PDA

View Full Version : Too Busy or just a couple of wimps?



pooltchr
07-15-2004, 05:47 AM
According to the news report I saw last night, the Senate held a vote regarding the constitutional ammendment relating to same sex marriage. There were two Senators who did not cast votes either way. One was the man my state elected to represent us in the Senate...John Edwards. And who should the other missing vote belong to? John Kerry!

Do you think they are too busy campaigning to do their job, or that they were afraid to take a stand on such a controversial issue during an election campaign?

Chris Cass
07-15-2004, 06:03 AM
Hi Steve,

LOL Their afraid and yes, I don't blame them either.

Regards,

C.C.

nAz
07-15-2004, 06:28 AM
Hard thing to vote on i guess /ccboard/images/graemlins/ooo.gif not. wonder what their reason for not voting is, probably scared of the right and the left on this one.

Wally_in_Cincy
07-15-2004, 06:54 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr> ...they were afraid to take a stand on such a controversial issue during an election campaign? <hr /></blockquote>

I don't get it. 85% of the American people are against gay marriage. But they could only get 48 Senators to back this.

I can understand not tampering with the Constitution though.

Wally &lt;~~ remembers when this was something you kept to yourself. I also remember when unmarried pregnancy was not something to be proud of.

eg8r
07-15-2004, 06:55 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Do you think they are too busy campaigning to do their job, or that they were afraid to take a stand on such a controversial issue during an election campaign? <hr /></blockquote> YES!!!!

eg8r

landshark77
07-15-2004, 07:12 AM
They are pure and simple wimps. Period.

Rich R.
07-15-2004, 07:49 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr> Do you think they are too busy campaigning to do their job, or that they were afraid to take a stand on such a controversial issue during an election campaign? <hr /></blockquote>
My guess would be, they weren't even in Washington, at the time of the vote. They are out campaigning.

Hmmmmm, come to think of it, I heard something about the President taking some kind of bus trip. So he is not in Washington either.
Who is running things? /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

BTW, can you imagine the President's bus trip. The President, in a bus, with at least 100 secret service agents, in various vehicles, both in front and following the bus. Probably a squad of fighter jets over head too. /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif Of course, the Presidential helicoptor would be near by, and maybe Air Force 1, too.
Now there is your tax dollars at work. /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

eg8r
07-15-2004, 07:51 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Now there is your tax dollars at work. <hr /></blockquote> You are right Rich, everyone should head back to DC and go back to work.

eg8r

Wally_in_Cincy
07-15-2004, 08:25 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
Now there is your tax dollars at work. <hr /></blockquote> You are right Rich, everyone should head back to DC and go back to work.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

eg8r I disagree. I think they should take about 11 months off every year. The fewer new laws the better.

The media whines about legislative gridlock. I say "Gridlock is good". It seems every new law they pass screws something else up in some unforeseen way.

Wally_in_Cincy
07-15-2004, 08:26 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Rich R.:</font><hr> BTW, can you imagine the President's bus trip. The President, in a bus, with at least 100 secret service agents, in various vehicles, both in front and following the bus. Probably a squad of fighter jets over head too. /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif Of course, the Presidential helicoptor would be near by, and maybe Air Force 1, too.
Now there is your tax dollars at work. /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif <hr /></blockquote>

Fortunately nothing like that ever occurred under the Clinton regime /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

pooltchr
07-15-2004, 08:26 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> You are right Rich, everyone should head back to DC and go back to work.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

I don't know. Sometimes I think we are all better off when they aren't doing anything up there...at least they aren't screwing things up any worse when they do nothing. /ccboard/images/graemlins/crazy.gif

Wally_in_Cincy
07-15-2004, 08:27 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> You are right Rich, everyone should head back to DC and go back to work.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

I don't know. Sometimes I think we are all better off when they aren't doing anything up there...at least they aren't screwing things up any worse when they do nothing. /ccboard/images/graemlins/crazy.gif <hr /></blockquote>

obviously great minds think alike

Rich R.
07-15-2004, 09:36 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr>Fortunately nothing like that ever occurred under the Clinton regime /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif <hr /></blockquote>
Wally, unfortunately, it happens under EVERY regime. /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

It is the one thing in Washington, that is truly bipartisan.

eg8r
07-15-2004, 11:47 AM
I think one of the reasons Kerry did not show up and vote is that he is already having problems with the Catholic church on the abortion issue. He surely does not want to piss them off with the gay marriage issue. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

It is pretty sad for the people of Mass that Kerry is not there for more than half the votes. He surely does not represent them well at all, I wonder if this bothers them?

eg8r

highsea
07-15-2004, 01:17 PM
Kerry doesn't have a history of taking a stand.

It's more like 30% of the time he is there for roll call. It was just as bad in 2003.

[ QUOTE ]
As a senator with the responsibility to cast a vote on a variety of contentious issues, Kerry has had many opportunities to square off with the president. Yet an analysis of Kerry's 2003 Senate voting record shows that he did not show up for most of the Senate's confrontations with the White House.

The publication Congressional Quarterly examined 119 recorded votes held in 2003 in which the president had taken a position. CQ found that Kerry was present for just 28 percent of those votes. In contrast, Kerry's colleague from Massachusetts, Ted Kennedy, was present for 97 percent of the votes.

When Kerry showed up, he did indeed vote against the president a significant number of times. In 2003, according to CQ, Kerry sided against the president 70 percent of the time. Kennedy, usually viewed as the gold standard of liberal orthodoxy, voted against Bush 53 percent of the time.<hr /></blockquote>
http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200401220835.asp

-CM