US Senate 2010: Burr vs. ?

[CatherineE]

Given there are now three democratic candidates seeking to challenge Sen. R. Burr, any thoughts on who the final race will boil down to? My money's on Elaine Marshall as the dems' post-primary winner.

[d4vendel]

The ultimate winner of the race will be Senator Richard Burr.

[johnshaw]

Elaine Marshall has the most experience and has successfully run in several statewide races. I think that she will be the nominee and our next US Senator.

[MattD]

Elaine Marshall has the most experience and has successfully run in several statewide races. I think that she will be the nominee and our next US Senator.

100% agree.

[NewHillBilly]

It's all about the Hamiltons:
http://i92.photobucket.com/albums/l37/adgc/10dollarbill.jpg

[CatherineE]

The ultimate winner of the race will be Senator Richard Burr.

2010 will be a tough year for Democrats with the expected backlash. A lot will depend on how the economy is doing by the time of the election. Would expect to see some serious assistance from the DCCC to several key senate races concerning the need to grow the democratic senate majority. Lets hope to see that assistance extend to NC's race.

Fully expect an all-out election battle as anti-incumbency over unemployment rates and the economy will work to give Marshall an edge. Burr's voting record will be paramount.

[johnshaw]

It's all about the Hamiltons:
http://i92.photobucket.com/albums/l37/adgc/10dollarbill.jpg

It is even more about the Jacksons:
http://i461.photobucket.com/albums/qq337/InvisiSongDJ/20.jpg

[Icorpse]

The ultimate winner of the race will be Senator Richard Burr.

2010 will be a tough year for Democrats with the expected backlash. A lot will depend on how the economy is doing by the time of the election. Would expect to see some serious assistance from the DCCC to several key senate races concerning the need to grow the democratic senate majority. Lets hope to see that assistance extend to NC's race.

Fully expect an all-out election battle as anti-incumbency over unemployment rates and the economy will work to give Marshall an edge. Burr's voting record will be paramount.

I see Dems in a no win situation next year. If the economy improves, then the election will be about fiscal responsibility. If the economy deteriorates then it will be the Dems fault. Burr is sitting pretty at the moment and lack of a strong candidate will help him.

[CatherineE]

I see Dems in a no win situation next year. If the economy improves, then the election will be about fiscal responsibility. If the economy deteriorates then it will be the Dems fault. Burr is sitting pretty at the moment and lack of a strong candidate will help him.

Fiscal responsibility? You mean like finally putting the 7-year war on the national budget books?

Elaine Marshall is a strong candidate.

[Icorpse]

Refer to the Sarah Palin book signing video I posted CE. Do you really think anyone can hold a logical conversation with that lot?

[bobo]

The ultimate winner of the race will be Senator Richard Burr.

I certainly hope so.

[MattD]

The ultimate winner of the race will be Senator Richard Burr.

I certainly hope so.

A reminder of the person you plan on voting/supporting. US Sen Burr voted against the below bill:

The backdrop of the story: Jamie Leigh Jones was gang-raped by her coworkers then kidnapped and placed in a shipping container. She tried to sue, but apparently her contract had "small print" that would not allow her to bring action against the company.



In 2005, Jamie Leigh Jones was gang-raped by her co-workers while she was working for Halliburton/KBR in Baghdad. In an apparent attempt to cover up the incident, the company then put her in a shipping container for at least 24 hours without food, water, or a bed, and “warned her that if she left Iraq for medical treatment, she’d be out of a job.” Even more insultingly, the DOJ resisted bringing any criminal charges in the matter. KBR argued that Jones’ employment contract warranted her claims being heard in private arbitration — without jury, judge, public record, or transcript of the proceedings.

US Senator Al Franken proposed an amendment that would stop federal funding for those defense contractors who used mandatory arbitration clauses to deny victims of assault the right to bring their case to court. It passed by a 68-30 margin with nine Republicans joining each voting Democrat.

"The story came to my attention of Jamie Leigh Jones who, when she was 19, went to Iraq to work for [defense contractor] KBR and she was put in the barracks with 400 men and was sexually harassed," Franken told the Huffington Post in a brief interview shortly after the vote. "She complained. But they didn't do anything about it. She was drugged and gang raped and they locked her up in a shipping container. She tried to sue KBR and they said you have a mandatory arbitration clause in your contract. She tried to fight back and said this is ridiculous. She took it to court and they have been fighting her for three years."

"This bill would make it so that anybody in business with the Department of the Defense can't do this," he concluded emphatically. "They can't have mandatory arbitration on issues like assault and battery."

Again, 30 US Senators - including Burr - thought this bill was a bad idea.

[bobo]

The ultimate winner of the race will be Senator Richard Burr.

I certainly hope so.

A reminder of the person you plan on voting/supporting. US Sen Burr voted against the below bill:

The backdrop of the story: Jamie Leigh Jones was gang-raped by her coworkers then kidnapped and placed in a shipping container. She tried to sue, but apparently her contract had "small print" that would not allow her to bring action against the company.



In 2005, Jamie Leigh Jones was gang-raped by her co-workers while she was working for Halliburton/KBR in Baghdad. In an apparent attempt to cover up the incident, the company then put her in a shipping container for at least 24 hours without food, water, or a bed, and “warned her that if she left Iraq for medical treatment, she’d be out of a job.” Even more insultingly, the DOJ resisted bringing any criminal charges in the matter. KBR argued that Jones’ employment contract warranted her claims being heard in private arbitration — without jury, judge, public record, or transcript of the proceedings.

US Senator Al Franken proposed an amendment that would stop federal funding for those defense contractors who used mandatory arbitration clauses to deny victims of assault the right to bring their case to court. It passed by a 68-30 margin with nine Republicans joining each voting Democrat.

"The story came to my attention of Jamie Leigh Jones who, when she was 19, went to Iraq to work for [defense contractor] KBR and she was put in the barracks with 400 men and was sexually harassed," Franken told the Huffington Post in a brief interview shortly after the vote. "She complained. But they didn't do anything about it. She was drugged and gang raped and they locked her up in a shipping container. She tried to sue KBR and they said you have a mandatory arbitration clause in your contract. She tried to fight back and said this is ridiculous. She took it to court and they have been fighting her for three years."

"This bill would make it so that anybody in business with the Department of the Defense can't do this," he concluded emphatically. "They can't have mandatory arbitration on issues like assault and battery."

Again, 30 US Senators - including Burr - thought this bill was a bad idea.

I don't know about you, but I've yet to find a politician that votes favorably to my concerns 100% of the time.

[MattD]

I don't know about you, but I've yet to find a politician that votes favorably to my concerns 100% of the time.

This was a bill that would hold companies accountable for their workers raping/kidnapping another employee. I would think this is one vote I would want my elected official to vote the way I think...

[dhyatt]

I don't know about you, but I've yet to find a politician that votes favorably to my concerns 100% of the time.

This was a bill that would hold companies accountable for their workers raping/kidnapping another employee. I would think this is one vote I would want my elected official to vote the way I think...

Matt,
I'm not clear on this so I'm just asking... Didn't the bill as it was first submitted and approved by the House simply ban arbitration across the board in government contracts and as such was deemed unenforceable? I thought the complaints are/were that there was no way for contractors to really know what clauses their various sub contractors had nor the subs with the sub-subs etc... I was under the impression that the Obama Justice Dept was working with House & Senate conferees in order to come up with a workable bill. If that's the case then Burr simply failed to jump on the bandwagon of another (typical IMO) flawed / feel good bill - the kind of a bill that far too often has unintended consequences.

[MattD]

Matt,
I'm not clear on this so I'm just asking... Didn't the bill as it was first submitted and approved by the House simply ban arbitration across the board in government contracts and as such was deemed unenforceable? I thought the complaints are/were that there was no way for contractors to really know what clauses their various sub contractors had nor the subs with the sub-subs etc... I was under the impression that the Obama Justice Dept was working with House & Senate conferees in order to come up with a workable bill. If that's the case then Burr simply failed to jump on the bandwagon of another (typical IMO) flawed / feel good bill - the kind of a bill that far too often has unintended consequences.

This only thing I could find on-line on why US Sen Richard Burr voted against the bill comes from a statement from David War - Burr's chief spokesman:



"Senator Burr believes violence against women is despicable and intolerable, and those who have committed or abetted such heinous crimes should be subjected to the full weight of the law," said David Ward, Burr's chief spokesman. "Unfortunately, the Franken amendment would not do anything to protect women from violence or to punish criminals. If it had, Senator Burr would certainly have voted for the amendment."

<snip>
But Ward, Burr's spokesman, said the Franken amendment would not protect women from rape, but would prevent contractors from getting paid. He said that the Defense Department under President Barack Obama opposed the amendment and that such arbitration agreements are nonbinding when it comes to criminal acts such as rape. Crimes can still be prosecuted by the government.

"Unfortunately," Ward said, "the Franken amendment was a cynical attempt by the trial lawyers to eliminate arbitration agreements, which limit their fees, behind the guise of protecting women."

http://www.newsobserver.com/2009/10/21/150464/marshall-decries-burrs-vote-on.html

[MattD]

Click here to hear US Sen Richard Burr discuss why he voted against the Franken amendment. The audio is 4:16.

http://www.news-record.com/blog/53964/entry/74937

[Icorpse]

There are laws in the books against rape. Why would the woman need to sue the company she was working for? I am not a Burr supporter but I do not see the logic in supporting the bill. Was there cause for neglect?

We cannot blanket blame politicians based on sound bytes alone. Remember the whole "Obama voted for killing babies" screams that came out two years ago?

[MattD]

There are laws in the books against rape. Why would the woman need to sue the company she was working for? I am not a Burr supporter but I do not see the logic in supporting the bill. Was there cause for neglect?

We cannot blanket blame politicians based on sound bytes alone. Remember the whole "Obama voted for killing babies" screams that came out two years ago?

There was absolute cause of neglect.

I don't understand your point about laws being on the books against rape (especially when this happened in a foreign country).

There are laws on the books against murder, but people have been found "not guilty" in criminal court but had to pay $$ in civil court.

It's also through the civil courts that most companies are forced to change their policies. Sexual harassment is probably the best example. And taken to the extreme - a women being ganged raped, kidnapped and threatned as a company looks away - a civil action might be the only thing that will force a company to change it's policiy. Oh, and 38 women have come forward and have claimed anywhere from being sexually harassed to being raped.

But hey, what's a little rape when US Sen Richard Burr is concerned about the contractor not getting paid on time.

[dhyatt]

There are laws in the books against rape. Why would the woman need to sue the company she was working for? I am not a Burr supporter but I do not see the logic in supporting the bill. Was there cause for neglect?

We cannot blanket blame politicians based on sound bytes alone. Remember the whole "Obama voted for killing babies" screams that came out two years ago?

There was absolute cause of neglect.

I don't understand your point about laws being on the books against rape (especially when this happened in a foreign country).

There are laws on the books against murder, but people have been found "not guilty" in criminal court but had to pay $$ in civil court.

It's also through the civil courts that most companies are forced to change their policies. Sexual harassment is probably the best example. And taken to the extreme - a women being ganged raped, kidnapped and threatned as a company looks away - a civil action might be the only thing that will force a company to change it's policiy. Oh, and 38 women have come forward and have claimed anywhere from being sexually harassed to being raped.

But hey, what's a little rape when US Sen Richard Burr is concerned about the contractor not getting paid on time.

Ya... Much better to vote for Elaine Marshall - Secretary of State of Corruption

[MattD]

Ya... Much better to vote for Elaine Marshall - Secretary of State of Corruption

Don - so when you have nothing left, you change the subject? I guess that's standard MO. Don't try and hijack this thread. If you want to talk about Elaiine Marshall, then start a new thread...

[dhyatt]

Ya... Much better to vote for Elaine Marshall - Secretary of State of Corruption

Don - so when you have nothing left, you change the subject? I guess that's standard MO. Don't try and hijack this thread. If you want to talk about Elaiine Marshall, then start a new thread...

Matt,
You titled the thread "Burr vs. ?". How is introducing the name of the "?" in any way changing the subject or hijacking the thread? Perhaps if you had named it "Bash Burr Here" you would have a point. You should have stated your intent for this thread more clearly ;-)

[Icorpse]

There are laws in the books against rape. Why would the woman need to sue the company she was working for? I am not a Burr supporter but I do not see the logic in supporting the bill. Was there cause for neglect?

We cannot blanket blame politicians based on sound bytes alone. Remember the whole "Obama voted for killing babies" screams that came out two years ago?

There was absolute cause of neglect.

I don't understand your point about laws being on the books against rape (especially when this happened in a foreign country).

There are laws on the books against murder, but people have been found "not guilty" in criminal court but had to pay $$ in civil court.

It's also through the civil courts that most companies are forced to change their policies. Sexual harassment is probably the best example. And taken to the extreme - a women being ganged raped, kidnapped and threatned as a company looks away - a civil action might be the only thing that will force a company to change it's policiy. Oh, and 38 women have come forward and have claimed anywhere from being sexually harassed to being raped.

But hey, what's a little rape when US Sen Richard Burr is concerned about the contractor not getting paid on time.

So, you are talking about not enforcing laws that already exist. If that was the case then I'd start by suing those that did not enforce the law. Please understand that I am not defending the company here but trying to understand the situation. If 38 women came forward with these complaints then the first thing I would want to know is why no criminal charges were brought?

[MattD]

So, you are talking about not enforcing laws that already exist. If that was the case then I'd start by suing those that did not enforce the law. Please understand that I am not defending the company here but trying to understand the situation. If 38 women came forward with these complaints then the first thing I would want to know is why no criminal charges were brought?

Please explain to me how a US Law can be enforced in a foreign country? The rape occurred outside of US criminal jurisdiction. So she should have gone to the Iraq police instead? Same goes for the other 38 women that came forward... they were in Iraq.

[MattD]

Ya... Much better to vote for Elaine Marshall - Secretary of State of Corruption

Don - so when you have nothing left, you change the subject? I guess that's standard MO. Don't try and hijack this thread. If you want to talk about Elaiine Marshall, then start a new thread...

Matt,
You titled the thread "Burr vs. ?". How is introducing the name of the "?" in any way changing the subject or hijacking the thread? Perhaps if you had named it "Bash Burr Here" you would have a point. You should have stated your intent for this thread more clearly ;-)

Don - See, you're getting your facts mixed up... again! You're making this to easy for me. Perhaps it's the heat? Maybe you're out of practice? Your "game" is a bit off. I did not title this thread, that was someone else. ;-)

[dhyatt]

Ya... Much better to vote for Elaine Marshall - Secretary of State of Corruption

Don - so when you have nothing left, you change the subject? I guess that's standard MO. Don't try and hijack this thread. If you want to talk about Elaiine Marshall, then start a new thread...

Matt,
You titled the thread "Burr vs. ?". How is introducing the name of the "?" in any way changing the subject or hijacking the thread? Perhaps if you had named it "Bash Burr Here" you would have a point. You should have stated your intent for this thread more clearly ;-)

Don - See, you're getting your facts mixed up... again! You're making this to easy for me. Perhaps it's the heat? Maybe you're out of practice? Your "game" is a bit off. I did not title this thread, that was someone else. ;-)

My bad. Kinda funny that it was started by "her" but the title is still the title and Marshall is still the "?". ...and I am out of practice :-/

Still, did you not know that KBR dropped their appeal in May and that Jones' case (a civil case) is in fact going to trial in Houston? (cite (http://www.stripes.com/news/kbr-drops-appeal-in-iraq-contractor-rape-case-1.100280)) The spin is that they were afraid the Franken amendment would pass so they decided to drop the appeal figuring they might lose with the Supremes.

So now the question becomes what of the other women? How many claims are legit and how many are seeing $$$ from KBR? ...and isn't jumping on the bandwagon the kind of thing mandatory arbitration was supposed to help prevent?

[MattD]

Still, did you not know that KBR dropped their appeal in May and that Jones' case (a civil case) is in fact going to trial in Houston? (cite (http://www.stripes.com/news/kbr-drops-appeal-in-iraq-contractor-rape-case-1.100280)) The spin is that they were afraid the Franken amendment would pass so they decided to drop the appeal figuring they might lose with the Supremes.

So now the question becomes what of the other women? How many claims are legit and how many are seeing $$$ from KBR? ...and isn't jumping on the bandwagon the kind of thing mandatory arbitration was supposed to help prevent?

Regarding KBR dropping their appeal and a civil case is going to happen... doesn't that make Burr's vote even more disgraceful? And KBR knows **** well that if the Franken amendment had passed, then the law could NOT be retro-active.

How many of the claims are legit from the other women? Who knows, but hopefully the legal process can sort it out. No, it's not jumping on the bandwagon if the women really did get raped/harrassed. And if it was your daughter who was gang raped and kidnapped, wouldn't you justice everyway you could?

[dhyatt]

[snip]

How many of the claims are legit from the other women? Who knows, but hopefully the legal process can sort it out. No, it's not jumping on the bandwagon if the women really did get raped/harrassed.



Yes, and for the record I didn't say the other women were jumping on the bandwagon, I merely raised the point that some of them could be now that there is precedent for a civil trial. It's much easier to win damages in a civil trial than in a criminal trial and as you already pointed out, crimes committed by Americans while overseas are difficult to prosecute in the U.S.

I know the answer but why do you keep trying to hit Burr over his vote on a poorly thought out amendment when the Obama Justice Dept could easily bring charges if they wanted to? Perhaps you're just following the lead of BlueNC which labeled Burr as "Pro-Rape" while continuing to give the Obama Justice Dept a pass.

Disclosure: IBM and many, many other businesses the employ sub-contractors came out against the Franken amendment because it was too broad and impossible to enforce. Just another knee jerk, feel good while accomplishing little, proposal that some - including Burr - had the fortitude to stand up against, knowing full well that attacks on their character would be fast and furious. I work for IBM.

[MattD]

[quote=MattD;58418][snip]

How many of the claims are legit from the other women? Who knows, but hopefully the legal process can sort it out. No, it's not jumping on the bandwagon if the women really did get raped/harrassed.




Yes, and for the record I didn't say the other women were jumping on the bandwagon, I merely raised the point that some of them could be now that there is precedent for a civil trial.

Of course you were implying that the women were jumping on the bandwagon. Left unchallenged, that statement would have remainded. It's a trick Fox News and right wing radio/tv shows use. They just "suggest" or ask you to "keep an open mind" or say "is it possible that...". By phrasing it that way, the can bring up an issue then if it backfires can claim they never really believed it but brought it up for discussion.

Everyone here on CP - I'm not suggesting that DonH is from Mars, but keep an open mind that it could be possible that he is... Notice, for the record I never said you are from Mars (maybe Venus...)



I know the answer but why do you keep trying to hit Burr over his vote on a poorly thought out amendment when the Obama Justice Dept could easily bring charges if they wanted to? Perhaps you're just following the lead of BlueNC which labeled Burr as "Pro-Rape" while continuing to give the Obama Justice Dept a pass.

And how can the Obama Justice Dept bring charges? Please explain so I can understand.

Burr has voted for many symbolic amendments. Burr has voted for many poorly worded amendments. So why take a stand on this one... Especially since there was an overwhelmingly vote for it? Why not stand up and say this is a poorly worded amendment... so here is one that is better written.

When it comes to a symbolic vote saying that we will not allow our women to be ganged raped, you know what, I'll take that vote and make sure the wording gets improved in conference committee.

Instead, Burr claims he voted against it because the Dept of Just was against the amendment. Okay... so will he now vote every way the DOJ wants him too? Of course not, he's using it for political cover.

And no, I'm not taking my cue from NCBlue. However, I do suggest you watching this 4:00 video by Jon Stewart. http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-october-14-2009/rape-nuts

[dhyatt]

[snip]

And how can the Obama Justice Dept bring charges? Please explain so I can understand.

[snip]

Breach of contract. Fraud. Conspiracy. Racketeering. There's any number of ways they could go after them. But then Obama would have a hard time awarding multi-million dollar no-bid contracts. All of which is just SOP as it was during the Bush Administration and the Clinton Administration yada yada. The difference is that Obama said he wasn't going to do this stuff and a majority of voters foolishly believed him.

You asked the question so there's no "thread hijack" here :-)

[MattD]

[snip]

And how can the Obama Justice Dept bring charges? Please explain so I can understand.

[snip]

Breach of contract. Fraud. Conspiracy. Racketeering. There's any number of ways they could go after them. But then Obama would have a hard time awarding multi-million dollar no-bid contracts. All of which is just SOP as it was during the Bush Administration and the Clinton Administration yada yada. The difference is that Obama said he wasn't going to do this stuff and a majority of voters foolishly believed him.

You asked the question so there's no "thread hijack" here :-)

So I'll steer it right back to:

Burr has voted for many symbolic amendments. Burr has voted for many poorly worded amendments. So why take a stand on this one... Especially since there was an overwhelmingly vote for it? Why not stand up and say this is a poorly worded amendment... so here is one that is better written.

When it comes to a symbolic vote saying that we will not allow our women to be ganged raped, you know what, I'll take that vote and make sure the wording gets improved in conference committee.

Instead, Burr claims he voted against it because the Dept of Just was against the amendment. Okay... so will he now vote every way the DOJ wants him too? Of course not, he's using it for political cover.

[dhyatt]

[snip]


Yes, and for the record I didn't say the other women were jumping on the bandwagon, I merely raised the point that some of them could be now that there is precedent for a civil trial.

Of course you were implying that the women were jumping on the bandwagon. Left unchallenged, that statement would have remained. It's a trick Fox News and right wing radio/tv shows use. They just "suggest" or ask you to "keep an open mind" or say "is it possible that...". By phrasing it that way, the can bring up an issue then if it backfires can claim they never really believed it but brought it up for discussion.

Everyone here on CP - I'm not suggesting that DonH is from Mars, but keep an open mind that it could be possible that he is... Notice, for the record I never said you are from Mars (maybe Venus...)

[snip]

...kinda like the left saying over and over that any GOP Senator who didn't vote for Franken's amendment is "Pro-Rape". I suppose they think that should be left unchallenged as well.

[dhyatt]

[snip]

Instead, Burr claims he voted against it because the Dept of Just was against the amendment. Okay... so will he now vote every way the DOJ wants him too? Of course not, he's using it for political cover.

Man that was a fast response!

Political cover for what exactly? And what about all the others that were actually thinking clearly and came out against the amendment? Are they all by BlueNC's indication and your implication "Pro-Rape"?

[dhyatt]

Matt,
How much do you figure we can get for this if we keep it going all day?

[MattD]

[snip]

Instead, Burr claims he voted against it because the Dept of Just was against the amendment. Okay... so will he now vote every way the DOJ wants him too? Of course not, he's using it for political cover.

Man that was a fast response!

Political cover for what exactly? And what about all the others that were actually thinking clearly and came out against the amendment? Are they all by BlueNC's indication and your implication "Pro-Rape"?

Well, there you go again. Putting words in my mouth (although, that would be a lot better than what the women were.... oh never mind).

[MattD]

Matt,
How much do you figure we can get for this if we keep it going all day?

It's been a slow day.... Feel free to bring up a different topic/thread!

[bobo]

The ultimate winner of the race will be Senator Richard Burr.

Ditto!