Third Party & Independents: Archives

From 1923 to the present, the stock market has returned 19.0% under Democratic presidents and 1.9% under Republican presidents.

We Democrats are trying to reduce or slow the federal deficit, instead of increasing it by record levels.

etc.

Today, the roll out of Medicare Prescription Card Plan was a wake up call to Seniors on how skewed towards the drug companies benefit, Bush’s bill really was. From the day this bill was signed, Nancy Celosi and Hill Democrats promised to go about fixing the chicanery of greed imbeded. This would be greatly aided by Kerry in the White House.

Lead by Sen. Chuck Shummer, we have so far succeeded in blocking the most radical and extreme Conservative jurists nominated by Bush. Limited government intrusion clearly does not pertain to one’s bedroom or body, as they also seek not to revise the Constitution, but merely overhaul it.

The negative image and hatred for Bin Laden was at its peak, even in the Arab world, just after 9/11. However, the Bush Doctrine of arrogance, blindness and stupidity has succeeded in replacing our nation in reviled position.

Only, by electing a President that signals to the entire world that we intend to switch back to the positive era of engagement and respect of the Clinton foreign policy mode, will we emerge from this isolation by hate.

Oh come on now guys-

“We Democrats are trying to reduce or slow the federal deficit”

are you kidding me? the REPUBLICANS proposed the balanced budget amendment and the democrats killed it. The deficits would have been through the ROOF if Clinton had gotten his way with his socialized medicine plan that got the dems thrown out of office. Now before you try to straw-man me- yes, George W. Bush is terrible on the deficit. But to pretend that someone who is against deficits should actually vote for democrats for that reason is funny funny funny funny (not to say they should vote for Bush, cause we all know his track record)

“roll out of Medicare Prescription Card Plan was a wake up call to Seniors on how skewed towards the drug companies benefit, Bush’s bill really was.”

The AARP is all about the drug companies right? Wait- why did the support the bill? for the basica reason that this is a give away to seniors-because seniors vote a lot. if gore was president and the democrats had pushed through this same EXACT bill- it would be praised by the same partisans who are attacking it now. nothing like campaign season all year long… (by the way, i opposed this bill, but because i saw it for waht it actually was- a give away to seniors. thats why the AARP supported it, period).

“Lead by Sen. Chuck Shummer, we have so far succeeded in blocking the most radical and extreme Conservative jurists nominated by Bush.”

Like Miguel Estrada- who had a perfect bar rating?! Oh wait, its because the dems didnt want a guy who they knew was on the fast track tot he supreme court to get into the position. So they blocked him and pretended he was some right-wing radical cause no one actually bothers to read the facts. he has a PERFECT bar rating- which means his decisions are so in the main stream that they are never overturned (thats what the bar rating is about).. of course that didnt bother Shumer none- cause he is a partisan attack dog.

As for Rev- there is no one for us to vote for. Both parties are out for one thing and one thing only- to get reelected. So bush gives out goodies to the old people and amnesty to elligal immigrants cause he wants the hispanic vote. democrats cry about the decificit when they opposed the balanced budget amendment just a couple of years ago and always want to increase spending.. for the lesser of two evils, i guess. thats what i am doing- whoever that will be.

are you kidding me? the REPUBLICANS proposed the balanced budget amendment and the democrats killed it

The Democrats opposed it because it made tax raises subject to a 3/5 vote, making it more difficult to balance the budget without cutting, say, Social Security.

Let’s note that, whatever the reason, the Clinton Administration was the first in a long time to to show a surplus, and that surplus promptly disappeared - and the deficit rose to all time high levels - when Bush took the helm. Before you claim that the Republican Congress was responsible for the surpluses, be prepared to answer what they changed that suddenly made our surplus turn into a massive increase in federal spending before 9/11.

Like Miguel Estrada- who had a perfect bar rating?!

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=7795

If you want to talk about partisan attack dogs, look up what happened to the Clinton era nominees.

thats a nice bipartisan website you sent us to :) He had a perfect bar rating as a JUDGE. he is being appointed to another judgeship, not to political radio show. I love this website that it condemns him for (1) his personal views; (2) for those who he defended in private practice- never says ANYTHING about his judging record, which is a matter of public record and is rated by the american bar association as perfect. perfect- he couldnt have done better than that.

Let me be honest- i think the democrats tactics about judges is one of the most personally offensive things to me- because I want to be a judge. If whether you can be a judge or not is based upon what democrats think is disturbing based on personal views you ever voiced, the only way a person could ever be a conservative judge is by being (1) so mainstream that its not even funny- lets have all justice o’connors!!!; (2) never saying anything about anything, lest his views be labeled “out of the mainstream”. What the democrats have started here is a litmus test based on personal views- not judicial actions- which is scary to the indepedence of our judiciary. they have done this all while being a minority in the senate, which is even scarier.

Say what you will about the republicans during the clinton years- but they approved Ruth Badder Ginsberg- one of the most liberal justices ever to be put on the court because they realized that her JUDGING record was impressive- regardless of her actions in her sphere as an activist. If you think the democrats would ever give someone like estrada that same respect, well i got a bridge to sell you. Estrada was targeted for one reason and one reason only- you can read this article from the Washington Times and figure it out for yourself (http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=7795).

I have strong views on many issues- and I express them. If the tenor of politics of appointing judges is the way it is now, I will never be able to be a judge. But not because I wouldnt make a good one, and not becaue Estrada is not a good one already, but because judge appointments have become about personal opinion litmus tests. Shame on people Shummer, and you should be too smart to buy their propoganda.

“Let’s note that, whatever the reason, the Clinton Administration was the first in a long time to to show a surplus, and that surplus promptly disappeared”

for whatever reason! i will tell you the reason- we had a republican congress that was stopping his spending measures- they kept blockign them up and the left was attacking these people! Now we have a republican congress that Bush and his cronies pushing them around, and only 1/3 of them have showed any backbone in stop them. It has been a good test to see who are really principled and who are just party hacks…

also, make no mistake about it- the entire issue here is abortion. The democrats are terrifying that someone like estrada will become the great judge on the circuit level that he is already on a lower court, and they will not be able to politically oppose him because of that and because of his race (in that link i put up, they show memos from inside of democrat senator’s offices basically saying he needs to be opposed because he is a “dangerous latino”- SHOCKED that the democrats would be so racists!)

So they block him off- because they fear that, should be become a circuit judge, he might some day become a supreme court judge and take away the liberal’s beloved but based nowhere in the constitution “right” to abortion. The democrats have been pushing the pro-abortion agenda threw the judiciary and they are afraid to let it go to the American people- so they need to fight tooth and nail and use these sickening personal attacks on peopel like Estrada- trying to destroy their careers in the process.

and what is this all in defense of? Roe v. Wade. A decision that most legal academics, even liberal ones, admit as faulty as a matter of constitutional interpretation and reasoning. There is no constitutional guidance that allows judges to decide when an unborn child becomes a human being-nothing, zip, zero, nada. These fights over judges are about whether judges can continue to impose this arbitrary opinion on the american people- and that is why they are fighting tooth and nail against these so-called radical judges. shame on them.

We fight to preserve abortion because we’d prefer people like these not have the ability to decide the matter… but abortion is a topic for another thread.

Let me be honest- i think the democrats tactics about judges is one of the most personally offensive things to me- because I want to be a judge. If whether you can be a judge or not is based upon what democrats think is disturbing based on personal views you ever voiced, the only way a person could ever be a conservative judge is by being (1) so mainstream that its not even funny- lets have all justice o’connors!!!; (2) never saying anything about anything, lest his views be labeled “out of the mainstream”. What the democrats have started here is a litmus test based on personal views- not judicial actions- which is scary to the indepedence of our judiciary. they have done this all while being a minority in the senate, which is even scarier.

You accuse people of partisanship, yet you have your own partisan blinders. Both sides are equally as stubborn about their pet issues and Supreme Court nominees. To single out the Democrats and ignore the Republicans equally partisan actions hardly helps the credibility of your argument.

We Democrats are motivated to oppose judges that will strike down what we consider important rights. We acknowledge that. Why shouldn’t we oppose a judge who holds positions that we feel are unconstitutional, dangerous to women, etc.? And are you honestly claiming that the Republicans would not show similar opposition to a judge who held contrary views to them?

Say what you will about the republicans during the clinton years- but they approved Ruth Badder Ginsberg- one of the most liberal justices ever to be put on the court because they realized that her JUDGING record was impressive- regardless of her actions in her sphere as an activist. If you think the democrats would ever give someone like estrada that same respect, well i got a bridge to sell you. Estrada was targeted for one reason and one reason only- you can read this article from the Washington Times and figure it out for yourself (http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=7795).

Need I point out that Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia also managed to make it through the nomination process?

You seem to have forogtten your Washington Times link…

oops.. i thought I pasted the link, but I just pasted the link to your site. SORRY, here it is- http://washingtontimes.com/national/20031115-121140-2918r.htm

The democrats during the 1980s completely destroyed Robert Bork’s career- despite him being an amazing judge. And while i COMPLETELY disagree with his judging philosophy, what the democrats did to him was shameful. That is what started this whole mess. We need a supreme court and ALL of our courts filled with brilliant peopel who will fight out ideas- what the democrats current position will get is a bench of 9 justice o’connors, while our best legal minds will be teaching law school and writing books.

The dems arent opposing the republicans they think are the most conservative- dont buy their talking points on partisan websites liek that one. they are opposing the ones they think are the most intelligent and difficult to cabin.

Lets me honest, the democrats did everything they could to tear down Thomas, and almost all of them voted against him. Now they are in the minority and they are using every trick in the book to keep people like Estrada away from the circuit courts because they fear they will not be able to oppose them and not suffer the backlash of hte public once their true records as judges become known.

You can say i have partisan blinders on, but if you read this post, I have taken several shots at Bush- i am seriously considering NOT voting for Bush in 2004, and the issue of judicial appointments is probably the only reason I would vote for him at this point.

anyway, my point isnt partisan. I would much rather have a justice brandies and a justice scalia than two justice o’connors. the way we are going now, mediocrity from our judiciary is all we are going to get. You think the republicans will now allow the next brilliant liberal jurist to through without a filibuster- heck no! the battle is on, and the victim is our judicial system. let mediocrity ring!

Misha,

First of all, those who link to one of most partisan of websites (Washington Times) should not throw url’s!

Second, does the fact that Bush had a better percentage of judges confirmed (92%) than Clinton, render your outrage somewhat moot?

This giveaway to Seniors, so called, locks them in with one drug company and its drug price, while the companies can change prices when they want.

Estrada is as extreme as Robert Bork and refused to elaborate on his views, especially abortion. Why? Because, due to the radical nature of those views, he would be publicly exposed as too extreme for a more moderate thinking country.

Bert,

What was relavent about estrada (and bork) was their record as a judge. Their records were impecable, so all you are left with is their personal opinions. chew on this thought- Under you standard, no person who is against the death penalty in their person views would ever become a justice, because their views are more out of the mainstream than someone who is pro life! About half of americans consider abortion murder, while sometime like 60% support the death penalty. If being against abortion is so out of the mainstream that you cant be a judge, then being against the death penalty certainly is! who, exactly, would that leave to be a judge? oh right, people who are smart enough to never let anyone konw their opinion on anything.

All bork believed was that the supreme court should not be deciding the issue of abortion- something that about half of americans believe. All of these judges, oh so extreme on abortion, would allow the American people to decide this issue. thats what happens in a democracy- thats what the democrats are fighting to death to stop from happening. How extreme!

As for Estrada not answering questions- he sent a letter to the judiciary committee saying he would answer any and all questions and then waited for almost a year with no reply. It is a bunch of partisan lies, and its sad that those tactics actually convince people…

As for the medicare bill- continue on with your talkign points, but remember that the AARP, THE pro-senior organization thougth this plan was good for seniors. good for them precisely in the way that anything is good for a special interest group- its just a huge redistribution of wealth from one group of people (The taxpayers) to another (seniors).

as for the 92% number- its a REPUBLICAN senate. The only time a candidate is not confirmed is when the democrats, being in the minority, resort to fillibuster- a tactic that has never been used in our nations history to stop a vote from coming up. So lets lay this out, so we can see the humor in it:

the democrats, elected by a minority of the people, are using tactics to keep the majority of the people from deciding who should be judges.

Their fear is that should the majority be allowed to choose judges they want, then Roe v. Wade would be overturned, and… oh the horror.. the people would get to decide on the issue of abortion!

thats pretty scary- especially since there is nothing in the constitution saying that the majority cant declare that unborn children are human beings. Tyrrany of the minority at its worse- amazing undemocratic. But, hey you guys like abortion, so who cares about principles of constitutionalism or democracy? only results matter.

I meant a tactic that has never been used to stop a vote for a judicial nomination from coming to the floor. sorry.

Thankfully, our system is designed so the just-barely minority doesn’t get trodden on by the just-barely majority.

The American Bar Association (ABA) has given Miguel Estrada a unanimous “Well Qualified” rating, the highest possible rating. The ABA bases its ratings on “integrity, professional competence and judicial temperament.” Democrats have called the ABA rating the “gold standard.” (Jonathan Ringel, “ABA Approves More Bush Nominees,” Legal Times, July 16, 2001; Amy Goldstein, “Bush Set To Curb ABA’s Role In Court Appointments,” The Washington Post, March 18, 2001)
This is from a partisan website- http://www.crnc.org/resources/issues_detail.cfm?issuesID=11 so take it with a grain of salt, but the actual bar rating is not disputed not is it disputed that he recieved this rating.

Misha, as wonderful as the Bar Association’s high rating is, it should not be the be-all-and-end-all of the nominating process.

He can be a very technically competent judge with shitty ideology, after all.

All of these judges, oh so extreme on abortion, would allow the American people to decide this issue.

Would you cite the partial-birth abortion ban as an example?

The devil is in the details, Misha. Many Americans are moving towards curtailing some aspects of abortion on demand, however what enrages most are the likes of Estrada who want to ban the procedure even in cases of rape, incest and threat to the mothers life. Even with an impeccable record, are these the kind of jurists you want on the bench?

You know as well as I do, that the Death Penalty has, and never will, rise to the level of the abortion debate. And, neither has it, or will it, become a litmus test for nominees. Same goes for Affirmative Action. This is likening Gay Marriage to ultimate acceptance of polygamy.

The Estrada letter is really a weak and frivilous basis for a defense. Especially, in light of the importance of his confirmation. The US Mail service was operating normally right up to the day his nomination failed.

I assume you’ll deny the fact that the head of the AARP was in the pocket of the Bush Administration, and is an open supporter of his re-election. Although, you implied you will disrespectfully ignore my ‘talking points’, just one more. If this Medicare plan is a giveaway to Seniors, then we should expect absolutely no grips or complaints, right?

Bert-

(1) I challengeyou to point to any evidence what so ever to back up your claim that Estrada believes that abortion should not be allowed in cases of rape or life of the mother. If you cannot, you shouldnt slander him in this way. In fact, I have never met any person who thinks abortion should be banned for rape or life of the mother and I have met many prolife people.

(2) liberal judges continue to strike down partial birth abortion laws- isnt that a problem?

(3) even if Estrada is personally against abortion (which he is), all he has ever said is he thinks roe v. wade should be overturned. which means as a judge he would not stop one single abortion that a legislature did not stop. this is a point pro-aborts seem to miss. overturning roe v. wade would not in itself stop any abortions.

(4) as for the medicare plan- the reason i get so frustrated is that it seems impossible for Bush to do anything the liberals will give him credit for. from this conservative libertarians point of you, he has given the liberals exactly the sort of medicare plan they were calling for in the late 90s, and they still trash him on it. of course the plan has many problems- you and I would probably disagree completely on what those problems are :)

i apologize for the talking points remark

Misha, you keep talking about the Medicare prescription plan. The AARP only endorsed it (and lost tens of thousands of members by doing so) in the hope that it could be fixed later. They just wanted to finally get one on the books.

It’s a bad plan. Even the AARP says, “The bill isn’t perfect, but millions of older Americans cannot afford to wait for perfect,” Hopefully, with Kerry in the White House, it will be fixed.

The Republican plan is nothing like plans the liberals have previously proposed. If it were, it would have passed long ago, right? But look it up if it’s really an issue on which you’ll be making your decision in November.

The Clinton administration was all about fiscal discipline. When Clinton’s Treasury Secretary, Robert Rubin, told him he didn’t actually have to balance the budget to create confidence in the economy and spur growth, Clinton remarked there was no way anyone would take his social issues seriously if he couldn’t balance the budget. So that was the target, and that’s what they did. Clinton used his veto power to enforce it and pissed off some Democrats, as well as most of the Republicans in Congress. He even allowed the government to shut down in 94 and 95 until Gingrich agreed to present a budget that wasn’t the kind of “borrow and spend” budget that GW has been rubber stamping for the last four years.

Fiscal responsibility paired with a liberal social agenda is now the policy of the Democratic Party. It works. They proved it. Kerry was a strong supporter of Clinton’s fiscal policy. He says he’ll seek Rubin, or someone like him, for his Treasury Secretary. Hell, Kerry even made a politically damaging vote against the Iraq funding bill, just because there was no plan on how it was to be funded.

If this issue is important to you, I suggest reading Rubin’s book, “In an Uncertain World”. You should also note that GWs first Treasury Secretary, Paul O’Neill, had the same strategy of fiscal responsibility as Rubin. Ron Suskind’s book, “The Price of Loyalty” is a good account of how political ideology overrides fiscal responsibility in the Bush administration.

And Misha, how do you feel about the Bush administration’s attempts to stack the judicial deck using recess appointments? It looks to me like the Republicans are doing the same thing you’re so riled up at the Democrats for. ie - install a majority of like-minded judges.

Lee-

(1) I think Bush’s fiscal policy sucks- I have said so many times, including on this thread. As for Clinton’s fiscal policy- I would believe those claims a lot more if it wasnt for his attempt to socialize medicine, without any way to pay for it but increasing the debt. it seemed like he became a fiscal conservative by need- cause the republican congress made him. Although there could be something to be said for having a congess controlled by a different party from the president to keep spending in check…

(2) I applaud Bush for his recess appointments. I think the democrats have subverted the proper process of appointing judges (by not allowing qualified candidates to even come to a VOTE in a DEMOCRACY). Unlike fillibustering judges, recess appointments have a strong history in America- earl warren, for example, was a recess appointment. No judge has ever been fillibustered on the Senate floor before the Dems decided to do it… Like I said- Bush’s actions about judges are one of the few things I still like about him.

(3) I will not be deciding who i vote for based on the medicare plan except that it may force me to waste my vote on a libertarian (although I dont like the libertarian that is currently running, cause i dont think he is very bright). Both major parties have show they are in the pocket of the senior special interest groups, and are willing to throw more and more money into the black hole that is medicare.

“No judge has ever been fillibustered on the Senate floor before the Dems decided to do it”

Um, that’s just plain not true. The first such instance happened all the way back in 1968, done by Republicans. They also tried to do it to Richard Paez for four years under Clinton, an action that Frist supported. They succeeded in doing it to Rosemary Barkett, H. Lee Sarokin, and Brian Stewart under Clinton. So obviously the Dems are not the first to have done this. Not to mention several nominees who withdrew under threat of filibuster.

Interestingly enough, though not surprising at all, this thread almost immediately devolved into name calling, finger pointing, and blamestorming. Exactly what I said I wasn’t interested in. So far neither Dem nor Rep has presented me with any real argument for voting for their candidate.

Misha,

In the spirit of returning to rev_matt’s initial premise, I’ll end my side of this debate here.

I could go trolling Google for evidence, but there are a number of radical pro-life groups opposing abortion in any situation.

The assumption that Estrada harbors such radical views stems from readings of his body of decisions. It is within the rights of Senators to ask him where he stands, in specifics, when it comes to Rove v. Wade.

You say he opposes it, but will not detail which aspects he believes should be change. I could borrow a shrill tactic from the Right, and insist he wants to overturn the whole decision, period. But, thats not what we are made of, on the Left.

Your apology is accepted.

rev_matt,

Before I became entangled in a verbal fracas with Misha (she started, btw!), I would like to refer you to my comments, the 2nd post in this thread.

Could you tell me how the 3 points I made, failed to persuade you?

i am a guy- russian is misha for mike :) As for roe v. wade, i am sure he opposes the aspects of it that come from the supreme court’s imagination- that is, the entire thing. Roe v. Wade says the states cannot outlaw abortions- that abortion is somehow protected by the constitution. Most seriously constitutional scholars understand that this is nothing more than hand-waiving by the supreme court, even if they like the result.

Anyway, rev, I wasnt trying to give you a reason to vote republican (in fact, as far as I can tell, no one on this thread was). All i was pointing out was that the “reasons” to vote for democrats were hollow- i think i succeeded, but you can judge for yourself.

in fact, I told you that you had no reason to really; I wrote:
“there is no one for us to vote for. Both parties are out for one thing and one thing only- to get reelected.”

I used to be a partisan for the republicans during the 1990s, until I realized that they were very much similar to the democrats, its just they had different special interests they werecatering to, and my agreement with them would only last as long as their polls are telling them to. There are honorable people in both parties, but those arent the ones in control. Those running for president are John Kerry and George W. Bush- the only good reason to vote for one is so the other wont be president.

Bert- I do think that you should take back what you said about Estrada if you cannot point to any thing he has ever said that makes any reasonable person think he would oppose abortion in the case of rape and life of the mother. I am sure some day when I want to become a judge people will be saying similar things about me, with no evidence whatsoever- and I hope people will defend me then like I am defending Estrada now.

Misha,

So far as I know, speculation, assumptions and rendering an opinion from one’s writing is not a sin, crime or blasphemous.

There are a number of the very same notions you have in your mind, about me. Right or wrong, never would I demand you retract them.

I guess we’ve arrived at the crux of our disagreement, seeing you side stepped my pointed questions.

I believe it is well within the right of Senators to ask, and be answered clearly, which aspects of Rove v. Wade does Estrada oppose? The answer to these important questions rise to the level of judicial decisions that will span many future generations.

If Mr. Estrada’s views on abortion are rooted in precedent and interpretation of our laws and Constitution, why is he reluctant to express them openly? What is he hiding?

This only leads me to think his views are too extreme and would be roundly rejected by not only our leaders, but also his fellow citizens.

Sorry rev_matt,

Here’s a couple Kerry issues I’m stoked about. Kerry’s energy plan gets the US completely off foreign oil. I wrote up a summary here a while ago.

I also really like Kerry’s health care plan: If you make health care affordable for everyone, you relieve businesses of the overhead of providing it to employees. I also outlined that plan here.

Is there an issue that you’re particularly interested in?

i dont see what questions i am “dodging”= i think thats probably just a rhetorical tool. As for him not answering questions- he has agreed to answer any and all questions about how he would act as a JUDGE. His personal opinion of Roe is not relavent to his role as a judge, what is relavent is “is he willing to apply roe while it is good precedent”. When you are asking that question, you look to his judicial record- and he has one that garnered the bar associations highest possible rating.

You need to understand the structure of our court system- the circuit courts are subordinate to the supreme court, so they are bound by its precedents, and estrada fully showed he is willing to follow precedent.

The reasons they were asking him these questions had nothing to do with their beleif that he wouldnt be fit to be a circuit court judge, it was just for political hay. They wanted to shoot him down because, as their internal memos so clearly stated (see the washington post article), he is a brilliant, young, hispanic that they fear they will not be able to block from going onto the supreme court if he does an amazing job as a circuit cuort judge, which he almost certainly would. It is a cynical, sad manuver that the dems have attempted to justify by trying to destroy his character with unsupported allegations (much like the ones you were throwing out). And you have bought into it, without exploring his judging record on your own. anyway, i agree, we are going in circles now, so I will leave it at this.

I’m interested in lots and lots of issues, I was curious if people who strongly supported one side or another would present fact based arguments for their candidate without trashing the other candidate. While there have been some good facts cited from both sides, the opponent bashing just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

rev_matt,

One man’s ‘trashing’ is another man’s ‘strong disagreement’. I’d still be interested in at least one example, of how my 3 stated points failed your litmus test of swaying you Kerry’s way.

Your irritation with my argument seems a bit disengenious, as I’m sure you are exposed to the contentious nature of most important issues facing this country.

I did not personally denegrate the President. However, the strong language I used to describe his policies reflect the severe damage they have done domestically and abroad.

When Republicans can longer refute direct criticism of Bush’s actions, they resort to calling his detractors ‘Bush Bashers’.

There is no place for that at WatchBlog.

I’m interested in lots and lots of issues

Me too. In addition to Kerry’s energy policy and health care plans I mentioned earlier, I like his foreign policy plans.

Kerry and I believe that US disengagement from international treaties over the last four years has left us without strong levers to influence relations with other countries in ways that benefit us.

China is rapidly filling the void in Asia and India, and the EU is filling the void in Eastern Europe, Russia, and Africa. US interests abroad are being sidelined because we don’t have a dog in the fight.

President Bush’s one-dimensional, counterterrorism-centric foreign policy is hurting this country economically and diplomatically and, I think, is even detrimental to our long-term security.

I keep coming back to this article hoping I would see a Republican tell us how George Bush is going to make this country better…