Third Party & Independents: Archives

He should give a speech in which he acknowledges he’s a liberal, and gives the positive and fairly popular positions of that political persuasion, and then, having done that, he will challenge Bush on his inconsistencies as a Republican. Do you want a true democrat, or a Republican false in his principles?

I hope he does, it might be the first accurate thing he’s said all year!

Kerry the ‘Liberal’.

When he was called a Liberal by Bush what does he choose to do? He says ‘There he goes with the labels.’ Now isn’t that a good way to defend himself. Why didn’t he say ‘Yes I’m a liberal and damn proud of it.’? Is he afraid it will lose votes? Must be. ‘Liberal’ is a ‘dirty word’ in the ears of a lot of people.
Why isn’t he bragging about being the biggest supporter of the NAFTA agreement? and Free Trade with China? Will it lose him votes? Probably.

He talks about being a Catholic, an alter boy. He talks about his believes and that he is against abortion but won’t legislate against it. At the same time he is all for destroying embryos and having the government pay for it.
Having it both ways? Votes again.
It should be solely up to the parents of the embryos what happens to them.
Bush is wrong about the partial birth abortion in that it should have something protecting the life of a mother. He probably thinks people will take advantage of the acception. He should still put it in.

Kerry is so good at talking out both sides of his mouth in his attempt to get votes from all sides.
This approach will win and lose him votes.
He knows that the majority of people hear what they want to hear. If he can sound like he is on your side - he gets your vote.
Being a liberal is oh so complicated when you have to please more than just liberals.

Do you want a true liberal or someone who pretends not to be?

at this point….a candidate that i didn’t despise would be nice…

bush or kerry…yay….what a wonderful choice i have…..

My comments mostly focus on the label issue:
1) Contrary to the thrust of the inital post here, President Bush has been calling Senator Kerry a liberal throughout the entire campaign.

2) Senator Kerry is obviously embarrassed about the label. He denies being a liberal and even tries to play the Hawkish, fiscal conservative.

3) Most individuals embracing the term “liberal” these days are those NOT running for public office.

4) If I were a “liberal” politician favoring the currently litany of “liberal” causes (e.g., gay marriage, abortion rights, higher taxes, UN superiority, etc.) I probably would not admit it either.

Tom—

Since when do liberals champion U.N. Superiority? And since when do liberal champion higher taxes?

It’s quite the morass, isn’t it? Who started that whole “liberal equals criminal” spin campaign? Was it Reagan or Bush I? I can’t remember, but I think we can all agree it was remarkably effective. And now that it’s been brainwashed into the public the same way “Saddam attacked us on 9/11” has, the Reds can come back and slam Kerry for not proudly wearing a button reading “Kiss me I’m a liberal.”

It’s tough to be an idealist with all these cynical folks playing Catch-22.

Liberal in the American context changed meaning and liberalism bifurcated beginning in the 1930s when economic liberalism and related libertarianism came to be called conservative. Liberalism changed again in the 1960s, when it ceased to be about freedom from and became entitlement to. Think of how the civil rights movement morphed from “judge a man by the content of his character, not the color of his skin” to “diversity requires government action to ensure that groups are fairly represented (i.e. judged by the color of their skins).

Liberalism in the U.S. has been largely stripped of its liberal (liberty) aspects and has come to resemble positivism and rely on statism for its power. Most of us love the original definition, but we no longer find it in today’s liberals.

How interesting that V.E. Martin writes that the “conservative movement has done irrefutable harm”
while decrying the use of political labels. Complaining about trotting out labels while doing just that seems a fairly hollow complaint.

And it rings especially hollow considering the entire left’s constant railing (including Kerry’s) against what they call “the far right” and its far right agenda. What’s that but another label trotted out to attack someone’s agenda without considering its content?

The Constitution is in fact a liberal document. And those who want to conserve it can justifiably be called conservatives. This is why some conservatives (like me) are dead-set against the Federal Marriage Amendment even if some others try to cast their support of it as “conservative.”

It’s also why we don’t share the left’s desire to abolish the Second Amendment, to abridge the First Amendment (with speech codes on campuses and at the workplace), and undermine the rights of States and the Constitutionaly protected separation of powers by legislating leftist causes (which are often anything but “liberal”) from the bench.

Yes, I agree that the “liberal” label is not a good one and that conservatives overuse it. What most of America doesn’t like is not actually the “liberalism” of the left, however, but its leftism—and that’s what they associate the label “liberal” with. The label is inexact, but the reason it’s used is because it turns people off of candidates who represent a leftist agenda which a substantial number of Americans have little desire to be associated with.

[Comment deleted for failing our Critique the Message, Not the Messenger Rule. — WatchBlog Manager]

martin:

i agree that to be called a liberal, or for kerry to come out and say he is liberal, would be a deathknoll….

however….

what infuriates me is the lack of substance you need in order to be smeared a “liberal”…

most people don’t even know what the hell it means to be a liberal…they just know it’s not good, anti american, and probably harkens from russia somewhere….

which, any reasonable sane person will tell you…is untrue.

i like to think of myself as a free-thinker who questions everything i’m told…mostly cause i really don’t like being spoonfed information….

am i crazy to think that the “pack mentality” of the conservative movement…of “anything liberal is unamerican and i can’t wait till they burn in hell” is more socialist and utilitarian than anything any “liberal” ever dreamt up?

I don’t know, rob, but I think that having the honor of being the Most Liberal Member of the US Senate, according to the National Journal’s vote rankings, goes a long way to supporting the ‘label’ of being a liberal. The fact that Edwards was the 4th most liberal senator is also not very surprising and supports the claim.

Rhinehold, it’s funny that people keep bringing up that National Journal ranking. I’d never heard of them before that. Are they some new right-wing rag?

What is their criteria? Do they count all the conservative fiscal policy votes Kerry has made - including all those that helped Clinton balance the budget and create a surplus? Do they count all the conservative defense spending and policy votes he’s made over the last 15 years?

I’m really curious what the criteria is for being voted more liberal than Ted Kennedy. That just doesn’t sound right.

I do not blame Kerry for not falling for the oldest trick in the book. Bush is taking the fact that as a Senator Kerry is elected to represent the people. Bush on the other hand thinks that everyone is to be “Like Me.”

If I was Kerry I would of took Bush striaght on and asked him is it liberal to be smart? Is it liberal to use the knowledge of experts to obtain the best results? Is it liberal to ensure that you represent all the people instead of your corporate friends? Well, Mr. President than I guess you can call me liberal because I believe that it is the sworn duty of a president to consider all the facts, all the angles, and come up with the right answer that represents the best interests of All Americans, not just my rich friends. Any other question?

Martin said:
“It’s also why we don’t share the left’s desire to abolish the Second Amendment, to abridge the First Amendment (with speech codes on campuses and at the workplace), and undermine the rights of States and the Constitutionaly protected separation of powers by legislating leftist causes (which are often anything but “liberal”) from the bench.”

Whoa, excuse me? I’m going to need a bit more information on that particular accusation, especially when we have a president who’s defending an overreaching Patriot Act.

Martin—

Do you have proof to back your accusations, or is this just more Conservative lip service? While I will admit that the liberal movement over the years at times overstepped the bounds of common-sense, the movement and the people attached to it certainly doe not deserve the anti-patriotism gloss they have been painted with by the conservative movement.

V. E. Martin

The main problem with being a liberal is in its definition: “especially political reforms that extend [democracy]”
The United States of America used to be a Constitutional Republic not a democracy.
How can it be a good thing to not agree with our form of govt.? State rule was one of the main criteria of the founding fathers but look at the mess we are in now. A govt. controlled babysitter with no personal responsibility.

kctim —

Democracy is a failure? One might assume so since it (supposedly) elected George W. Bush….

But seriously, what are you suggesting?

kctim, you are so right.

That’s why it ticked me off so bad that Bush had the US Supreme Court override the Florida Supreme Court to stop a state-wide recount in 2000.

It’s also ticking me off that he’s got the federal government challenging California’s state fuel efficiency standards.

That guy is single-handedly wrecking our beloved republic.

kctim,
The other criteria of our founding fathers was the roll of the federal government and the power it has over states. History shows us that the Dems and Reps have worked together in taking those rights away. Although I agree to on some standards, our elected officials need to realize not every American is an idiot although there are days I wonder about that.

I’m not saying that it doesn’t exist. But will some one please find a quote from someone on the right saying the left, or liberalism is anti-patriotic. The only people I’ve ever heard say that is the left. It’s like those ANSWER protests where they kept screaming about how they were being denied their free speech. That struck me as really funny cause they were standing in the middle of downtown Chicago yelling whatever they wanted into a bullhorn.

Seems to me the left likes screaming that they’re the victim even if no crimes been committed. It’s like that vast right wing conspiracy.

-D

Delzario,
Check out may post in the Dem. colum of this site titled KEEP THEIR EYES OFF THE BALL and than lets talk about a right wing conspiracy, please!

Delzario —

I’m not claiming any conspiracy, because I think the left would probably do the same thing if they had the spin-meisters the right does, but the genius of the right is that they never SAY anything exactly. They just call someone a liberal with a certain tone and a sneer, to show how distateful it is to be such a thing. (It’s a very similar tactic to mentioning 9/11 and Iraq in the same breath; they’re not literally saying there’s a connection, they’re just creating one in ignorant listeners’ minds.)

Nevertheless, if the Democratic party had the backbone they’d be able to counter the “liberal” label.

Alejo,
The problem is that the republicans have reversed the roles of the meanings of the words. Ask yourselve who really wants to change our constitution, our social agenda, and our international policies.

So the tone and inflection used to say Liberal makes it anti-American?

How about the tone and inflection the left uses every time they say ‘right wing’?

Are you questioning my patriotism now?

Both sides are guilty of vilifying the opponent. The difference is the right doesn’t whine about it.

-D

Alejo
I am saying that the US is not a democracy, we are a Constitutional Republic turning into a democracy. Canada, France, Germany etc… are all democracys and they are failing and many have failed in the past. I have lived in all three of those countries and no matter what rosy picture is painted for them, they are not a good place to live. The govt. controls every aspect of their lives. Is that what we want America to become? Our country and form of govt. has lasted so long due to our Constitution and the way it was written.

AP and Henry:
I agree with what the two of you have posted. But one thing still puzzles me.
How can you hate Bush so much but still defend kerry on everything?
I dislike both these clowns with a passion. I will vote against kerry on Nov. 2 but I would never try to defend Bush at all costs to the truth.

“Liberal-
(progressive politically or socially)
- We must be in order to adapt with changes within our country. But how does violating our Constitution and creating a govt. dependent populace lead to progress?

(favoring gradual reform, especially political reforms that extend democracy)
- Gradual reforms are necessary, but not at the expense of our Constitutional rights.

(distribute wealth more evenly, and protect the personal freedom of the individual.”)
- The govt. should not and does not force people to work. Why should they force those who do work though, to support those who will not work? If this is such a fair and great idea, then why don’t the wealthy liberals and celebrities practice what they preach? If oprah, moore, kerry and the rest of their ilk actually do believe in this, then why don’t they live on $35 thousand a year and donate the rest to help those less fortuante?

No, liberalism is not the way. I say we get rid of the liberal and conservative views of govt. and bring back our Constitution. Maybe then we can have our rights back.

Delzario —

First: No, I’m not questioning your patriotism. I’m not sure what I said to make you think that, but it was not my intent. I don’t know you beyond what you post, and the mere fact that you are here talking about the things you care about makes you a patriot in my opinion.

Also, I agree with your last post. I’m merely saying the Republicans are more successful with their spin.

kctim —

I guess I’m going to have to do some research. I was under the impression that, since everyone over the age of 18 had the right to vote, we were living in a democracy.

What I meant was since the left uses the same condescending tone to talk about right wingers that the right uses to talk about liberals that since the right is questioning the left’s patriotism the left must also be questioning the right’s patriotism. It’s a convoluted way of saying that crying foul is BS for both sides.

What kctim is referring is the fact we actually live in a democratic republic. We don’t vote directly for our leaders, rather we elect people to represent us to choose our leaders. That’s the Electoral College. Also we don’t depend on a direct majority vote to determine law, rather a intricate set of balances between 2 houses of congress and an executive branch, none of which many necessary represent the total population’s views. In a true democracy each law would require a majority of votes, like a referendum.

-D

Delzario —

Okay, I get you. And I guess I knew we were a democratic republic, had I thought about it. The question is, how is it that we are becoming more of a democracy? If we are I’d say it’s the Republicans’ continuous push to amend the Constitution that’s to blame as much as anything the Democrats have done.

kctim,
The reason I support Kerry’s position on Iraq is because he took the right side of the argument. Simply put, Bush screw this country and everything we have stood for by abusing the system and his power.

On the issue of liberal and conservative in this election, I think it is funny that the right is running left on the lefts issues. Neither side holds the correct answer, but it is fun to watch the right try and spin a left wing issue.

Alejo
You are so correct my friend. “Both” sides are to blame. Only instead of saying Republicans and Democrats, I prefer to say conservatives and liberals.
Both, the neo-cons and liberals, are the minority and offer extreme views of their party. But, through scare tactics and plenty of money, they have managed to take control. Now, we must sacrifice somethings in order to still support the “party” that represents some of our views. Democrats must now liberal, even though they support the 2nd Amendment. Republicans must now vote conservative, even though they support the 1st Amendment.

Divide and conqueor. Liberals and neo-cons will never be able to co-exist, but as long as they keep us divided, they will keep control.

Henry
I respect your opinions of Bush. Whether Bush or kerry is elected, Iraq will finish in the same manner along the same course. The only difference will be, if kerry is elected, the left will be supporting it and the right will be against it. Whatever it takes for the party.

It is fun to watch the right spin, as you say. I watch it also. But don’t only watch the right, pay attention to how the left spins also. What kerry ignores and doesn’t say. An open mind is an informed mind, not polluted by rhetoric.

kctim —

Okay, I’ll go with your labeling system (although I could argue that since the neocons control the Republican party and the liberals control the Democratic party that they ARE the parties), and I’ll agree that they’ve both gotten where they are through skillful manipulation, lies, and treachery.

Why is neither of us (that I remember from your previous posts, anyway) backing a third-party candidate? On the face of it, it would seem that Badnarik would be more your choice and Nader more mine, but are we even considering them? Doesn’t seem like now would have been the perfect election for a third-party candidate to step up?

kctim,
Oh trust me I watch and laugh at both sides, but thanks for the advice. What is going to be fun is to watch both parties deal with the real issues that face our country.

Besides do you realize that it is easier for a third party to place a fatal blow in the republican party if Bush loses this election. Small business and most professional service people deal with each other on a daily basis. Now, that is a group with a mass number of people who are all after that golden ring.

Alejo
I only use the labels because I do not believe either of these sides represent the majority and their views.
Why don’t we vote for third-party? Because we are willing to sacrifice our rights and views, just so the candidate we don’t want to win, doesn’t. We say voting third-party wastes our vote, but the reality is, by not voting for who truely represents our views is wasting our vote. Kind of a catch-22. Now would have been the perfect time to vote third-party. Bush has the Iraq mess and kerry and his views and promises are a mess.

Henry
I agree with you. Third-party voting could really affect the Republicans this time and its aftermath.
To me, it really makes no difference who wins anymore. Bush or kerry? The people won’t see any real difference in our lives.

As of now, I will vote against kerry because I do not want to take another step towards a socialist country. But if I am not voting for Bush, but against kerry, am I really doing whats right?
It’s sad our country has come to this!

kctim —

My feeling is that if we had a charismatic, well-funded third-party candidate he’d be trouncing both of the mainstream candidates. Too bad Nader’s nothing more than a thorn in the side and Badnarik’s unknown to most voters.

This comment I have to take issue with: “To me, it really makes no difference who wins anymore. Bush or kerry? The people won’t see any real difference in our lives.” When I say I disagree with you wholeheartedly I’m not saying it from a pro-Kerry standpoint (since my protest vote went to Kucinich in the primaries). Do you really think Kerry will pursue the same sort of hegemonic war Bush espouses? If you do, please tell me why so I can go hide under my bed for the next decade or so.

Alejo
What I really think, is pretty far out there. (infowars.com)

Hegemony- The predominant influence, as of a state, region, or group, over another or others.

“Do I really think kerry will pursue the same sort of hegemonic war Bush espouses?”
- Yes I do. Only I believe what kerry does will be under the guise of the UN. Much like clinton, but on a much grander scale.

- I also believe kerry will add support to the “hegemonic war,” espoused by liberals, that is going on in our country right now.

kctim —

Whew. I guess I’m not ready to go that paranoid yet. (Note I said “yet.”) I don’t operate under the illusion (as many seem to) that one candidate is honest and the other is an unadulterated liar, but I do think there’s a difference between them.

Voting for you must seem even more pointless than it does to me.

Another “liberal trait” seems to be hypocrisy.

According to the John & Teresa Kerrys’ own tax records, and they have not released all of them, the couple had a combined income of $6.8 million in income last year and paid $725,000 in income taxes. That means their effective tax rate was 12.8%, which is less than mine and probably yours, especially if you factor in pay roll taxes.

That is the problem with trying to tax the rich – you can’t. If a billionaire like John Kerry can end up with a 12.8% tax rate, what does it matter if we raise the rates on those making more than $200,000 to 40, 50 or 60%. The super rich Kerrys of this world can hire accountants and attorneys to avoid those rates anyway. You end up taxing those who are making their money through productive enterprise and still haven’t learned the tricks.

So does anyone really believe that Kerry can close the deficit gap only by taxing the rich, no matter what he says right into the camera?

Oh yeah, to anticipate the next question –

In 2003 the George and Laura Bush paid an effective rate of 30.4%. A typical middle class family pays about 20%. And the billionaire Kerry couple - once again – 12.8%

Jack
You pose a very poignant question.
“So does anyone really believe that Kerry can close the deficit gap only by taxing the rich, no matter what he says right into the camera?”
- No way. Not only is it unfair to tax one person more than another, it is also unenforceable as you posted. It is a “feel good” comment kerry blurts out in order to get votes.

I too would like to know why wealthy liberals do not practice what they preach.

kctim,
Is it wise to allow the rich to hide their money under their pillow or force them to do something with it? Currently our market is cash heavy which means people are not investing in bonds, MF’s, or stocks. By changing a few taxhole loops, our government will force people to decide to pay taxes or invest in new markets.

Jack,
Are you saying Bush does not know how to hire the right accountant?

As a small business owner of self employeed person a person has the right to hide $30,000.00/yr into their on retirement account as well as 27 other tax deductions. Therefore, if one uses their money in the right manner, they can eliminate all their federal tax obligations just like Bush41 did back in the 80’s.

Henry

My point is that the super rich have ways to avoid taxes and the longer they have been super rich the better they get at avoiding taxes. That means that Kerry’s promise to tax only the rich won’t be possible. Never trust rich guys promising to tax themselves. Teresa won’t have to cut his allowance.

Jack,
The “Super Rich” do use their knowledge to of current tax and policy laws to place their money where it makes the most money at the least cost. By changing certain tax and policy laws our government can force a change in our economy. One of the funniest tax and policy law I remember was during Reagans term in office. It allowed any corporation or business to make up to $250,000 profit per quarter; however, if that company made $1.00 above that they would have to pay a 20% tax or increase the wages/benifits to their employees. Bush43 tax cuts and policies have left the market and profits of the “Super Rich” to be used or not in the manner that their money manager thinks is best. Thus, our economy has not been lead, but allowed to wonder through this time lost in space.

While I am not for tax burdens, I do believe that the government has the right of the greater good to develop taxes and policies that encourage the “Super Rich” and others to place their money where it will do the most good. Clinton proved this point in the 90’s when he elected to make certain tax breaks available for venture capital and R&D.

Besides, did you know that the IRS rules allows even the average wage earner to write off nearly everything if they structure their life properly in trusts, family corporations, etc.?

Henry

My attitude toward taxes is complicated, but I think it is similar to most Americans. I don’t like to pay taxes, but I understand it is the price I pay for living in America and I also understand that America’s tax burden is light relative to most other countries. But I object when I think taxes are unfair – i.e. some people are evading/avoiding taxes (like John Kerry) and I don’t trust the government to spend my money as wisely as I would spend it myself. That means I don’t have confidence in the transformative capacity of government and I want it to be as small as possible. There are deductions that I can, but don’t take because I don’t think I should avoid paying certain taxes. For example, I refused to avoid local taxes (even though I technically was able as a part year resident) because I sent my kids to public school. I don’t want to write off any more than I do already.

Although (or maybe because) I am a usually Republican and a conservative, I distrust and dislike the idle rich. Everybody should earn a living and a rich man who does nothing is as bad as a poor man who does nothing. I judge a person by what they do, and believe that people who do nothing useful should be ashamed of themselves.

AP and Henry: I agree with what the two of you have posted. But one thing still puzzles me. How can you hate Bush so much but still defend kerry on everything?

Ummm…. I don’t recall ever saying I “hate” Bush. I don’t. He’s just wrong about the issues that I feel are important, like homeland security, defense, the war on terror, the economy, the environment, energy, taxes, Social Security… crap! I’m trying to think of something I agree with him on.

I agree with what he says on education, but I’m ticked that he’d stab us in the back by not following through with the funding. I agree that Saddam had to go, but not at the cost of weakening our alliances and our credibility at a time when we need them most.

Really, that’s all I can think of off the top of my head. I’d love for someone over on the right to convince me he’s done anything good, but I never hear anyone on that side talk about good things Bush has done. It’s always the daily talking point anti-Kerry campaign spin.

Jack,
By you pointing out just Kerry you are showing your blindness on the subject. Do you not think Bush’s accountant has access to the same information?

Ever since 1980, we have been moving the burden of taxes from corporations to individual taxes. While many of these taxes were designed to help build a better society, most cost the upper middle class and rich money because of their individual businesses dealings. By owning interest in several businesses meant that they had to pay taxes on each source of income vs. what their gross income has become once they deduct everything that is legal.

Have you ever looked at what a business owner can deduct vs. the average citizen? Considering we all should have to work for a living shouldn’t we all have the same individual deductions?

Bush and Kerry’s taxes must be able to stand on face value before they can run for president by law. So if Kerry’s liberal accountant beats Bush’s conservative accountant, who has the better tax plan?

AP
Plenty of people on the right know all the good things that Bush has done so far. But why bring it up when the majority of this board will do and create anything to shoot it down?
Bush did a great job with 9/11. The tax cuts. Homeland security. Trying to fix social security.
These are just some of the good things Bush has done according to those on the right. But anyone can dig and dig until they find something to discredit him on everything.
Its really no better than what Hannity does to kerry.

kctim,
I will give Bush 9/11 even though Carter actted proper during the Iran Hostage conflict in ‘79. However, on the tax cuts I give him an F—! Why?

At the time (i.e. 2000-01) America was in a surplus driven recession which meant we had more money in the system than what was going out. Mr. Greenspan explained although a tax cut idea was good, it should be done through the payroll taxes instead of returns. If you check your data bank, I’m sure you’ll remember Bush crying that idea would take to long, “I want something on my desk to sign.”

If Bush would of forced the Democratic lead Senate to change the hidden tax laws that we call patroll taxes than everyone could of been afford an opportunity for a raise of around $2.00/hr or somewhere around $4,500.00/yr. In doing that Bush would of gave small business owner the ability to give those employees that are worth it a bonus or flat out raise, hire some one else, and/or invest back into the business. Hell, the owner might be able to even give himselve a raise. By the sudden rush of income into the system would of meant a huge demand would be placed on the heavily burden supply market. As a small business owner you would of had a chioce on your future and the future of those around you. Additionally, your local and state governments would of benifited by the increased funds.

But, Bush stumpped and cried foul as he spun his web. “Everyone should get out what they paid in” was the republican talking heads; however, they meant money not blood, sweat, ans tears. The only problem is that Bush’s tax cut limited the growth of the market, lost jobs and business opportunities, and “The List” of other problems. Sort of like the early 70’s economy. Sorry, Bush screwed up the economy not improved it. Now, we are back to square one of 12 years ago.

Homeland Security: What a joke of a term. Since 9/11 Bush has had failed test after failed test on our airlines, fedearl buildings, etc. Even Clinton was smart enough to fix our military bases when they were tested back in the 90’s. Today, can you honestly state for a fact that our homeland is even close to being secured?

Bush has spent and bankrupt the SS funds of over a trillion dollars and now he says he wants to fix it? Please, if thats idea of Bush’s fixing a problem than we need to redefine the meaning of success.

Although I am not Hannity, I don’t need a magical ball to tell you that Bush had better options handed to him instead of the ones he chose to openly support and Hannity, Rush, and others damned anyone who told him he was wrong.

Would you need any other of Bush’s good points reviewed?

Plenty of people on the right know all the good things that Bush has done so far. But why bring it up when the majority of this board will do and create anything to shoot it down?

If it was so self-evidently good, no one would be able to shoot it down, right? When FDR declared war on Japan after Pearl Harbor, I don’t remember any Republicans saying, “Whoa! Hold your horses there, pardner.”

Bush did a great job with 9/11. The tax cuts. Homeland security. Trying to fix social security.

OK, pick one and explain why you thought it was a good job.

But be prepared to defend it - not because I “hate” Bush, but because I genuinely disagree. I think he’s done a horrible job on all those issues (though “9/11” is a little vague, so I might agree with you there, depending on which aspect of 9/11 you’re talking about).

Well, I don’t like Bush or alot of what he has done and I wish there was a better choice to vote for, but I will pick some things that are obvious to me.

9/11: He helped keep the country together during that time. He helped see to it that the proper help and money was dispatched to aid those who needed it. But that is a given. Any president would have done that. Bush did a fine job during this time.

Homeland security: While I dislike the Patriot Acts, this administration was quick to implement actions to help deter further terrorist activities. In fact, some of what was used was created during the clinton years. The fact that we have not had another attack is proof that something is working.
Bush voted against it before he voted for it? Yeah, I know. But why is it only ok when kerry does that?

Tax cuts: I know the left hates it when Americans get tax cuts. They are always whining that they are for the wealthy or “what about the children” or “but what about saving this bug or that tree.”
These cuts helped stimulate the economy that “was” affected by 9/11. They put extra money into the pockets of those who needed it also. They helped people, to say they did not help in any way is wrong.

Social security: Bush has stated he favors some privatization. This would be great news for those of us who favor taking responsiblity for ourselves. The best thing he has done so far though is, doing nothing to suck more wasted money out of our personal food and education budgets.
What does kerry propose? You common people aren’t smart enough to handle your own money, give it to someone like me to take care of it for you. You shouldn’t be forced to think for yourselves. No thanks!

I am not a Bush supporter, these are just some of the positives that are very clear to me and that have helped me in my personal life. My “views!”
I hated the clinton years and believe much of his mess affects us today, but I was man enough to give him credit where credit was due.

Facts and numbers can be skewed to prove anyones agenda but one fact can never change- facts presented by the left will always be ridiculous to the right and vice versa.

Its all about views. Government control or personal freedoms and the right to choose what is best for yourself.

kctim,
Nice try, but the reasons you give do not hold water. Compare your points on Bush to my points on what was pointed out to Bush. If he would of followed the advice of those who have more knowledge of the issues America would not be facing huge deficit, unemployment, etc..

Thanks kctim. I disagree with everything you said, except the part about Bush holding the country together after 9/11 - when he finally poked his head out of that bunker in Louisiana. the country needed strong words and we got ‘em. We needed a strong and wise leader to chart our course forward, too - but I guess you can’t have everything.

Homeland security: While I dislike the Patriot Acts,

We probably have the same problem with the Patriot Act. It’s mostly good, but there are certain provisions - like sneak & peek and other powers that don’t require judicial or congressional oversight - that need to go.

this administration was quick to implement actions to help deter further terrorist activities.

I have to disagree. We had a catastrophic intelligence failure and the president still hasn’t commited to the changes necessary to ensure it doesn’t happen again. As Edwards pointed out the other night, we still don’t even have an integrated terrorist watch list. I’d be curious to know specifically which “actions” you’re referring to.

The fact that we have not had another attack is proof that something is working.

No… It’s not. Sorry, kctim, this just faulty logic. You might as well give Bush credit for the absence of catagory 5 hurricanes in Colorado since 9/11. Rumsfeld put it best when he spouted, “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”

To be fair, the effectiveness of Bush’s homeland security efforts is hard to judge, but I doubt even a real Bush fan could say it’s excellent. The Dept. of Homeland Security is desperately underfunded and has no real authority. 95% of containers coming into our ports don’t get checked, the Coast Guard is way underfunded for the expanded job set it now has, meaning that many jobs don’t get done. We still don’t have good communication between law enforcement, intelligence, immigration, and the private sector for tracking terrorists. State and local governments aren’t getting the resources and training they need to prevent or respond to an attack.

Frankly, I don’t know why there hasn’t been another attack when journalists are routinely slipping nuclear material into our ports in shipping containers and smuggling guns and knives onto our passenger planes.

Henry
Thanks, but most of what you posted prior to that were how “you” view the tax cuts.
Surplus? I am sure you have seen all the rights statements and numbers on why there was no real surplus, just fudged numbers to make it look like there was one.
All these things you say Bush has limited growth on and the such, I am open minded enough to give most of the credit for, to the events of 9/11. That one day had a profound effect on everything you mentioned and I believe Bush has done well in keeping us afloat during this time.
Homeland Security: We will never be secure unless we give up even more rights. But I do believe we are “more” secure than we were on 9/10/01.
SS: This is also a point of view issue Henry. I totally disagree with SS, so anything that is done to get rid of it, is good to me.

Its all how we choose to look at things and how our lives have been impacted by those things. Only instead of finding everything bad about Bush or kerry, I try to look at the good things both have to offer and then make my selection based on who I believe would be the better choice. To say that neither Bush or kerry offer any pro’s is being to partisan to make a fair choice.

AP
Due to the events of 9/11, “any” president would have been hiding in a bunker.

You wrote we had a “catastrophic intelligence failure.” I agree. But these failures can be traced all the way back through the clinton years also. But I do not hold either administration totally responsible for everything. Our agencies in charge were a huge mess and Bush has so far initiated steps to help correct some of that mess.

I still think that the fact that there has not been another terrorist attack is a sign that this administration is taking steps to help prevent another one. You cannot equate a natural disaster which cannot be avoided to something that is man made and can be avoided or reduced to a lesser probability.
Rumsfeld? His job is to make us scared. The more scared he makes us, the easier it is to pass more legislation that takes away even more of our rights.
Your homeland security statements are very true and even though I am no Bush fan, I will agree and with you in saying they are not excellent. But to say Bush is not doing anything to help these things is wrong. Money is being given to these services and the cities and states. Maybe not as much as should be, but progress is being made. Homeland security will be a long journey, no matter who the president is.

I also don’t know why there hasn’t been another attack. But it is a fine line a president walks in trying to implement more security and not violate even more rights. One party will always be criticized by the other party for going to far.

Our views on Iraq basically end at the same point, we should not be there, but kerry’s domestic views are what have me leaning towards Bush at the moment.

Yourself, Henry, Alejo, David and Cf always post great stuff that makes me think. Even though it is onesided, I respect it. But even more importantly, I “research” it. Thanks alot for all the information and time you all put into these things, it really helps.

Thanks, kctim. I’m a Kerry/Democrat cheerleader because I really believe that’s the right way to go. There was a time when it wasn’t, and that may happen again, but the current crop of Democrats are really sharp.

You wrote we had a “catastrophic intelligence failure.” I agree. But these failures can be traced all the way back through the clinton years also.

Sure, but it’s Bush’s problem now and I’m not going to cut him any slack with my family’s security, just like I won’t cut President Kerry any slack. That kind of thing is too important.

kctim,
The surplus was setting in the orders/warehouses of companies like Intel’s P-2&3 chips, Optic fiber wiring, and self items. Although some businesses fudged these numbers, the fact still remains that from 1996 the market was full of outdated new items. The problem of over production.

If you look at the financial data that was to be released on 9/11/01, the reports shows clearly the problem of the fundementals which on its own would of forced the market to close and totally realien. Yes, 9/11 did cost America money. However, that alone did not hurt the market. In fact, Bush did the wrong thing when he told America to just keep shopping. The right fiscally responsible thing for Bush to do was either roll back the tax cuts or issue the sale of “War Bonds” to cover the sudden increase in government expenses. I would of liked to see the latter imposed due to the fact that everyone in America wouls of ran out and purchased what they could of afforded.

On SS, I do understand how you feel about the program, yet my concern is the switch over cost associated with the program. Find a way to eliminate those costs and we can talk about a buy out. 2 trillion dollars with no insurance that our money can not be stolen by the fat cats of the market does not settle very well with me knowing that within a week a small group of people could end up spinning the market so that most small investors would lose everything.

Therefore, I want us to look at a sound 7% interest retirements acoounts set up for people that is backed up by the FDIC. Since obtaining 7% on the open market is not a problem for the vast majority of financial advisors and money makers, I figure that would be a good interest rate that would allow for steady growth above inflation. As well as safe gaurd the Americans from the few citizens who will let greed over rule their common sense.

Henry:
Which is why tax cuts due to this surplus was ill advised by Greenspan, right? But this is not how it was explained politically.

We will just have to disagree on the tax cut issue. Rolling back tax cuts and tax increases are just pay cuts to me. They do me no good. But I will agree with the war bonds idea. That would probably have been the best thing to do.

Your SS idea is intriguing to me and I would really consider it if it was an option. Would be better than what we have now.
Buy out? Shoot, I would pay the govt. a grand if they were to quit forcing me to pay into SS. lol

kctim,
Greenspan informed Congress in 2001 that it would be in our country’s best interest to put the tax cuts in law with “Breakers.” That’s my word, for him stating that any tax cuts bY the government should OF been done as long as XY&Z was met during that stated time. Plain English: If the economy does not grow enough to cover the expenses we don’t get any money through a tax cut. It could of been used by the right for a good argument about self responsiblilty huh.

Henry
Its not a bad idea I guess. I just subscribe more to the “give the people some of their money back first, and then make the govt. stop wasting money on ridicules programs and special interest groups to compensate for what money is needed” type of thinking.
I don’t think it could have been used a an arguement by the right though. They may preach self responsibility, but they still want to be able to buy votes with freebies.

kctim,
Although I hate to admit it there are people in our society that do not deserve to be payed minmum wage, yet I know for a fact that there are some low wage paying jobs which people with PHDs can not do at the pace that is necessary to make a profit. Therefore, we should be able to award those folks who do their job well while gentle kicking the bums in the butt to do what is right. I think I said that political correct didn’t I?

Henry
I am against raising min. wage. When that happens, prices increase to make up for loses. But I would be happy to raise the min. wage to 10 an hour if our govt. would quit sending billions overseas, funding special projects and groups and quit trying to buy votes with our money.
Compensation based on book smarts compared to life smarts is wrong in my book. The people that actually work in this country, deserve more. But our priorities have to be fixed first.
You may be a political correct person, but I am not. Bums deserve no money, aid or encouragement at the hard working, tax payers expense. If a person chooses to be bum, fine, its their right, but don’t give them anything.

Thanks kctim for the compliment.

Although I am not an economist, the ability to raise wages, lower taxes, and ensure that everyones basic need are met (yes, even the damn bum) does exist. Look back at the economic system changes out country undertook in the 70’s and 80’s. Without boring you to tears, we need to change from a consumption driven society to an educated investment driven economy at least for the next 20-30 years.

Even though I can’t predict the future, I still think we are going to want to go out for a meal and a drink, shop until we drop, and everything else that makes up our days. Figuring how to make it a more level playing field will mean teaching everyone the same rules of the game.

Today, we spend to much of our time and energy trying to get by or using each other to get ahead. Moving the goal post every time to many people get to close to the top ring.

As much as our general safety and welfare depends on our law enforcement agencies, our future safety and welfare depends on our ability to ensure the financial security for everyone.

Excellent way to put it Henry. Couldn’t agree more.
And double praises for not having any partisan comments in that statement.
Thanks!

kctim,
Now you can understand why I keep saying it just takes most of us to be educated on how each issue effects us as individuals and why the Dems and Reps are asking the wrong question or spinning the argument wrong.

What I don’t understand is how a high school grad can figure this out, but a group of colleges grads can not even grasp the idea.

1. Bush says proudly that he is a conservative. Whether you agree or disagree, the man says it proudly. The conservatives are proud of their candidate.

2. Kerry, who is purportedly so smart, so eloquent and such a great debater, cannot say a simple sentence - “I am proud to be a liberal.”

(a) Why aren’t the liberals, who purportedly have principles and idealism, demanding that Kerry say that he is a liberal? Are they ashamed?

Why aren’t the liberals angry at their candidate who is afraid to say who he is? Where is their outrage?

The answer is simple - the liberals of 2004 have no moral compass and lack integrity. How sad. How tragic.

(b) Kerry is an opportunist, and will say and do anything to get elected.

His mother knew it well and her last words were “Integrity, integrity, integrity.” Why would a mother say it to her son, if it was given? Does your mother tell you, “dear son, be respectful, respectful, respectful” if she knows you are respectful?

Kerry knows that America is not a liberal nation and will not say he is a liberal.

Would you vote for a man who has no courage, no principle and no integrity?

hernes1la,
Two simple questions;
1) Exactly what is your defination of a liberal?

2) Demonstrate where Bush has shown Courage, Princple, and Integrity in his personal life and his willingness to be honest to the American People?