Third Party & Independents: Archives

Interesting post, Misha. You give third-party voters a good name.

Bush is such an unusual Republican. A moderate on social issues (moderation being defined as falling where most voters are—as opposed to where the hard left and the major media does), Bush is someone who believes in government’s ability to solve domestic problems and pushes legislation accordingly. I’m with you in doubting many of his specifics and prefering smaller goverment in general. It will be interesting to see what Bush does in his second term, when making sure he remains at the helm to see through the war on terror doesn’t require him to take measures to ensure political survival domesticaly.

But Misha - how can you “think he is a better choice than John Kerry”
and then “not garner my vote this time around”?

Combat- because while there are only two guys who have a serious chance to win this election, there are other people on the ballot. Micheal Badnarik, libertarian candidate for president, is my guy this time around. he wont win, but hey, at least I will be proud of who i vote for.

Misha, follow me for a moment with a critical analysis of your quote above:

Others understand the historic importance of our work. The terrorists know. They know that a vibrant, successful democracy at the heart of the Middle East will discredit their radical ideology of hate. They know that men and women with hope, and purpose, and dignity do not strap bombs on their bodies and kill the innocent.

If the terrorists know that a vibrant, successful democracy at the heart of the Middle East is what American intends for Iraq and Afghanistan, do not the rest of the patriarchal Islamic states also know what America intends for their governments? Is it obvious to Muslims in the Middle East and throughout the world for that matter, that Saudi Arabia, Yemen, UAE and the dozens of other Islamic states are safe from America’s military expansion and occupation?

I don’t care what the diplomats think. What do the peoples of Islamic states believe. For they are the potential recruits for al-Queda. Is there anything at all that President Bush could say that would allay the fears of these 100’s of millions of people in the world?

Does the President not have to be replaced before we can even get the foot in the door in terms of convincing Muslims in non-terrorist states that they are not on our hit last after Iraq? It may be obvious to Americans that that is the case, but, how do we sell it to international Muslims and dry up the well of fresh al-Queda recruits and stem the growth of our enemy’s numbers?

What is Badnarik’s stance on Iraq and invading sovereign states to get at our terrorist enemies? Does he distinguish between our terrorist enemies and enemies of other nations who use terrorist tactics like the Chechnyans and the Russian army?

Conservative Rhetoric:

The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’ -Ronald Reagan

Compassionate Conservative Rhetoric:

Government must take the side of working families. -George W. Bush

> He laid out an ambitious and praiseworthy
> foreign policy based on principles of
> democracy and freedom.

He certainly did. It was like a rewrite of a Reagan speech, with some vague concept of terrorism and tyrrany playing the role of the Soviet “Evil Empire”. But do you really buy it, Misha?

Others understand the historic importance of our work. The terrorists know. They know that a vibrant, successful democracy at the heart of the Middle East will discredit their radical ideology of hate. They know that men and women with hope, and purpose, and dignity do not strap bombs on their bodies and kill the innocent.

Misha, I also found this sentiment of Bush’s speech to be true and noble, and even thought-provoking. His speech was thoroughly laced with this concept: the “march of freedom” idea that strongly suggests that Bush advocates a new policy of using the tool of proactive invasion to spread democracy, and that such a tool is not only possible, but that it is morally imperative that we use it.

But do you really think, however, that Bush is capable of making it work? I don’t. As noble as it sounds, this whole idea of spreading democracy is at best an afterthought, a band-aid to cover up the non-existent WMDs in Iraq, and at worst it’s just an empty platitude (or, even worst than that, it could be a blueprint for an ongoing series of invasions, the foundation for a new American empire).

The appointment of former Baathist hitman Ilya Allawi to the Iraq’s prime minister position doesn’t bode well for democracy in Iraq, either.

I’ll admit that Bush’s optimism certainly made me second-guess my pessimism about Iraq. I had to ask myself “why am I so skeptical about Iraq’s future?” I certainly don’t think that Iraqis are genetically incapable of being democratic. It comes down to this: I just don’t believe that Bush is capable of or even really intends to help Iraq become a “vibrant, successful democracy” at all.

In short, Iraq ain’t Germany or Japan, and George W. Bush ain’t no George C. Marshall.

> Bush is a “less tax and more spend” politician.

Word. On top of that, he’s a panderer of the cheapest sort: Does anyone actually believe that he has any chance in hell of achieveing even one item from his litany of proposed expensive programs? Does anyone actually think that he even intends to seriously try to pass any of them? Does anyone think that, after watching his glassy-eyed praise for “health care savings sccounts”, that he even understands what such things are?

-Cf

David-

1. Those are some interesting questions about Bush’s intentions and the knowledge of the Islamic world. From reading about this and watching Control Room (highly highly recommended), I have to admit that I dont think they believe Bush’s claims, even though I do. I think one especial difficulty for us in convincing them this is true is their view of us and Isreal in the same light and as part of the same ball of wax. I have been struck at how Americans view our struggle with this current terrorist threat has completely seperate from anything to do with Isreal, while many in the muslim world see them as so very much linked. The problem is that we must be able to better bridge that gap, but I do not konw exactly how it could work.

I do think, however, if the democracies rise up in the middle east, even if they dont give us credit for it, it will lead to less terrorism. I think that is our best hope- people who are living better, providing for a better life for their children and believe in their future are less likely to turn to suicide bombing. Which is why success in Iraq is so incredibly vital.

2. Badnarik is actually anti-Iraq war and has a very isolationists view of foreign policy that I do not agree with. I analyzed his foreign policy near the end of this article a couple of months ago- http://www.watchblog.com/thirdparty/archives/001248.html.

So for me this election is a choice between someone whose domestic policies I agree with (Badnarik) and one whose foreign policies I agree with (Bush). For whatever reason, I care about domestic policies more at this point PLUS I feel misled by Bush. So I am gonna vote for Badnarik, while knowing he is hardly my ideal candidate.

CF- I actually do buy Bush’s rhetoric. I can see no other serious reason for him risking high popularity and almost assured re-election by taking on the risky venture of the Iraq war unless he believe this very deeply. Notice how he has taken no such risks on the domestic agenda front. as for whether he can make it work- MAYBE, with some fortune and hard work of the iraqi people. I think his plan is our only chance to make serious headway though, and I will continue to support it until someone offers a better altertive.

I have to say I am very pleased at the responses I am getting to this post.

> I can see no other serious reason for him
> risking high popularity and almost assured
> re-election by taking on the risky venture
> of the Iraq war unless he believe this
> very deeply.

Without 9/11, Bush would lose in a landslide. Without the Iraq war (and even with 9/11, I think), his chances of re-election would still be pretty shaky. It is precisely his “decisiveness” about invading Iraq that makes him so attractive to so many voters (even when such decisiveness flies in the face of both common sense and deep wisdom). The Iraq war didn’t seem like much of a risk at all to the Bush Administration, IMHO. I believe that they really thought that it would be both easy to win, quick to hand over, and popular with the American people. They didn’t dream that the Iraqi people wouldn’t just love American occupation, they didn’t even imagine the possibility that the Iraqi National Congress’s support base in Iraq might have been smaller than they said it was (or a total illusion, as it turned out to be), and they certainly didn’t dream that anyone would ever find out just how flimsy their WMD evidence actually was. I really don’t think invading Iraq was perceived by Bush himself as very risky at all.

-Cf

Misha—

How is he a better choice then John Kerry? I have to agree that unless Kerry does something to separate himself from Bush’s shadow he will lose this election. People (at least this person) is looking for something from Kerry that will define his vision for the nation, but as yet he is only responding to what Bush says or does, and not being proactive. All-n-all, Kerry is starting to disappoint, but I cannot vote for Bush…

And oh yes Bush is going to pay for the Medicare benefits by hiking the premium 17% next year, the highest rate hike in the history of the program…

And oh yes Bush is going to pay for the Medicare benefits by hiking the premium 17% next year, the highest rate hike in the history of the program…

Not to get too nit-picky here, but that increase is mandated by law, not by Bush. The amount is adjusted every year and it’s tied to the actual cost of the program. That 17% figure sounds like a massive increase but it’s actually $11.60 per recipient per month, raising the premium to $78.20 — not cheap, but as health insurance for seniors, it’s a real bargain.

Last year’s hike was 14%, but a portion of this year’s increase includes extra costs associated with attracting more private health plans to participate in the Medicare Advantage program.

Dr. Mark McClellan, administrator of the Medicare program, said in an interview that the elderly are receiving improved benefits now and will have lower out-of-pocket expenses when the new drug benefit begins in 2006.

To you and I that sume might seem small and meaningless but when you are on a fixed income that $11.60 per month is a lot of money.

To you and I that sume might seem small and meaningless but when you are on a fixed income that $11.60 per month is a lot of money. Posted by V. Edward Martin at September 4, 2004 04:56 PM

I believe that’s what I said (not cheap) and, believe me, I have an up-close and personal understanding of the concept as applied to this program. Seems to me that the monthly cost to each recipient actually represents something like 25% of the actual cost of the insurance.

It would be pretty cool to have free health insurance for all seniors, but then you and everyone else in the country had better have deep, deep pockets for that to happen. Now factor in a national health insurance program for everyone — a favorite battle cry from the leftist, big-government brigade — and you begin to get some idea of what you’re really asking for.

First law of economics: There ain’t no free lunch.

CF-

I agree that without 9/11 Bush would have been in trouble (well, i dont know if Kerry could have put anyone in trouble, but Bush def. wouldnt be up 11% without 9/11). The thing is Bush was extremely popular going into the Iraq war, and everyone knew that if the war went poorly, he would be in trouble. Bush could have easily just kept going with Afganistan, kept talking about 9/11 and done nothing else- and he would likely have run away with this election. Iraq was a risk he was willing to take because I think he sees expanding freedom/democracy as the one thing he wants to accomplish while president (at the expense of all other things- including maintaing principles in the domestic sphere). Thats my view, at least.

E.M.- the reason I think Bush is a better choice than kerry is I think Kerry would be an even disaster than Bush on fiscal policy- since his plan to repeal a small portion of the tax cuts would do nothing to pay for the broad socialized medicare programs ect. ect. that he wants to implement (which I oppose on their face anyway). Plus, and i KNOW you will disagree on this, Bush will appoint better judges to the bench in my view. Finally, I do not think Kerry shares the foreign policy vision that I agree with Bush on, although I do think that he wanted to get rid of Saddam, and I praise him for his vote in favor of the war and his statement hat he would still vote in that way.

So, yes, I think Bush would make a better president than Kerry- but in my eyes, thats saying very very little indeed. Like you, I am disatisfied with both of the choices the 2 major parties have offered us this time around, and this year I will not make the mistake of 2000 and vote for the lesser of two evils…