Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

One reason why true conservatives should vote for Badnarik, Nader, or even Kerry: Each of these will dust off the VETO PEN for use which Bush refuses to even pick up. Perhaps he thinks Clinton used it for some other purpose - would make a cute Bush supporter response. But, the fact is, every other candidate would be more conservative in reigning in Congressional spending and pork than Bush has been.

Another reason conservatives should vote for anyone but Bush, is the old conservative notion that peace is conducive to prosperity. War generates jobs to make the munitions, tanks, trucks and bombs which get blown up. Thus there is no investment return for the economy or compound secondary market boosts for the products of war. War destabilizes markets, draws money away from a host of other investments in the future economy like domestic infrastructure, roads, bridges, environmental clean ups, etc., and currently is adding to the national debt and the interest of 340 billion dollars a year on that debt for which little is gained or reinvested.

Such interest on the national debt comes directly out of current and future taxpayers (i.e. consumers) wallets and reduces consumption spending presently and in the future. Wars should be fought, won and ended. Nation building is a venture we have already seen in other countries to be a decades long proposition and export of our tax dollars.

Finally, true conservatives believe in smaller government. Yet, Bush has reigned over the growth of government agencies, an expansion of the federal workforce, and increases in federal spending at an alarming rate. It is fine to justify that homeland defense and beefing up the military were necessary, but, from a conservative point of view, where were the commensurate cuts in other areas of the government to at least contain the size of government instead of exanding it.

No, real conservatives who believe in true conservative values, will be hard pressed to include Bush in their option list for voting on November 2. If I were a true conservative, I would be voting for the Libertarian candidate, without any doubt.

Lance:

I agree with much of what you wrote, and despite living in New York State which makes my vote utterly meaningless, I will be voting for Bush.

However, your post is the second or third I have seen discussing VotePair.org, and I want to express my opinion on this.

While I can see how swapping your vote with someone from a “safe state” can help a candidate, I don’t think its the right thing to do. It subverts the process our country has for electing presidents. It does so in the same way that many New Yorkers are double registered so as to vote in Florida—its just wrong.

As David has said many times, the ends do not justify the means. And so it is with the VotePair.orgs of our world.

When the Dems replaced Torricelli in New Jersey, in violation of the existing NJ election laws, it was wrong. When Republicans did the same kind of thing, I think, in Minnesota, it was wrong.

I’m coming to the point where I think we need some type of national election policy, rather than allowing the states to create the variety of election laws we currently have. This would be for national elections only.

I’d prefer to have the states control this, as a states’ rights issue, but with the technology that we have now, it seems too many are simply trying to game the system.

Despite being in a ‘safe state’, I will not alter my vote in such a way. Its not right, and I will not do it. I’d hope others would follow in those footsteps.

In the meantime, how ‘bout that record deficit?

Wow, Lance. What a total mischaracterization of Kerry’s position on just about everything.

Economics
First of all, it’s interesting that you think fiscal responsibility is scary. But even so, you have a point about giving back surpluses. That’s why Gore had a responsible, middle-class tax cut plan back in 2000. The irony is, under Gore’s plan, the middle-class would have gotten a much bigger tax cut than under Bush AND we wouldn’t have our current crushing government debt.

Also, Kerry is proposing to cut 100,000 government jobs, and has pledged to cut back on his proposals (he already has) if they interfere with cutting the deficit in half.

We’re just going to have to agree to disagree about the need for Social Security, but you’re right that Bush doesn’t have the cojones to make the changes you want to see.

In fact, you are very clear-headed about Bush’s policies and achievements on fiscal policy - they’re dismal. Thank you.

Oh, except you left out the fact that Bush will be the first president in over 70 years to not create a single new job.

I don’t want to write a big long post (who has the time to read a 10 page dissertation on a blog), so maybe I’ll debunk the rest of your mischaracterization of Kerry centrist platform as series. :)

Actually, in just the last 13 months, over 1.9 MILLION new jobs have been created. It’s fair to say that since the President doesn’t really create jobs, in that way no President has ever created a single job.

It’s also fair to say that net job growth under Bush has been in the negative. During the first two years of his presidency, there were large job losses, while in the last two years, there have been large gains in jobs. To ignore these gains is simply either partisanship or ignorance.

It’s possible that the job growth won’t continue, but just as possible that it will. Have we turned the corner? For those who think we have, Bush is a good choice. For those who think we have not, Kerry is the better choice on this issue. But for those who don’t even seem to be aware of the job growth over the past year or so, well, perhaps there is hope left for them to learn.

Get a load of this, friends and neighbors:

Not only did the Bush administration let Osama Bin Laden escape, but they admitted it!

Of course, they didn’t need to catch him then, becaused supposedly Bush just wasn’t that concerned about him anymore. (you conservatives should just hold your nose and watch the video. You should hear what your CINC said with your own ears.)

President Bush hasn’t done much to help that but let us remember the fallacy of going the other way. Having a ginormous surplus hurts us as bad, if not worse. Why? You are needlessly taking money away from the American public.

Needlessly? How about the need to pay off the trillions of dollars in debt that we pay billions of dollars in interest on each year?

Budget surplus doesn’t mean the government has a bunch of money sitting around, it means we’re paying off a little bit of the debt. That’s a good thing - if we didn’t have to pay all that interest on the debt, we could cut taxes and not have it bite us in the ass.

Actually, in just the last 13 months, over 1.9 MILLION new jobs have been created.

I love that argument. “I lost a billion dollars gambling… but it’s okay, because I got 600 million of it back!”

This jobs charge against Bush is truly masterful Democratic spin. Jobs respond late to whatever happens in an economy. The economic downturn began a couple months before Bush took office. We entered a technical recession a couple of months after he took office, but before any of his policies were effective. After that we got hit on 9/11. following the Bush stimulus, productivity grew at fantastic rates. This is great because it creates wealth, but increased productivity means fewer jobs. Nevertheless, Job began to be created in 2002 and have continued since.

I don’t “blame Clinton” for the popping of the dot.com bubble, since I don’t credit presidents with that kind of power over the economy but it did happen when he was still president. And the recession happened when we were still enjoying his policies.

To take your gambling analogy, Bush got to the poker table after Clinton already made the bets and left a pair of deuces. When Bush got to play his own cards, things got a lot better.

Critical Strategy Message to ALL Democrats:

We all know that the outcome of the 2004 election is crucial to the future of this country, but Democrats have much more to gain than simply electing John Kerry to the White House. Through this election, Democrats can also establish a new level of respect within this nation by restoring the reputation of America’s important institution of freedom of the press.

The Republicans have long been complaining that the media is “liberal”, “biased”, and “slanted to the left.” Democrats know, however, that the media is big business and Republicans court and control big business. The proof of this is obvious. Newspapers around the country continue to report that Bush is leading Senator Kerry in the election polls. Democrats know that this is false — they know that, in reality, Kerry will be elected to the White House by a mandate of the people that really are informed on the issues. Despite all of the recent news, the media continues to report that Bush is ahead because the conservative leaders that support and control big business continue to direct them to report primarily polls that show Bush is in the lead.

Knowing that Kerry is obviously going to win, Democrats need to go further than simply electing Kerry by also demonstrating that they are not controlled by big business and the media that is actually slanted to the right. Democrats need to exhibit confidence and show that this election is by no means close.

To prove these points, Democrats must urge other Democrats to stay home on November 2nd. Do not play along with the myth that Kerry can only win if there is a significant voter turnout. By staying home you will show that, even with a less than predicted turnout, John Kerry can still win this election by a landslide. In so doing, Democrats can show that the media-reported polls have all been wrong, that Kerry has all along been the candidate of choice, and that big business in America does not have the power to control Democrats by forcing people to go and vote on November 2nd.

There is a second benefit to this strategy. The Republicans have hired lawyers to watch the election process and demand vote recounts in contested counties. Because the election will be so overwhelmingly in favor of John Kerry, your refusal to vote will save precious time and money in the recount processes by reducing the number of ballots to be counted and recounted again. By not burdening the system with an unnecessary ballot, you will actually help speed John Kerry on his way to the White House!

The Republicans are currently unaware of this new nationwide strategy to win back America’s precious institution of free press while at the same time quickly and effectively putting Democrat candidate John Kerry in the White House by a mandate confirmed through a surprisingly less than anticipated voter turnout. They will be unable to mount a defense to this strategy!

Yes, this is an unprecedented strategy, but Democrats have always shown pride and leadership in being the first to develop change based on original ideas and unique thinking. Bring back that pride! If you are a true Democrat, stay home on November 2nd. Urge your Democratic friends and Democratic family to stay home as well. By doing so, you will participate even more than by casting a ballot. You will be saying “I am so confident that John Kerry has the answers for this country, I will let the previously undecided voters create a mandate through their vote alone!” In so doing, you will demonstrate that you have reached that unique level of intellectual liberty that has been the backbone of the Democratic Party for decades.

Thank you for your time, commitment, confidence and, most importantly, your understanding that your vote helps even more, by not casting it.

Please pass this critical message on to other Democrats. Do not forward it to known Republican voters.

Don, I know some folks who would buy into that strategy. Unfortunately, they are all supporting Bush and voting. Just goes to show the wisdom of designing strategy for a targeted audience, instead of trying to create an audience for the strategy. Good chuckle, though.

It’s like Raaaain on your wedding day, a free riiiiiide when you’ve already paid!

Follow the link to find out what’s so goshdarn ironic. And who would have thought, “It figures”?

To continue:

Foreign Affairs
Lance, I don’t think you’re going to find anyone who disagrees that, “We should always have the sovereignty to make decisions that are best for the United States.” In fact, I think you inadvertantly quoted John Kerry there.

The “global test” scare you’re trying to perpetuate is just ridiculous. Kerry described it as, “where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you’re doing what you’re doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.”

I’m not sure even the Bush apologists want to argue that it’s ok to deceive the people of this country as to why we go to war, and that it’s ok to wage an illegitimate war. Do you?

And to say Kerry has blind support for the UN is to ignore his calls for UN reform. And I’m not sure how you get from Kerry’s statement, “I will never cede the authority of our country or our security to any other nation. I’ll never give a veto over American security to any other entity — not a nation, not a country, not an institution.” to what you said. The wacky “black helicopter/world government” position you attribute to Kerry is diametrically opposed to what the man actually says.

You do bring up a good point about being involved in peacekeeping actions all around the globe. That’s a fundamental difference between traditional isolationist Republicans and Democrats who believe our security rests on remaining engaged in the world. But with the importance of oil and global trade to the prosperity of this country, I don’t see either candidate bringing about a return to isolationism.

Again, thanks for being so even-handed and pointing out Bush’s stubbornness and his unpopularity among nations upon whom we depend to track and deter terrorists. Just think how much more effective they’d be if they really wanted to help the President of the United States.

Supreme Court Justices
Lance, I find it funny that you’re gettin’ on Kerry about a litmus test, when we all know Bush is talking about a litmus test when he says he’ll only appoint judges who will “uphold the Constitution” (nudge, nudge, wink, wink).

Economics

I am sick and tired of people complaining about the deficit. And your comment about a surplus being just as bad is not rational. The government should shoot for a 0% bottom line, but that can not be on a year to year basis. There are times when it is essential that the government run a deficit. In a recession, which started with the dot.com bust, the government needs to cut taxes to boost the economy and at the same time increase spending. This creates a defecit. When there is not a recession, the government can then increase taxes and reduce spending to create a surplus that would be used to pay off the debt incurred during the recession. The end result being no national debt. The problem is that the government has been running a defecit for too long. Unfortunately the solution will take many many years with likely higher taxes (although I would prefer drastic cuts to spending) to pay off the enourmous national debt.

Health care, education and other domestic policies
Lance, you know damned well how Kerry’s going to fund his program to make healthcare affordable. He’s going to roll back Bush’s disproportionately large tax cuts for people who make over $200k/yr.

And if you actually read Kerry’s plan, you can see that it’s almost entirely a series of measures to decrease healthcare costs through promoting competition, choice, and modernization of healthcare administration. I particularly like the part where he’s going to make doctor’s records public, so we can avoid the ones who have multiple malpractice judgements against them. That alone will go a long way towards decreasing the price they pay for malpractice insurance.

As for Canada, if Kerry’s plan to keep pharmaceutical companies from gaming IP laws and keeping prices artificially high is implemented, we won’t need to cross the border for them.

We’re going to have to agree to disagree about the afterschool programs. I know conservatives don’t want the federal government to be spending any money at all on schools, but the “open ‘till six” programs have been shown to reduce juvenile crime, and they’re a great help to families where both parents need to work just to pay the bills.

Again, thanks for being so even-handed and pointing out how Bush rammed a costly and ineffective prescription drug bill through Congress. The drug companies have already increased prices to offset any discounts.

What is conservative about Bush’s overt pandering to the Christian Right and their extremist beliefs? I haven’t seen this issue addressed yet (though I’m new on this blog-forgive me if the subject’s been beaten to death). The presence of this hard-right Christian ideology and their influence on national and international policy should startle any of us who don’t want the Constitution or national policies being written or dictated by such a narrow view. It is perhaps this issue above all others that alarms me the most about both Bush and his cadre of advisors/strategists. The Christian Right has proven to be single minded in its determination to influence the way our secular democracy operates and I don’t believe it bodes well for us as an evolving nation.