Bob Graham To Appear On Meet The Press

[DemocratSinceBirth]

I think Bob Graham is uniquely positioned to beat the Monkey (Bush). Florida is an Electoral College prize. Throw in NY and CA which any garden variety Dem can carry and Bush is in deep doo doo as he trys to develop a winning Electoral College strategy.

Bob Graham has been beating Republicans in FL for the past thirty years having never lost an election.

He's right on the issues- socially progressive, fiscally moderate(fiscal conservatives don't exist cept for libertarians) and tough on defense. He voted for the first Iraq war but opposed Bush on the second Iraq war on the grounds it would distract us from the war on terrorism.

[Kahuna]

1. I like Graham and support him...

But I think it's highly unlikely that he will receive the nomination. However, I do believe that he would do the best in a national election. So, I'm really hoping that General Clark will run and that Senator Graham will lend his domestic expertise and run with Clark (should Clark run and get the nomination). A lot to hope for, huh?

BTW. Condi-lie-za Rice will be on Face the Nation to explain how the Niger statement got included in the SOTU speech.

[Catt03]

7. I think Bob Graham is a great guy

He is experienced, dedicated, and informed......as can be validated by the MTP interview.

It is too bad that personalities play such a big part in our electing public officials including, most of all, the President of the united States.

Look where it got us in 2000! By far, Al Gore was the most qualified and Bush......well....he was macho acting and thought of as a "straight talker".....HA!

I am supporting Dean right now, but every time I see and hear Graham, I feel guilty because I am so angry at Bush that I want a fighter....a contender.....:eyes:

[Andy_Stephenson]

34. Graham a Wonderful Guy?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

He co authored the Patriot Act fer chrissakes. He is a :puke: in dem clothing!

[lkinsale]

35. Graham suggests review of Patriot Act

You are right, he did co-author it, that's a legitimate question. Here's what I've found he's said about it:

St. Petersburg Times, June 14, 2003

A spokesman for Graham said he wrote portions of the law that have not been controversial, such as sections that require criminal investigators to share information about possible terrorists with foreign intelligence analysts. Graham also wrote sections that are designed to improve the sharing of information among federal, state and local agencies.

Graham said this week that he is concerned about the implementation of other sections of the law. "I think the attorney general has gone beyond what the Congress intended, particularly in areas such as disparate treatment and what amounts to a form of racial profiling against Americans of Islamic background."

Graham said Congress should conduct "a serious review of what has happened under this act." He said he opposes an expanded bill dubbed "Patriot 2" and opposes an effort to make the current law permanent. It is due to expire in 2005.

(more)

********

The rest of the article says he's been quiet about his role in the Patriot Act. Personally, I am willing to accept that in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, things were done which lawmakers would like to revisit and correct. Dean and Kuchinich were not in a position to vote on the Patriot Act, and we will never know what they would have done at the time, whatever they may say now, so I am not going to make this a black-or-white issue. Others will have their own takes on it, of course.

[RichM]

2. It isn't being "right on the issues" to be "tough on defense."

The US could dismantle half its military machine and still have more than enough to "defend" the country. Being "tough on defense" means wasting hundreds of billions of dollars on things that serve no social good whatever.

Furthermore, Graham opposed the Iraq war because it wasn't aggressive enough for him. He had no objection to it at all, in principle. Even if it was true that he "opposed Bush on the second Iraq war on the grounds it would distract us from the war on terrorism," this would be a ridiculous position, since the "War on Terrorism" is a silly dishonest fraud - a mere excuse for building more military bases in strategic regions.

[Kahuna]

3. I hope you watch Graham and hear his position form his

own lips so you can stop distorting what he says. Today's your chance.

[RichM]

5. Oh, I "distort" his position, do I? Yeah, right - Here ya' go:

Graham on Senate Floor, 10/10/02:

"...tonight I have to vote no on this resolution. The reason is that this resolution is too timid. It is too limited. It is too weak. ...Madam President, the resolution that I had hoped we would pass would contain what the President has asked for, relative to the use of force against Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq – and more...I offered an amendment on this floor yesterday that would have given the President the authorities he needs to deal with the threats posed by the five deadliest terrorist organizations, in addition to Al Qaeda, that would gladly join Saddam Hussein...

The President should be in the most advantageous position to protect Americans – to launch pre-emptive strikes and hack off the heads of these snakes....

http://graham.senate.gov/pr101002.html

[Terwilliger]

12. wow!

what a nutball!!!

Graham *SCRRRRRATCH*

[Kahuna]

23. Huh? Please elaborate...

Graham's not having any humina humina moments like another former govenor I could name. :eyes:

[goobergunch]

36. Text of Graham Amdt.

The Senator from Florida proposes an amendment numbered 4857 to amendment No. 4856.

In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the amendment, insert the following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the ``Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq and International Terrorists Resolution''.

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION.--The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq;

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(3) defend the national security of the United States against the threat posed by the following terrorist organizations:

(A) The Abu Nidal Organization.

(B) HAMAS.

(C) Hizballah.

(D) Palestine Islamic Jihad.

(E) Palestine Liberation Front.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.--In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (a) to use force, the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but not later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq, or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS.--

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION.--Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS.--Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

(a) The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of Public Law 105-338 (the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998).

(b) To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of Public Law 93-148 (the War Powers Resolution), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.

(c) To the extent that this information required by section 3 of Public Law 102-1 is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of Public Law 102-1.

---

Most of this is just rehashing the base resolution, but note the paragraph in bold...this amdt adds no limitation on war-making authority, but instead adds more abilities for * to make war.

[Norbert]

4. "Not a George Tenet problem, it's a George Bu$h problem"

by Bob Graham. He broughtup the pattern of deception issue.

Go Gettum' Bob!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

6. We Are Doomed As A Party

if we don't convince the American people we are serious about combating terrorism. You can make all the "intellectual" arguments that the "war on terrorism" is as phony as the "war on drugs" because we will never eradicate either. The vast majority of Americans think the threat of terrorism is real and if they think the Dems are weak on terrorism they will be consigned to minority party status for the rest of this century.

[Catt03]

8. Absolutely!

and Kerry, Edwards and even the DLC know that. Dean is finding out fast.

[RichM]

9. Solution to that problem: Have Democrat leaders forcefully explain

to the public that the whole thing is phony; that's it's just a device to feed the military-industrial complex for the private profit of big contractors. Accuse the GOP leaders of conducting an extensive psychological campaign of intimidation to terrify & bamboozle the public.

IOW: tell the truth for a change, instead of passively accepting all this BS.

And if the Democrats CAN'T do that - it doesn't matter if they're "doomed as a party." They're no good to anyone if they can't forcefully present the truth. If they have to accept the entire framework of GOP lies, just to "remain competitive," they're a failure, & getting rid of them is no loss.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

10. The Democrats Are A FireWall

to Republican extremism and getting rid of them would be a catastrophic loss especially when they would be replaced by nothing.
The perfect shouldn't be the enemy of the good.

It is the Democratic minority in the Senate that has used the filibuster or threat of it to defeat the most extreme portions of the Republican agenda.

We have a two party system in America. We are not a parliamentary democracy. That means that both parties have to have as broad as appeal as possible.

We ignore the center at our peril.

[RichM]

11. Gee, you must be one of them thar "moderate Democrats" I done heard

so much about. You just ticked off almost every known talking point of that species.

Actually, though: the Democrats already are replaced by nothing. What they contribute is fairly close to being "nothing."

We don't exactly have a "two party system in America." More exactly, we have a BROKEN two party system, in which one party clearly represents the corporate oligarchy - and the other does too, only not quite so clearly.

Any you know who we REALLY ignore at our peril? Not the 1 or 2% of the population in the center that might swing to one side or the other, but the 50-60% potentially on the left, who don't vote anymore, because they see that neither party offers them anything.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

14. Moderate Democrat

Moderate Democrat-ROTFLMAO

In the immortal words of Al Davis "Just Win Baby"

I'd like to see the survey data that suggests that 50% to 60% of Americans are on the left.

Approximately twenty percent of Americans consider themselves liberal,
thirty percent of Americans consider themselves conservative, and forty percent consider themselves moderate.

It's a myth that there is an untapped resevoir of liberal voters just waiting to be awakened. Survey data suggests non voters pretty much share the same views as voters.

I will cede to no one my Democratic bona fides. I have voted for every Democratic candidate for any office since 1976. The only Dem I didn't vote for was Jimmy Carter in 1980 cuz he dissed Ted Kennedy. No, I didn't vote for the Gipper. I voted for John Anderson.

I just want to win elections. Ceding the center to the Republicans is a recipe for disaster.

[RichM]

16. Not a question of "survey data," or of who defines themself as "on the

left." It's the logic: if you take an unemployed person whose job has been outsourced to China, & explain to him that $150 billion/yr could be taken from the Pentagon budget, and spent to guarantee comprehensive health care for him & his family, as well as unemployment compensation & retraining programs for him & others like him, he'll get the point.

If you explain that hundreds of millions in loot stolen by corrupt CEO's, could be reclaimed by society from those people, and re-distributed to the workers and pension plans and shareholders of the affected companies, they will also get the point.

These people will all get the point, EVEN IF they don't currently define themselves as "leftists" or "liberals." EVEN IF they don't even really know what those words mean.

About that "myth" of the untapped reservoir: the wealth inequality in the US is the greatest in the industrialized world; greater than at any previous time in our history. The average American has lost ground in the last 25 years; only the top 10% have gained anything -- most of that to the top few %. This leaves a lot of people who have a lot of very good reasons to be deeply dissatisfied with the system.

[Kahuna]

27. Ditto. Our DU friends alway overlook the FACT..

that most dems consider themselves "moderate" not "liberal." A lot of self-identified "liberals" are democrats at all.

[TahitiNut]

29. The great disconnect ...

... between rhetorical "moderacy" claims and the issues themselves is that while people annoint themselves (myself included) with the pretentious "moderacy" label, their thoughtful policy preferences are overwhelmingly congruent with the positions taken by those attacked as "leftists". When this is pointed out, however, Quislings "protesteth too much." :shrug:

[Terwilliger]

13. Yes, and we ignore principles and ideals at the risk of our COMMON doom...

America is an imperialist nation already...its time to slap people upside the head with reality and show them that a secure America means an end to American terrorism.

[GayboyBilly]

15. Graham for President

All I will offer to this thread is this. When Graham was Govenor of Florida, This was the place to be. Best times in Florida ever! And that was also the time during Reaganomics. Says something about Graham.

[newsguyatl]

17. ...

*YAWN*

he seems like a nice enough guy, but he's about as boring, if not more, than lieberman... he wouldn't stand a CHANCE against bush, not a CHANCE

[DemocratSinceBirth]

19. Objective Conditions

will determine who the next president is. If the economy is recovering and there isn't blood in the streets in Baghdad the Monkey will be hard to beat. If the economy is still in the ditch then the Dems have a good chance providing they nominate a candidate who is broadly acceptable to the American electorate.

As far as boring I don't think Bush is Mr. Excitement with his cliches and bromides. To me he seems like a dime store cowboy or pint sized John Wayne wannabe.

[Pepperbelly]

18. Bush's response is phony but the threat is not ...

and to say that it is is both naive and dangerous.

[lkinsale]

24. Call me moderate, and proud of it. Graham makes perfect sense to me.

Further text from his speech about the Iraq resolution:

I would also like to reinforce my conviction that this resolution forces the President to focus our military and intelligence on the wrong target. A historical example, which has been used in this debate, is the example of the 1930s that England, France and other nations would eventually join in the world's greatest alliance, slept, while Hitler's power grew.

They say that passing this resolution is the equivalent of if the Alllies had declared war on Hitler. I disagree with that assessment of what this lesson of history means. In my judgment, passing this resolution tonight will be the equivalent of declaring war on Italy. That is not what we should be doing. We should not just be declaring war on Mussolini's Italy. We should be declaring war on Hitler's Germany.

Now, there are good reasons for considering attacking today's Italy, meaning Iraq. Saddam Hussein's regime has chemical and biological weapons and is trying to get nuclear capacity. But the briefings I have received have shown that trying to block him and any necessary nuclear materials have been largely successful, as evidenced by the recent intercept of centrifuge tubes. And he is years away from having nuclear capability. So why does it make sense to attack this era's Italy, and not Germany, especially when by attacking Italy, we are making Germany a more probable adversary?

Madam President, the CIA has warned us that international terrorist organizations will probably use United States action against Iraq as an indication for striking us here in the homeland.

I like a guy who actually reads the briefings.

You're going to get nowhere with me, or with the American people, by claiming there's no such thing as a terrorism threat to the United States.

I just want our efforts focused where it makes sense.

[aquart]

25. There will always be cockroaches. Always.

Just like there will always be hurricanes.

And tornadoes.

Do you give up your civil rights because tornadoes are likely?

Do you surrender the constitution because cockroaches are everywhere?

Yes, the threat exists. Like lightning. You might get hit. Are you never going outside because you might get hit by lightning?

I'm a New Yorker. I rode the subways while they were being stopped every day because someone spotted an unidentified package. I was scared and I still rode the subways. Because I had to. Because normalcy was better than hiding.

Terrorists are the new boogy men. It's ridiculous when adults scurry because of boogy men.

Terrorism ISN'T the big issue. It's just the boogy man.

[lkinsale]

26. You will lose to Bush on that platform

Period.

[RichM]

31. The so-called "threat" is 1) tiny, and 2) caused by US meddling in

places where we have no right to meddle. Al Qaeda doesn't exist because those guys think it's lotsa fun to blow up Americans. It exists because the US has done unforgivable, unjustifiable things in the Middle East. If the US stopped supporting tyrannies over there, Al Qaeda's membership would dwindle. There would cease to be an incentive for them.

The SIZE of the threat is teensy. Even if they succeeded in repeating 9-11 EVERY YEAR, it would still be teensy - it's the size of a few traffic accidents. (And they were LUCKY to pull off 9-11: most of the 2700 killed died because the towers collapsed, which was sort of a lucky break, from their point of view. Had the towers not fallen, there would only have been a few hundred victims.)

More importantly: to pretend that the "threat" posed by Al Qaeda is anywhere near as great as the threat posed by 40 million Americans having no health insurance, or as great as the threat posed by the transformation of the US to a full-fledged plutocracy, or as great as US policy being essentially dictated by the needs of the M-I complex -- this is the wrong direction altogether. If Democrats cooperate in maintaining the pretense that we should be fearing "terrorists" (which we helped create, anyway), rather than facing up to the problem of plutocracy & the neglect of pressing domestic concerns, then they're basically no better than Republicans.

In a word: the solution is to start telling the truth. The problem is NOT just Bush's response - it's also HIS FORMULATION of the situation. You're saying that his formulation is basically correct, only the specifics of his solution are wrong. Actually, the entire thing is wrong -- all the underlying assumptions, as well as his specific proposals.

[MaverickX]

32. Rich...

It's pretty inaccurate to say Al Qaeda is simply opposed to tyranny in the Middle East. Al Qaeda is driven by opposition to secularism, not opposition to tyranny. Even if the U.S. used peaceful methods to strengthen democracy in the Mideast Al Qaeda would commit acts of terrorism. Al Qaeda would be especially ticked off if we helped build the economies and living conditions in the Mideast they use deplorable conditions as a recruitment tool. Al Qaeda won't go away just by peaceful methods. Would purely peaceful methods have defeated the Nazis?

[lkinsale]

33. It just won't play

I'm not gonna argue with you. On some points I agree with you. The statistical threat of terrorism is quite small, but that is not why it works. It works because of its sudden, irrational horror.

I simply think that trying to convince voters that we should go merrily on our way and ignore terrorism is not something the American people will respond to after 9/11, whether you are correct about it or not.

I do think Americans will respond to the logic that we need to concentrate on our specific areas of vulnerability at home, like ports and first-responders, and on the realistic actions we can take abroad to minimize the flexibility of terrorist groups, such as closing the training camps in Syria.

That's why I like Graham. I realize we will never be perfectly safe. I'm not safe when I drive a car, but that doesn't mean I can't drive in a safer manner and have a better chance of coming home alive.

I want to beat Bush. Arguing that we can do nothing about terrorism and it's our fault anyway is a really poor way to do it, IMO.

[aquart]

22. The vast number of Americans notice nothing has happened.

Lots of alerts and NO events. Not here.

We also note that Bush talks big and underfunds ports, cities, airports.

All the Dems have to do is talk about proper reallocation of funds. Protect our borders and airways. We aren't safer because my mom can't carry her knitting needles onto a plane.

Our ports are sieves. What has George done?

Are we sure no one can open the door to the pilots now?

Is luggage being protected and screened properly?

Is someone actually reading and processing information and passing it along? Wasn't that supposed to be the CIA's bloody job?

Are we so safe now that Homeland Security can devote its time to watching kiddie porn?

Dems have lots to talk about. Stop being defined by Republicans.

[lkinsale]

28. Graham Blasts Bush for Failing to Secure America's Ports

Graham Blasts Bush for Failing to Secure America's Ports

Washington DC -- Senator Bob Graham today criticized the Bush Administration's decision to redirect appropriated funds away from protecting America's three largest seaports from potential terrorist activity and towards covering budget shortfalls in other areas.

Last week, Transportation Security Administration (TSA) chief Admiral James Loy testified before a Senate hearing on homeland security that TSA, which is a part of the Homeland Security Administration, is refusing to follow the direction of Congress and spend $58 million in allocated funds on Operation Safe Commerce, a program meant to strengthen security at seaports in Los Angeles, Seattle and New York by monitoring the contents and integrity of containers from the point that they are loaded to the point they are unloaded. Loy told the panel that the funds would be redirected to cover significant budget shortfalls in other areas of homeland security.

"Once again this Administration has its priorities mixed up," said Graham. "After underfunding first-responders in the states, now President Bush is shortchanging the security of our ports -one of our greatest vulnerabilities to terrorist threats."

[aquart]

20. G on MTP: brought up the October speech scrubbing.

Finally, someone mentions it.

[Kahuna]

21. Graham is Tim handling very well...

He's not letting Tim trip him up at all. He's fillibustering which is how you must handle Tim. You gotta run the clock out. Go Bob, go!

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

Must see how he handles Tim in the next segment. }>

Poor Tim. Resorting to the notebook. How weak. Good Tim. Help Graham to run down the clock with stupid questions about notebooks FCOL.

Good. It's over now. Tim gave up on trying to get one over on Graham. Ha ha!

[lkinsale]

30. Discipline

Ha, I like Graham's reply to the claim he's "neurotic" because of his notebooks.

Discipline. He picked up the habit from his father, who used a notebook to record sick animals on the farm, he uses it as a log and a to-do list.

And he sounds so un-neurotic, sane, soft-spoken and centered. Very, very appealing to a non-political, moderate liberal. (Don't shoot me!) I also think he would appeal to people like my Texas farming family, or at least not terrify them like some of the Dem candidates.

I picked Graham after looking over all the declared primary candidates. I'm looking for the guy who can beat Bush. Seemed to me he had the credentials.

I was quite uncertain of what to expect from Graham in this Russert interview. I thought he was great. I'll continue to support him enthusiastically for the nomination.