieberman becuase he is a hawk even though he is liberal on just about all other issues, and folks who just are plain nuts.

There was an independent liberal in here who posted by the name of Leo T. He stopped posting about a week ago because all the Loony Left did was attack him, call him names, etc.

I've had members of the Loony Left here investigate me, post my work e-mail address, my work website, my hometown, and even post under my name! But they hate me because I call them Loony. Course I've been called evereything from Johnny Demented to "bible thumper and bible banger" to gay in here, and the gay being used as a slur like neocon, which I find ironic that members of the Left use gay as a slur. I thought they were suppose to be tolerant and kind to gays? Another reason why I call them loony.

Anyway, John W., you will find that engaging these folks in a rational debate is not practical. But good luck at it!

John W,
You are taking an extreme ideological position and your slippery slope rationale is over the top hysteria The Senator's plan is merely allowing all citizens to buy into the health plans members of Congress have. The government will not take it over. Even if it did, we could only be so lucky that private insurance Administrative costs could be as low as Medicare's

I love it when Johnny D, the king of name calling complains about people calling him names.

John, if you really feel name calling is so bad, why don't you lead by example?

As usual Tony, you miss the whole point. It truly is to your benefit that you go back and begin reading the Dick and Jane books and See Spot Run books. Your comprehension and understanding abilities are quite lacking. Hopefully those books can be used a starting point in your education process.

Johnny D, if that's what you connsider wit, I see why you stick to childish name calling.

jethro:

Since I have done the same for you, I'm sure you will favor me with some explanations. Please tell me in more detail why you think I have taken "an extreme ideological position," and why my argument is a "slippery slope," and "over the top."

This is why I’m asking: I don’t believe I have an extreme view. I just have a healthy mistrust of government.

The Founding Fathers viewed government as a necessary evil. That is, they believed government was basically evil due to its destructive potential, but necessary to the extent it provided the means to avert greater evils. Their mistrust of government derived from their fundamental distrust of human nature. They understood that the greatest of tyrannies resulted from the actions of men working from the best of intentions. They also understood that the greatest evils do not arrive in leaps and bounds, but rather in small, measured steps.

I, for one, agree with them; and there is reason to do so. History has proven them correct time and time again. The twentieth century, alone, witnessed numerous “Big Brother” governments which, almost without exception, were founded on some form of humanitarian ideology, but then proceeded to develop into monsters. These are the very governments that ended up killing more people than all those who had previously died since the dawn of mankind.

So, yes there is reason to mistrust government and the good intentions of politicians. Thus, I see it as a problem – a cultural defect as it were - that we have become far too dependent on government and, therefore, too disposed to believe the good intentions of those in government who claim to be acting in our best interests. I think you have too much of this faith in government as well. What indicated this was your statement, “The government will not take it over” – despite the fact that, historically, the government has always ended up taking over everything in which they invest a lot of money.

So, given this backdrop, favor me with your explanation. Please.

Fred Thompson also was a U.S. Senator for 10 years, longer than Obama, served as a counsel during the Watergate hearings and has done other work. He also has 20 more years of life in his background, meaning experience.

Posted by: John D | June 11, 2007 3:41 PM

Hey boyfriend, please read this article about Thompson's extensive lobbying experience.

http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20070607/a_thompson07.art.htm

Just because some on the right claim that leading Democrats are socialists doesn’t mean it isn’t true.
Posted by: John W. | June 11, 2007 8:33 PM

And because some on the left claim that leading Republicans are facists doesn't mean it isn't true either.

John W-

Since you belive so fully in the Founders fear of large government, I assume you're also on board with there greatest fear - standing armies.

Should the United States disband the Armed Forces, and rely on militias as the founders clearly intended?

An armed and trained militia is the firmest bulwark of republics -- that without standing armies their liberty can never be in danger, nor with large ones safe... -- James Madison First Inaugural Address, Saturday, March 4, 1809.

In relevant part, Tony posted and said:

“Since you belive so fully in the Founders fear of large government, I assume you're also on board with there greatest fear - standing armies.

Should the United States disband the Armed Forces, and rely on militias as the founders clearly intended?

****”

Tony:

It is true that many of the Founding Fathers feared the potential for tyranny from maintaining standing armies, but that fear never found full expression in the text of the Constitution. George Mason participated in the convention to draft the Constitution, but refused to sign it. He cited, as one of his objections to it, the fact that it had no declaration against the danger of standing armies in time of peace. A similar objection was expressed by the delegates at the Virginia ratification convention.

And, indeed, the Constitution states no prohibition against maintaining standing armies. Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15-16 of the U.S. Constitution give Congress the power to “provide for calling forth the Militia . . .” and to govern and regulate the same, especially those units “employed in the Service of the United States . . .” However, separate and apart from the provisions regarding the Militia, the Constitution also gives Congress the power to “raise and support Armies” (id, Cl. 12) and to “provide and maintain a Navy” (id., Cl. 13). Thus, a fair reading of the Constitution shows the Framers did not intend to use militias to the exclusion of standing armies, or vice versa. It shows, instead, that they intended to give the government the flexibility and power to use BOTH.

Madison and Hamilton defended this arrangement on the grounds that: 1) we need unlimited power to raise armies, and not simply use militias, because we must be able to meet the force of an enemy that accepts no limits; 2) the existence of state militias gives us a sufficient check against the potential abuse of a standing army; and 3) Congress has the power to disband armies by voting against further funding for them. (The Federalist Papers, Nos. 24, 25, 41, & 46.) One should also take note of the fact that Madison did not attempt to correct Mason’s complaint by amending the Constitution except for what he proposed in the Second and Third Amendments.

In short, using militias to the exclusion of standing armies was not the clear intent, or even the intent at all, of the Constitution’s authors. I wouldn’t favor disbanding the Armed Forces in favor of militias because we need a core of professionally trained and experienced personnel to properly defend us. Where I disagree with the current arrangement is in the fact that we really don’t have organized or trained state militias. We should re-develop and re-deploy state militias, especially because security and the ability to respond to disaster have become crucial. That is how I would change things.

John W-

Interesting selective quoting.

The full quote:

"To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;"

The founders wanted to limit the time the army could be called up to two years. By definition, not a perpetual "standing army".

I think it's pretty clear that the majority of the founders would be far more fearful of the growth of the military, than they would be of growth of the rest of the government, if they could see the current US.

Tony,

I didn't misquote the Constitution. I just didn't quote Article I, Section 8, Clause 12 in full - - just like you didn't give Madison's full quote from his first inauguration on the topic of armies and the militia.

I did mention that "3) Congress has the power to disband armies by voting against further funding for them." (See above.) That is the functional equivalent of the exact language of Article I, Section 8, Clause 12, that you quoted. The provisio of Clause 12 that, "no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years" was not a limitation on how long a standing army could exist. It was, instead, a limitation on the length of time a standing army could be funded without reauthorization. As Madison and Hamilton explained in the quoted Federalist Papers, the language you quote means that Congress had to re-debate and reauthorize appropriations for the army every two years, and that authorization would expire for funding if not so reauthorized. And that is all it said.

I agree with you that the founders would be fearful if they saw the Armed Forces situation today. But they would be equally worried by the standing armies arrayed against us in the rest of the world. Given this situation, they would say that we should deploy the militia for domestic defense, but keep a strong core of the army ready for meeting terrible armies from foreign shores.

BTW Here is the full quote from Madison's inauguration:

" . . . to keep within the requisite limits a standing military force, always remembering that an armed and trained militia is the firmest bulwark of republics--that without standing armies their liberty can never be in danger, nor with large ones safe . . ."

You see? He didn't speak of the exclusion of standing armies. He spoke only of the need to keep them "within the requisite limits" and to avoid "large ones."