Who's most likely to listen to liberals once in office?

[kiahzero]

After reading a few of these threads, I thought this poll was necessary.

Let's say that there's an issue in the government (which issue is unimportant). Which of these two people do you feel would be most receptive to liberal criticism?

[snoochie]

1. Neither

Kerry's not listening to liberal concerns NOW. (BBV)

[kiahzero]

3. So...

p = 0.0 for both, in your analysis?

[snoochie]

4. Yes

[Monte Carlo]

5. If I recall correctly, Kerry's talked about BBV several times.

And he's not oblivious about its extent or the potential for disaster it presents to our system.

[snoochie]

11. So if he's able to talk about it

and in your estimation understands the problem (is this how little we expect?), why the f$#@ is he not doing anything?

[Monte Carlo]

12. What do you expect him to do, exactly then?

Wouldn't it seem rather inappropriate for a Presidential candidate to get intimately involved with the mechanics of the voting process in this country?

And I don't know if he's not doing anything, though. He's brought public attention to it.

[snoochie]

13. Are you kidding me?

Bob Graham has a bill in the Senate NOW dealing with this issue. Is it too much to expect Kerry to back him up?

He hasn't brought public attention to it. He's mouthing rhetoric while others are doing the work.

[Monte Carlo]

14. No, I'm not kidding.

How do you know he isn't backing Graham up, anyway? Maybe he has some more immediate concerns, like winning the Presidency.

[snoochie]

15. He can't sign as a co-sponsor because he's too focused on winning?

Got it. Thanks.

:crazy:

[Monte Carlo]

2. The idea that Kerry is a bigger obstacle to progressive goals is baffling.

Kerry may not be the fantasy of every potential 3rd-party or non voter, but I guarantee that he'd be a thousand times more receptive to liberal causes than Bush ever will be.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

6. Bush would - Kerry would assume their support

eom

[gottaB]

16. evidence?

Can you provide any evidence of Bush being responsive to liberals?

When Bush makes a proposal that seems compassionate, he fails to follow through.

AIDS? Show me the money.
Edumacation? Show me the money.

Here's one. Slavery. There's a confluence of interests, left and right, opposed to slavery. And slavery in the Sudan, because of the religious conflict, has long been a cause celeb of some of the Christian groups that make up Bush's base.

Bush has talked about it, but what has he done? He doesn't know how to work with other nations to make progress. He sounds like a phony lecturing the UN on morality. And he can't even work with the congress.

Bush was slow to get behind the Sudan Peace Act (see this story by Nat Hentoff). The Sudan Peace Act was eventually signed, apparently with prodding from Colin Powell and Christian abolitionists. And now it looks like the peace talks may be successful. That's good news. Great news. But what about slavery? Slavery's not even on the agenda.

See this alert from the American Anti-Slavery Group, and this story.

That is the BEST example I can think of of Bush listening to liberals (among others) and doing something about human rights. And, as is his wont, he seems to have gone aWol.

So, please, where is the evidence that Bush listens to liberals. Where is the evidence that he's making reasonable progress on any front?

[Robb]

7. Depends

If you mean liberals with money, or liberals without their own PAC. :shrug:

[kiahzero]

8. God, I hope those Bush voters are freeps

Otherwise, there are some choice words the mods won't let me use to describe those individuals.

[rucky]

9. Kerry, of course! That's why I'm being vocal.

the noise seems to be deafaning, tho.

[rhite5]

10. no answer

Now let me see.... what was the quesion again?

[w4rma]

17. It is a *fact* that Kerry will and is listening more than Bush. (n/t)

[Ficus]

18. people who are mad

about something or another must be answering for Bush :shrug: