Us presidential election 2004

[denoir 0]

This is about the best we can do, since in Washington state voters do not select a party during registration.

What's up with that anyway? Isn't it a bit of a strange tradition of giving up your anonymity by before the actual vote put on record who you are planning to vote for?

[Akira 0]

This is about the best we can do, since in Washington state voters do not select a party during registration.

What's up with that anyway? Isn't it a bit of a strange tradition of giving up your anonymity by before the actual vote put on record who you are planning to vote for?

I'mnot ashamed of who I vote for and if any GOP or Bush asshat hasa problem with it they can suck a fart right outta my ass!

[denoir 0]

This is about the best we can do, since in Washington state voters do not select a party during registration.

What's up with that anyway? Isn't it a bit of a strange tradition of giving up your anonymity by before the actual vote put on record who you are planning to vote for?  

I'mnot ashamed of who I vote for and if any GOP or Bush asshat hasa problem with it they can suck a fart right outta my ass!

I never make up my mind long before the elections. True enough, I usually end up voting for the same party, but I would never declare myself loyal to one party no matter what.

I don't think any GOP people have any problems with you registering as a Democrat. On the contrary, you're making their job of market segmentation far easier.

[Akira 0]

This is about the best we can do, since in Washington state voters do not select a party during registration.

What's up with that anyway? Isn't it a bit of a strange tradition of giving up your anonymity by before the actual vote put on record who you are planning to vote for?

I'mnot ashamed of who I vote for and if any GOP or Bush asshat hasa problem with it they can suck a fart right outta my ass!

I never make up my mind long before the elections. True enough, I usually end up voting for the same party, but I would never declare myself loyal to one party no matter what.

I don't think any GOP people have any problems with you registering as a Democrat. On the contrary, you're making their job of market segmentation far easier.

Perhaps you misunderstand me.

I'm neither a registered Democrat nor am I a registered Republican. I'm a registered "Vote My Conscience"; the most dispised of all voters.

Whether that makes their job of market segmentation, or demographic analysis, or pigeon-holing easier or harder I don't really give a flip.

My name can be on every Democrat or Republican mailing list from New York to Los Angeles. I don't care. Just one more thing to chuck in the recycling. The can call me if they want. I just hang-up.

I don't listen to their party line, and if the Republicans consider me a Democrat or the Democrats consider me a Republican, I don't care a snot one way or another.

I may sound Democrat, but that is only because at the moment they are what this country needs to get a back in balance.

[denoir 0]

I'm neither a registered Democrat nor am I a registered Republican. I'm a registered "Vote My Conscience"; the most dispised of all voters.

That's what I mean. IMO any sensible person would refuse to write down on record the specific party he/she plans to vote for. Any person that wishes to contribute to a democracy will evaluate all parties properly before voting.

Not to mention that the right to an anonymous vote is one of the pillars of democracy.

So I'm just curious why that tradition of being able to register which party you are going to vote for.

[shinRaiden 0]

What happened was that there was a lawsuit in California where the 9th Circus court of Appeals tossed out California's Primary elections system, as using a state elections process to conduct party business (nominate canidates) was deemed unconstitutional.

The Republican, Democrat, and Libertarian parties together filed suit here in Washington state to have our primary system (which was nearly identical) thrown out as well. The complication comes in that for a long time Washington State has had 'anonymous' voter registration, where you don't list your party, but can vote for any party's canidates in the primary. The result was that various soft money groups were focusing on the primaries, to get the 'wrong' canidates on the general ballot, thereby skewing the general elections.

It is still being worked out in the courts, and it's still not quite certain what we will have. Worst case scenario we get a California-governer-style turkey shoot-out. The secretary of state has planned for that, by blocking the ballots out by party in color-coded blocks.

So what I meant by the 'best we can do', is that unlike other states where the parties can obtain lists of people who registered as affiliated, we don't have any such list, making get-out-the-voter efforts that much more labor intensive, especially since we have some of the most contended seats this year.

Here's food for thought. Next week, my county council is expected to approve, on party lines, a measure that would restrict any human usage or contact with 65% of the owner's property, and restrict impervious surfaces like roof or driveway to 10%, to save the fishies. This would be a blanket ordinance affecting all private properties not inside incorporated cities. The deputy assistant county prosecuter admitted under oath on camera that this ordinance was not needed and was far in excess of the minimum required for compliance with various state laws. Do you really own your property?

-One more note-

I'm definately not a party hack. I did some nosing around at the state convention, and turned up some funky business that they were up to, and with the majority helped derail that process. My district chair said that the under-the-table report I gave to him was much more accurate than what he was being told. If you have a problem with the system, go take the bull by the horns. We did, and it shook up the party brass real good. I nearly beat the party designee for district elector and a previous state representative on a on-the-spot write-in, and others beat the the party designees in other districts.

There were district caucauses earlier this year that all you voters were supposed to go to, and there is nothing but busyness until elections. Canidates don't automagically appear on the second tuesday in November, there are a whole lot of baby-kissing and stumping and yard-signing and county-fair-walking between now and then. So get out the voter today, and tomorrow, and election day.

[denoir 0]

What happened was that there was a lawsuit in California where the 9th Circus court of Appeals tossed out California's Primary elections system, as using a state elections process to conduct party business (nominate canidates) was deemed unconstitutional.

The Republican, Democrat, and Libertarian parties together filed suit here in Washington state to have our primary system (which was nearly identical) thrown out as well. The complication comes in that for a long time Washington State has had 'anonymous' voter registration, where you don't list your party, but can vote for any party's canidates in the primary. The result was that various soft money groups were focusing on the primaries, to get the 'wrong' canidates on the general ballot, thereby skewing the general elections.

Yeah, that's a strange system as well - the primaries. The system that we have in general in Europe, the party chooses its candidates. This either through a vote of the party board or a member vote. Point being that you have to be a member of a party and you have to show up at the yearly party convention if you want to use your vote. And this as at a national level. And in general only politically active people are party members.

So the parties choose their candidates and we (the rest of the people) vote for them. We don't have anything to do with who the parties choose to run.

Giving everybody the choice to vote for which candidates from the parties will run opens the process up for abuse. Just go and vote for a candidate of your opponent party that has the least chance to win.

[Winters 1]

I'm neither a registered Democrat nor am I a registered Republican. I'm a registered "Vote My Conscience"; the most dispised of all voters.

That's what I mean. IMO any sensible person would refuse to write down on record the specific party he/she plans to vote for. Any person that wishes to contribute to a democracy will evaluate all parties properly before voting.

Not to mention that the right to an anonymous vote is one of the pillars of democracy.

So I'm just curious why that tradition of being able to register which party you are going to vote for.

I guess its akin to having a favorite sports team, you root for them every year and do not turn away from them simply because of bad personnel moves made by management.

I am neither registered as a democrat or republican as well. I weigh all the candidates and make my vote according to who would be the best man. It saddens me to see people voting democrat or republican simply because the candidate is "Their Parties Man"

The only drawback to not declaring a party affiliation is that you are not allowed to vote in any primaries and are limited to the general election, this prevented me in 2000 from backing John McCain.

[Schoeler 0]

The problem with the primary system is that it brought money into politics on a scale never before seen. It used to be with the convention system that the party would pick loyal old salts well-versed in politics from a pool of experienced politicians and would-be candidates. Now, anyone with enough money can get up, look at themselves in the mirror one morning and announce they are going to run. With enough juice, these guys can get the publicity necessary to overrun even the more experienced and worthy candidates like Bush did to McCain in 2000.

[bn880 5]

Bush gets to be the most popular man at our Just For Laughs competition

http://www.stupidityawards.com/

[walker 0]

Hi all

The newly discovered (suposedly destroyed) Payroll record of Vietnam War Dodger George Bush Jnr. show no evidence he ever turned up to serve in Alabama.

Quote[/b] ]Like records released earlier by the White House, the newly released computerized payroll records show no indication Bush drilled with the Alabama unit during July, August and September of 1972. Pay records covering all of 1972, released previously, also indicated no guard service for Bush during those three months.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/07/09/politics/main628437.shtml

Like so many other NeoConMen Vietnam War Dodger George Bush Jnr. is member of the Chicken Hawks. You know the type the ones who are too chicken and too rich to fight them selves but quite willing to start wars for their oil money and get real soldiers to fight for them.

Check out this flash movie about the chicken hawks.

http://www.symbolman.com/chickenhawks.html

As my grandad used to say NeoConMen are 'All Mouth and no Trousers.'

So when you think Bush think Cluck Cluck.

Kind Regards Walker

[billybob2002 0]

The good ole Electoral College....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5344731/

Quote[/b] ]

Despite positive tone, Kerry faces deficit

Democrat trails President Bush in Electoral College calculations

As John Kerry heads toward what looks to be a harmonious, feel-good Democratic convention in Boston, his campaign strategists are facing the hard, cold math of an Electoral College map that continues to favor President Bush.

On Saturday, courting voters in Sioux City, Iowa, Kerry discarded his usual criticism of President Bush to promote a more positive message. The Massachusetts senator said the campaign "is about listening and learning from Americans who believe in their hearts that tomorrow can be better than today."

Kerry said he and running mate John Edwards value good-paying jobs, affordable health care, independence from Mideast oil, a strong military and good relations abroad. "We’re taking this trip with the hope that we can begin a new conversation in this country," he said.

Despite the optimistic tone, Kerry trails Bush in the battle for the 270 electoral votes needed to win the White House, as he makes his case at the Democratic National Convention next week to topple the Republican incumbent.

Tall hurdles remain in his path, including Electoral College math that favors Bush.

"It’s a tough, tough map. I think it’s going to be a close race," said Democratic strategist Tad Devine, who helped plot Al Gore’s state-by-state strategy in 2000 and plays the same role for Kerry.

"But looking back four years, we’re much stronger now. I think we’re going into this convention in great shape," he said.

After Kerry rolls into Boston to accept the nomination on Thursday night, following four days of positive media attention drawn by luminaries of the Democratic Party from Bill Clinton to Jimmy Carter, three months will remain in the volatile campaign.

As they start, Kerry has 14 states and the District of Columbia in his column for 193 electoral vote while Bush has 25 states for 217 votes, according to an Associated Press analysis of state polls as well as interviews with strategists across the country.

Both candidates are short of the magic 270 electoral votes. The margin of victory will come from:

Tossups: Bush and Kerry are running even in 11 states with a combined 128 electoral votes. Florida, Ohio, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Wisconsin, Michigan and West Virginia are the toughest battlegrounds. Two other tossups, Pennsylvania and Oregon, could soon move to Kerry’s column.

Leaning to Kerry: Maine, Minnesota and Washington (a combined 25 electoral votes) favor Kerry over Bush by a few percentage points. Gore carried them in 2000.

Leaning to Bush: North Carolina, Colorado, Louisiana, Arizona, Virginia, Arkansas and Missouri (a combined 73 electoral votes) give Bush modest leads. He won all seven in 2000.Al total, 21 states are in play. Some will bounce between "lean" to "tossup" throughout the campaign.

The Democrats will get down to the business of wooing voters in those states as soon as the convention ends. On July 30, the day after Kerry gives his acceptance speech in Boston, he and Edwards will leave on a two-week coast-to-coast tour via bus, train and boat. In the first days, stops will include Miami, Orlando and Jacksonville, Fla.; Dearborn, Flint and Grand Rapids, Mich.; Newburgh, N.Y.; Zanesville and Bowling Green, Ohio; Scranton, Harrisburg and Greensburg, Pa.; Wheeling, W.Va.; and Milwaukee, Wis.

Four years ago, Bush won 30 states and their 271 electoral votes — one more than needed. Gore, who won the popular vote, claimed 20 states plus the District of Columbia for 267 electoral votes.

Since then, reapportionment added electoral votes to states with population gains and took them from states losing people. The result: Bush’s states are now worth 278 electoral votes and Gore’s are worth just 260.

Needed: Gore's states and votes

Even if Kerry consolidates Gore’s states, no easy task, the Democrat must take 10 electoral votes from Bush’s column to close the electoral vote gap.

Kerry’s best prospects may be in the five tossup states won by Bush in 2000: Ohio, Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire and West Virginia.

Winning either Ohio’s 20 electoral votes or Florida’s 27 would do the trick.

Bush easily won Ohio in 2000, but its lagging economy puts the state in play. Kerry must still reduce Bush’s advantages among conservative, rural voters. Florida should favor Bush a bit more than in 2000, partly because of its relatively strong economy, but the war in Iraq has helped keep the race close.

Nevada and West Virginia have a combined 10 electoral votes, enough to close the gap. New Hampshire, which neighbors Kerry’s home state of Massachusetts, has four.

West Virginia voted Democratic for decades until Bush made values an issue in 2000; Kerry is stressing the theme this year. In Nevada, an influx of Hispanics and the administration’s push to use Yucca Mountain as a nuclear waste site make the state tougher for Bush than in 2000.

Six of 11 tossup states were won by Gore

Six of the 11 tossup states were won by Gore: Pennsylvania, Oregon, Michigan, Iowa, New Mexico and Wisconsin. But the margin of victory was just a few thousand votes in Iowa, New Mexico and Wisconsin — meaning Kerry has his work cut out to keep them.

Of the three, Bush likes his chances best in Wisconsin, where he is targeting rural voters in a bid to widen the electoral gap by 10 votes.

Flush with money and leading a united party, Kerry increased his odds by expanding the playing field into a handful of GOP states that Bush easily won in 2000, including Arkansas, Louisiana, Arizona, Virginia and Colorado. Results have been mixed.

After testing the waters, Kerry pulled his ads from Arkansas and Louisiana, and downgraded his focus on Virginia and Arizona. Hispanic voters make Colorado a prime target, but Democrats acknowledge it’s a tough state to win.

"The race is still fundamentally tied, and the Electoral College map reflects that," said Bush strategist Matthew Dowd. "But there is beginning to be a slight tilt toward us with Arkansas, Tennessee, Missouri and Arizona no longer being seriously contested."

Kerry added another Republican-leaning state to his target list when he chose Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina as his running mate. Aides are divided over whether North Carolina will remain a battleground through November, but its 15 electoral votes are too tempting to ignore.

Battleground Missouri

Missouri, a traditional battleground, recently moved to the Bush-leaning category and is being written off by some Democrats. The Kerry campaign reduced its ad campaign in the state after polls showed him consistently 4 to 6 percentage points behind Bush, with little room for improvement.

Republican advantages in rural Missouri and the fast-growing exurbs make the state tough for Democrats, but Kerry will likely keep it on the table through November in case the political winds shift. Besides, abandoning a traditional battleground would be embarrassing.

The four-term Massachusetts senator has begun to gather strength in traditionally Democratic states such as Maine, Minnesota and Washington. All were tossups in the spring, but now lean toward Kerry. A good convention could push Pennsylvania and Oregon into the lean-Kerry category.

Recent polls give Kerry an edge in both states, but strategists for Kerry and Bush say the races are still tossup.

'Angry feeling' over Iraq

"There is an angry feeling toward the incumbent because of Iraq," said David Sweet, who managed Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell’s 2000 campaign. "I think Kerry will win in the end, but that’s partly based on an assumption of things to come. It’s close."

Of the states won by Gore, Pennsylvania is by far Bush’s top target. The president has spent millions of dollars in the state on commercials and has visited it more than any other contested state — 30 trips since his inauguration.

For Kerry, losing Pennsylvania would create a virtually insurmountable electoral vote gap.

[walker 0]

Hi billybob2002

Thanks for the timely reminder that the only way to affect who will be in the White House after the next election is to register to vote and then on election day Vote! Remember if you are a US voter and your abroad you can still vote but register now. The more people who turn out the better the vote will be.

Time is Short! Register to Vote!

Remember you can only effect who will lead the US by Registering to Vote.

Get your official national Voter registration forms from this link here:

http://www.fec.gov/votregis/vr.htm

That is the form that allows you to decide who will be the next president and vice president of the USA. In a democracy it is your only real power. Use it.

Please Note the Following Exceptions:

* New Hampshire town and city clerks will accept this application only as a request for their own mail-in absentee voter registration form.

* North Dakota does not have voter registration.

* Wyoming cannot accept this form under State law.

Here is where you can register to vote

http://www.fec.gov/votregis/where_can_i_register_to_vote02.htm

Quote[/b] ]Registration applications may be obtained from either the local election official in your county or city, or through registration outreach programs sponsored by such groups as the League of Women Voters. In addition, you can also register to vote when applying for a driver’s license or identity card at State DMV or driver's licensing offices, State offices providing public assistance, State offices providing State-funded programs for the disabled, and at armed forces recruitment offices.

Many States also offer registration opportunities at public libraries, post offices, unemployment offices, and at public high schools and universities. Colleges, universities, and trade schools participating in federal student loan programs also offer voter registration applications to enrolled students prior to general elections.

FAQs about using the National Voter Registration form

http://www.fec.gov/votregis/faqs_about_national_mail_form02.htm

Time is getting short.

The deadlines for registration in some states are fast aproaching Register to Vote now

http://www.fec.gov/votregis/state_voter_reg_deadlines02.htm

Going to be abroad?

If you are abroad and need to register an absentee ballot you need this site it will guide you through the process: http://www.fvap.gov/

In the Army?

If you are serving abroad and need to register an absentee ballot you need this site it will guide you through the process:

https://www.perscomonline.army.mil/tagd....dex.htm

In the Marines?

If you are serving abroad or at sea and need to register an absentee ballot you need this site it will guide you through the process:

https://lnweb1.manpower.usmc.mil/manpowe....ng+Home

In the Navy?

If you are serving abroad or at sea and need to register an absentee ballot you need this site it will guide you through the process:

http://www.persnet.navy.mil/nvap/

In the Air Force?

If you are serving abroad and need to register an absentee ballot you need this site it will guide you through the process:

http://www.afpc.randolph.af.mil/votefund/

In the Coastguard?

If you are serving abroad or at sea and need to register an absentee ballot you need this site it will guide you through the process:

http://www.uscg.mil/hq....nce.htm

Use this information now! Register to vote! And on the day Vote! or this will hapen to you.

http://promotions.yahoo.com/declareyourself/ud/dogfood_medium.html

Kind Regards Walker

[shinRaiden 0]

In many places you will find voter registration forms. Before you fill any of them out, you need to read the information available from the online editions that Walker has linked. If the copy you find elsewhere has the same boxes, but not the same state requirements printed, it is invalid, and using it will not get you registered. If you want to register for an absentee (mail-in) ballot, check with your local county elections division, as the dates to register as an absentee are sometimes earlier than the ordinary registration deadlines. Just 100 days to go until a landslide of grumpyness or a recount.

[billybob2002 0]

The veteran thing in a nutshell...

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docid=144

Quote[/b] ]

Funding for Veterans up 27%, But Democrats Call It A Cut

Money for Veterans goes up faster under Bush than under Clinton, yet Kerry accuses Bush of an unpatriotic breach of faith.

In the Feb. 15 Democratic debate, Kerry suggested that Bush was being unpatriotic: “He’s cut the VA (Veterans Administration) budget and not kept faith with veterans across this country. And one of the first definitions of patriotism is keeping faith with those who wore the uniform of our country.â€

It is true that Bush is not seeking as big an increase for next year as the Secretary of Veterans Affairs wanted. It is also true that the administration has tried to slow the growth of spending for veterans by not giving new benefits to some middle-income vets.

Yet even so, funding for veterans is going up twice as fast under Bush as it did under Clinton. And the number of veterans getting health benefits is going up 25% under Bush's budgets. That's hardly a cut.

Analysis

Funding for veterans benefits has accelerated in the Bush administration, as seen in the following table.

Fiscal years ending Sept. 30

Source: US Budget: Table 5.2 -   Budget Authority by Agency

In Bush’s first three years funding for the Veterans Administration increased 27%. And if Bush's 2005 budget is approved, funding for his full four-year term will amount to an increase of 37.6%.

In the eight years of the Clinton administration the increase was 31.7%

Those figures include mandatory spending for such things as payments to veterans for service-connected disabilities, over which Congress and presidents have little control. But Bush has increased the discretionary portion of veterans funding even more than the mandatory portion has increased. Discretionary funding under Bush is up 30.2%.

By any measure, veterans funding is going up faster under Bush than under Clinton.

One reason: the number of veterans getting benefits is increasing rapidly as middle-income veterans turn for health care to the expanding network of VA clinics and its generous prescription drug benefit.

According to the VA, the number of veterans signed up to get health benefits increased by 1.1 million, or 18%, during the first two fiscal years for which Bush signed the VA appropriations bills. And the numbers continue to grow. By the end of the current fiscal year on Sept. 30, the VA estimates that the total increase under Bush's budgets will reach nearly 1.6 million veterans, an increase of 25.6 percent.

And according to the VA, the number of community health clinics has increased 40% during Bush's three years, with accompanying increases in the numbers of outpatient visits (to 51 million last year) and prescriptions filled (to 108 million).

But They Keep Repeating: "It's a Cut"

That's just the opposite of the impression one might get from listening to Democratic presidential candidates debate each other over the past several months. One thing they seem to agree on is the false idea that Bush is cutting funding for veterans.

Examples:

Oct 9, 2003:

Sharpton: As this president waved the flag, he cut the budget for veterans, which dishonored people that had given their lives to this country, while he sent people like you to war.

October 27:

Dean:  I've made it very clear that we need to support our troops . . . unlike President Bush who tried to cut -- who successfully cut 164,000 veterans off their health-care benefits.

Jan 4, 2004:

Kucinich: Look what's happened with this budget the administration has just submitted. They're cutting funds for job programs, for veterans . . .

Jan 22, 2004 :

Kerry: And while we're at it, this president is breaking faith with veterans all across the country. They've cut the VA budget by $1.8 billion.

Feb 15, 2004 :

Kerry: And most importantly, I think he's cut the VA budget and not kept faith with veterans across this country. And one of the first definitions of patriotism is keeping faith with those who wore the uniform of our country.

And even the Democratic National Committee website proclaims, "Bush Cuts Funds for Veterans' Health Care," despite what the numbers show.

Veterans Groups Want More

While it's false to say the veterans budget has been cut, and false to say that any veteran getting benefits has been cut off, it is true that funding is not growing as rapidly as demand for benefits, or as rapidly as veterans groups would like.

Veterans groups are unanimous in calling for more money than the administration or Congress have provided. Four groups -- AMVETS, Disabled American Veterans, Paralyzed Veterans of America, and Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States -- have joined to ask for $3.7 billion more than the administration is requesting for next year.

Even Bush's own Secretary of Veterans Affairs Anthony Principi -- in a rare break with administration protocol -- told a House committee Feb. 4 that had asked for more money than Bush was willing to seek from Congress. "I asked OMB for $1.2 billion more than I received,"  he said, referring to the White House Office of Management and Budget.

Some Denied Benefits; A Cut Proposed

In January, 2003 the Veterans Administration announced that -- because the increase in funds couldn't meet the rising demand -- it would start turning away many middle-income applicants applying for new medical benefits.

That led to accusations that Bush was denying benefits to veterans. " We have 400,000 veterans in this country who have been denied access in a whole category to the VA," Kerry declared during a debate Oct. 9, 2003. The VA's estimates of the number who might be denied benefits is much lower, and in fact nobody can say with certainty how many middle-income veterans might have signed up for medical benefits if they had been allowed.

Meanwhile the VA  continues to add hundreds of thousands of disabled and lower-income veterans to those already receiving benefits, and has kept paying benefits to all veterans who were already receiving them.

The middle-income veterans who currently aren't being allowed to sign up are those generally with incomes above 80% of the mid-point for their locality. The  means test cut-off for benefits ranges up to $40,000 a year in many cities. And any veteran with income less than  $25,162 still qualifies no matter where they live. Those figures are for single veterans. The income cut-off is higher for those with a spouse or children.

Veterans groups have called for "mandatory funding" of medical benefits, which would automatically appropriate whatever funds are required to meet demand. Kerry has endorsed mandatory funding, which would allow middle-income veterans with no service-connected disability to resume signing up.

The administration also has proposed to make the VA's prescription drug benefit less generous. Currently many veterans pay $7 for each one-month supply of medication. The administration proposes to increase that to $15, and require a $250 annual fee as well. Congress rejected a similar proposal last year. The proposal wouldn't affect those -- such as veterans with a disability rated at 50% or more -- who currently aren't required to make any co-payments.

And it should be noted that the administration is proposing to increase some benefits, including ending pharmacy co-payments for some very low-income veterans, and paying for emergency-room care for veterans in non-VA hospitals.

All this means Bush can fairly be accused of trying to hold down the rapid growth in spending for veterans benefits -- particularly those sought by middle-income vets with no service-connected disability. But saying he cut the budget is contrary to fact.

(Note: FactCheck.org twice contacted the Kerry campaign asking how he justified his claim that the VA budget is being cut, but we've received no response.)

Sources

Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2005 "Table 5.2 -- Budget Authority by Agency" (Washington, Government Printing Office) 3 Feb 2004.

US House of Representatives, Committee on Veterans Affairs, “ Statement of Anthony J. Principi , Secretary Of Veterans Affairs†4 Feb 2004.

US House of Representqatives, Committee on Veterans Affairs, “ Statement of Peter S. Gaytan, Principal Deputy Director, Veterans Affairs And Rehabilitation Division, The American Legion†4 Feb 2004.

US House of Representqatives, Committee on Veterans Affairs “ Statement Of Joseph A. Violante , National Legislative Director, The Disabled American Veterans†4 Feb. 2004.

US House of Representatives, Committee on Veterans Affairs “ Statement of Vietnam Veterans of America , Presented by Richard F. Weidman, Director, Government Relations†4 Feb 2004.

Press Release , Rep. Lane Evans (D IL)"Bush administration ’05 VA budget reflects misplaced priorities, places greater burden on some veterans" 2 Feb. 2004.

Suzanne Bamboa, “Principi Wanted $1.2B More for VA Budget,†Associated Press 4 Feb. 2004.

And this site is not bias...

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=215 -click me!!!

[denoir 0]

Hmmm.. Have the Reagans declared war on Bush? First Ron Reagan is speaking at the Democrat convention. Today I saw this quote about Fahrenheit 911:

Quote[/b] ]

Patti Davis, daughter of Ronald Reagan: "Seeing "Fahrenheit 9/11" made me think deeply about love of country, how it molds us, drives and emboldens us and how it can sometimes make us so angry we want to shout out to the world: "No, this is wrong." Many things have been said about the movie, and of course about its director, Michael Moore. But I don't think I've heard anyone comment on Moore's love for America. It seemed evident to me that the film was born from that love." (Newsweek, 7/20)

I suppose that neo-cons and old-school-cons don't get along too well.  

[ralphwiggum 6]

Ron Reagan has been a thorn on the side for GOP. he was at the DNC to speak about stem cell research. Nancy Reagan made some remarks about stem cell research and how quiet Bush became. must be irritating for Bush, although it's a minor issue they use to rally their voter base.

edit: Patty Davis was at odds with her father's politics to begin with. She posed in Plaboy just to piss him off, IIRC

[Balschoiw 0]

Ron Reagan was alss opposing hid daddies policy if I remember right. Right ?

[Akira 0]

Ron Reagan was alss opposing hid daddies policy if I remember right. Right ?

The important thing is people nowadays have no recollection of that. All they know is:

Ron Reagan Sr=Republican

Ron Reagan Jr+Ron Reagan Sr= Must be Republican

Nancy Reagan+RRSr=Republicans

NR+RRJr Does Not equal Bush

Bush= Bad Republican

PS...tone down on the beer when you post...it effects your spelling

[IceFire 0]

I don't think much of Nancy Reagan's promotion of Stem Cell research. She is only in support of it because of her husband and emotional reasons.

After all, she saw her husband go through Alzheimers and died. She was very protective of President Reagan, ofcourse she is screaming about Stem Cell research now.

Let her grieve, there is no point in arguing with her.

This is NOT a battle between neo-cons and "old school" cons.

Just a battle between Nancy and Bush/other conservatives. And Nancy's emotions have ofcourse effected her thinking.

No respectful conservative would argue with her. That would be disrespectful. She has been through alot with Ronald Reagans disease.

Unlike liberals, conservatives respect eachother through the good and the bad.

[ralphwiggum 6]

Unlike liberals, conservatives respect eachother through the good and the bad.

you mean like McCain being casted as an outlier within the party?

Unlike conservatives, liberals don't act like hypocrits.

[Schoeler 0]

I don't think much of Nancy Reagan's promotion of Stem Cell research.  She is only in support of it because of her husband and emotional reasons.

After all, she saw her husband go through Alzheimers and died.  She was very protective of President Reagan, ofcourse she is screaming about Stem Cell research now.

Let her grieve, there is no point in arguing with her.  

This is NOT a battle between neo-cons and "old school" cons.

Just a battle between Nancy and Bush/other conservatives. And Nancy's emotions have ofcourse effected her thinking.

No respectful conservative would argue with her.  That would be disrespectful.  She has been through alot with Ronald Reagans disease.  

Unlike liberals, conservatives respect eachother through the good and the bad.

You have got to be kidding me!? You don't think much of her stand on stem cell research. What better reason could she have for promoting it?

If you got diagnosed with terminal cancer tomorrow, would you be happy if people wrote off your advocacy for ehanced cancer research?

That is simply a narrow-minded and extremely un-empathetic point of view.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]PS...tone down on the beer when you post...it effects your spelling

In fact I had no beer or such at that time. Maybe that was the problem

[kerosene 0]

If you think stem-cell research is morally wrong and take a stand against it when it could help thousands of people and only change your stance when it personally affects you... your kind of a hypocrite.

I understand the hurt watching somone you love fall apart causes, but if your gonna say something is so wrong it should be banned you should factor in that it may someday affect you.

"Unlike liberals, conservatives respect eachother through the good and the bad"

Like how all those conservatives respected George Tenet during the bad?

[Schoeler 0]

If you think stem-cell research is morally wrong and take a stand against it when it could help thousands of people and only change your stance when it personally affects you... your kind of a hypocrite.

I understand the hurt watching somone you love fall apart causes, but if your gonna say something is so wrong it should be banned you should factor in that it may someday affect you.

"Unlike liberals, conservatives respect eachother through the good and the bad"

Like how all those conservatives respected George Tenet during the bad?

So in your world, people aren't able to change their minds?

You have to take a stand and maintain that stand all your life?

Circumstances can't make you change your views?

You can't ever grow in your knowledge or in your feelings about something?

You are just born to believe and feel a certain way?

Better go tell the Russians they can't have a democracy.

Better tell the Americans they are still subjects of the British Empire.

Better tell the Germans to start killing jews again.

Better tell your mama you want candy or you'll cry.

Better forget everything you've learned since the day you were born, else you'll be a hypocrit yourself.

That is the single most narrow-minded and ignorant argument I've ever heard. Please try not to sound retarded in your reply.