Kerry, Edwards and Daschle May Face Vote on Flag

Wash Post ^ | 9/13/04 | Helen Dewar

[Cableguy]

For some Republicans it is the perfect political storm: a Senate vote on a constitutional amendment to protect the U.S. flag that would put Democratic presidential nominee John F. Kerry, running mate John Edwards and Minority Leader Thomas A. Daschle on the spot just a few weeks before the Nov. 2 elections.

The Senate GOP leadership has not scheduled a vote on the proposed amendment, but Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) noted last week that it is a high priority for veterans groups. Other Republicans say a vote is likely before the Senate's Oct. 8 target date for adjournment.

As senators, Kerry (Mass.), Edwards (N.C.) and Daschle (S.D.) have voted against the amendment and are described by colleagues as still opposed to it. But Kerry and Edwards, who rarely leave the campaign trail for Senate votes, are not expected to show up for the flag debate unless it appears their votes would be decisive.

[dasboot]

Topic: For it, and against it: discuss.

[flashbunny]

How much you wanna bet at least one dem will take a position that "this amendment is unconstitutional!" (and no one in the press will know enough to say "Um, hey, how can something that becomes part of the constitution be unconstitutional???"?

[Darkwolf377]

Banning flag burning is a bad idea. Any law is in some way about restricting freedom, as those unnamed freedoms in our documents are ours to being with. As for it being "freedom Republican style," I dunno--Is abortion the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness democrat style?

[RWR8189]

Interesting comment you made there.

[gr8eman]

Burning is the proper way of destroying an old and tattered flag. That would change. As far as some punks burning on the street, I say let them do it and get an A$$ whipping that they deserve!

[NutCrackerBoy]

Democrats describe the GOP strategy as a cynical ploy that could backfire among voters who are fed up with "gotcha" politics and congressional inaction on other issues. They also say such divisive initiatives could dash any prospects for serious business being accomplished over the next month. -Helen Dewar, Washington Post Staff Writer

Wrong. Number one, voters won't see this as unacceptable politics. If voters do not get outraged over the Democrats blocking judicial nominations, they're not going to care about this. Number two, showing where politicians stand is a serious business of Congress in an election year.

I am just going to sit here like Dogbert wagging his tail, and savor the sweetness of forcing Democrats into a Hobson's choice.

[EQAndyBuzz]

"Wrong. Number one, voters won't see this as unacceptable politics. If voters do not get outraged over the Democrats blocking judicial nominations, they're not going to care about this. Number two, showing where politicians stand is a serious business of Congress in an election year."

This is a bad bad idea. We fight to protect the right of someone to burn a flag in protest. A politician with the full force of the media behind him can make the issue that the Republicans are for taking away our rights as citizens. They can then build on this by talking about Iraq, the Patriot act, etc...

Better to not make this an issue, even though IMHO flag burning should be banned.

[mwl1]

Smarter vote would be to make the tax cuts permanent. Either way Kerry votes (for, against, abstain), he loses.

[Darkwolf377]

Banning flag burning is a bad idea.
Why?

---

It's freedom of expression, and using one's own property as one wishes. Whatever I may think of it, that's what it is.



Any law is in some way about restricting freedom, as those unnamed freedoms in our documents are ours to being with.

Huh? Does this sentence make grammatical sense?

---

To someone with basic grasp of what a law actually is it does.