Still an undecided
As of today, I'm still one of the approximately 5% of voters who remain undecided.
Let me say that some of the most compelling, sincere, and intellectually honest arguments I've ever seen regarding the Bush v. Kerry election have been the comments to my last post below.
There are some exceptions I'd like to address right off the bat. One person remarks to my stating that I'm no longer a certain Kerry vote: "Do you enjoy bullying deponents and opposing counsel in the same manner? Extremely unprofessional conduct, must say and I've been a lawyer for 28 years." To this person I say simply: get a life. And to the other commentator who similarly stated, "I hope that you are not going to apply your new-found irrationality to the practice of law," I also say: get a life. These people represent the very thing I detest the most when it comes to partisan political junkies from either side of the D v. R divide. They honestly believe that voting for [insert major political party candidate here] is akin to "extremely unprofessional conduct". What they're really angry about is that I disagree with them about politics. In the year 2000, Gore won the popular election by a margin of only 0.51%, with Bush winning the votes of no less than 50,456,002 Americans. Some of the latest polls respectively reflect a 45-45 tie (Zogby), a Bush lead of 50-47 (Washington Post), and a Bush lead of 47-45 (CBS). Apparently, folks, you need to take a second look at your personal definition of "irrationality" if you believe that literally one half of our nation's citizens are "irrational".
Having said that, a part of me does feel guilty for citing a personal event as inspiring my vote change without revealing what the event is. But you have to remember that I don't write this blog for commercial/marketing reasons, and I am not a political candidate or media talking head with an agenda. I am a real person who enjoys writing about my career and sometimes about other aspects of my personal life. I have the freedom to choose not to reveal everything about myself, for any reason. And readers have the freedom to criticize and disagree with that. (Thank you to the many commentators who also made this same point).
I think what this election boils down to for me, personally, is summed up in this comment by Yeoman Lawyer: "I can't help but be amused by the claims every election that the opposing candidate will bring down the republic and is a crook." I simply don't believe that one candidate or the other is going to destroy our republic, or tear down our 200+ year old Constitution. For all the valid criticism of Bush, and all the valid praise of Kerry, the ONLY question to be decided on November 2 is which man will be in the White House from 2004 through 2008, REGARDLESS of what President Bush did from 2000 to 2004. This is not a job interviewing process, where we get to pick from 10 great candidates by ruling out 9 of them for one reason or another. Bush made a mistake in invading Iraq. What partisan Democrats are not understanding is that that reason alone is an inadequate argument for voting against him. Only 30 Senators voted No on giving the President authorization to invade Iraq. Kerry was not one of them. Neither was Edwards. Yes, I hold Bush accountable for the failed decision-making process. Unfortunately, my alternative to Bush is a candidate who contributed to that failure by falling short of his constitutional duty to scrutinize the decision to go to war. Should Kerry not be held accountable for this failure? It's a wash. Neither of them deserve anything when it comes to scrutinizing their performance of their duties with respect to Iraq.
The economy. Even when I was an avid Kerry supporter, you would never see or hear me say anything about economic issues. This is because I am part of a minority of Americans who actually understands that the President does not "create" jobs or "lose" jobs in Ohio, West Virginia, or anywhere else. I am a devout, free market capitalist, and in that sense I am alienated from the Democratic Party, and Kerry's platform.
There go the 2 strongest arguments I've been listening to for Kerry. What's left, for me? On Kerry's side, I trust his judgment on future Supreme Court nominations more than Bush (who outright lied during the debate, when he said he didn't have a litmus test. My ass.) But on the issue of decisiveness, well... we live in perilous times. Would Kerry have invaded Afghanistan? I'm not so sure. If we are attacked again between 2004 and 2008, do I want a man in power who I know would react vigorously even at the risk of offending allies and alienating voters? Or do I want a man in power who, when I wonder whether he would act or not, I tell myself, "I'm not so sure?"
posted by The Uncivil Litigator at Saturday, October 23, 2004
21 Comments:
Hi, U, this is David Giacalone, who still hasn't figured out the Blogger sign-in. Thanks for a thoughtful post. Like yourself, I wish partisans on both sides would stop demonizing or "moronizing" voters on the otherside.
That said, I'm glad you're back to undecided. I have no qualms about Kerry protecting the U.S., while not acting in reckless ways that make the world less safe. Doing something decisively just to "do something" or to settle old grudges is not leadership, nor is acting quickly but not being able to plan for or manage the next stage, or finding imminent threats wherever there's an easy-to-beat tin-dictator.
I have always said that presidents don't have a lot of direct impact on job numbers, but I do think Clinton adopted policies that helped the economy and jobs grow. One thing presidents can do is help those who lose jobs get through that period and prepare for getting good replacement jobs. Pres. Bush has not helped much there.
Thanks for having an open mind.
I'm generally with you on being moderate, and respecting the other side's opinion. However, this attitude took a major blow when I saw a recent poll that said that 3/4 of Bush supporters think that Iraq had WMD, and that Saddam Hussein supported 9/11. 56% thought that the 9/11 commission had confirmed ties to Saddam Hussein.
I imagine that at least some of those 3/4 of Bush's supporters are basing their support at least in part on these misconceptions. That's scary. Even if it isn't influencing their decision, that level of ignorance is still frightening.
It is entirely possible that many Kerry supporters have an equal level of ignorance on issues that are important to them.
Of course, this is all very far from blasting a reasonable person like yourself for being "unprofessional" based on your political views. Still, it's frightening as hell.
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/politics/9980622.htm
Hey UCL. I was going to post on the last message, but someone took my point: That unless we knew the "personal event" that caused you to change your vote, then we can't really argue about it. I'm not saying that you're obligated to give out the event (you're not), but it does kind of tie our hands abit.
On this message you've given us a bit more to work with, so let's go with what we have, yes? First of all, I agree with you that this election is about the next 4 years, not the last 4. I disagree, however, in thinking that this makes the last four irrelevant. Past performance may not indicate future results, but I think we can fairly extrapolate Bush's performance on the war so far in order to see how he'd handle it in the future. The biggest critique of Bush's handling of the war is that he simply can't see where he's been wrong. Speaking here as someone who supported the war (and still does), its overwhelmingly clear that the tactics we've used so far in Iraq aren't going to work anymore. Blindly pretending we're marching towards Democracy, when the NIE thinks that a simmering insurgency is the best case scenario, is not going to solve our problems. A change is needed. Indeed, I think in general you could argue that war is a dynamic model, that one always needs to be willing to shift tactics in order to deal with changing situations and events. Bush is not willing to do this. Even though I am doubtful that Kerry will be able to bring in battalions of French shock troops to bail us out of Iraq, the very fact that it won't work will mean that Kerry will change course, because that's what he does: He changes when things aren't working anymore. I consider that a positive. If Kerry was acting Bush-like, he'd claim he'd have internationalized if he got 50 French observers, the stick to that plan for the next four years while everything gets shot to hell.
Now, I admit to some confusion as to your critique on Kerry for voting for the Iraq resolution. First of all, it comes in the same paragraph as when you say that this election is about the next four years, not the last four. Shifting standards? Second of all, the resolution wasn't for war, it was an authorization for the use of force, the object of which was to PREVENT war in order to give us some negotiation leverage. Look to Factcheck.org, Bush said as much during the debate over the resolution: "None of us here today desire to see military conflict, because we know the awful nature of war. Our country values life, and never seeks war unless it is essential to security and to justice. America's leadership and willingness to use force, confirmed by the Congress, is the best way to ensure compliance and avoid conflict. Saddam must disarm, period. If, however, he chooses to do otherwise, if he persists in his defiance, the use of force may become unavoidable." So Kerry's position has been relatively consistent, he supporting giving Bush the leverage, but he pulled the trigger too quick. You can support or oppose this position, or part-support and part-oppose it (like I do), but at least describe it accurately. The problem with assigning equal culpability to Kerry and Bush re: the Iraq war failures is that the buck doesn't stop at Kerry's desk. He had a very limited role in determining how we conducted this war. Bush had a very major role in how we conducted it. That alone means we assign different layers of accountability.
Move to the economy: My position on the economy is that it moves in cycles that aren't anyone's "fault," but smart economic policies can mitigate recessions and encourage booms (and of course, dumb economic policies can exacerbate recessions and dull booms). That's my critique of the Bush administration on this count, it isn't that all the job loses are their fault, its that they've taken the wrong actions (reckless tax cuts not designed for stimulus) in order to get us on the right track. Furthermore, looking beyond short-term economic needs, the return of the deficit has put the US on far shakier economic footing for the long term. Its going to be my generation who eventually has to deal with this problem, so I think I can be forgiven if I'm a bit pissed that the Bush administration thinks that "Reagan proved deficits don't matter" (Dick Cheney I believe?). There are enough things that Bush has done wrong that we don't need to ascribe problems to him that aren't his fault, but the deficit (which the CBO projected even before 9/11 as a result of his tax cut) can be placed squarely on his shoulders.
Now Kerry. I do appear to have a little more faith in Kerry's hawkside than you do (I think its pretty clear he would have attacked Afghanistan, for example). Even if you don't think he'll do it because its his natural inclination, it seems clear to me that it would be the end result of Kerry's strong policy process (if you're generous) or political pressures (if you're not). The point is that fighting the war on terror is a bipartisan project. Kerry can't abandon it, and I think its absurd to suggest he will. So once that framework has been established, that we will fight, the question is "how." The answer is by looking at the problems individually and finding the best-possible solutions on a case-by-case basis, but never losing sight of the goal that we're trying to win a war here.
Daniel Drezner, a man I respect perhaps more than anyone alive (and up until this weekend, an undecided voter who supported Bush in 2000), gives his reasons for supporting Kerry. He's far more eloquent than I am.
I hope this helps, but the fact that you're engaged and willing to put you're positions up to argument is, in itself, something to be respected and admired. Thank you for your time.
All thoughtful comments, of a nature I wish our candidates could debate more often than the usual crap tossed around in the media. I wish I could respond to all of them but the time it would take to do that would kill my Saturday afternoon. A few points...
I am not one of the 3/4 of Bush supporters (well, I'm not even a Bush supporter, yet) who think that Iraq had WMD or that Saddam participated in 9/11.
I wasn't shifting standards by criticizing Kerry's war stance. Rather, I was refuting one of the strongest arguments partisan Democrats use in favor of voting against Bush/for Kerry: the decision to invade Iraq. This issue, as I state in the post, is a wash. Second, re this sentence: "the resolution wasn't for war, it was an authorization for the use of force, the object of which was to PREVENT war in order to give us some negotiation leveragage." This play on words is taken straight out of Kerry's spin machine and I don't buy it. Here's what the resolution said:
"The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate."
As one of the 30 Senators who voted No (I don't remember which) famously stated, this resolution gave the President a "blank check" on going to war. Here's what I would ask John Kerry if I had him before me in a deposition: Why did you give the President a blank check on going to war? And what infuriates me even further is the question: why do you STILL state that you would vote Yes if you knew then what you know now? The point of all this is simply to emphasize that, if you look at the past 4 years when it comes to comparing these 2 men, I don't see anything convincingly different, except that Bush actually had the balls to make a decision frought with political and diplomatic risks. Kerry just rubber-stamped it. I agree, as I stated before, that Bush has more accountability than Kerry for the Iraq error. Unfortunately, telling me that one screwed up more than the other screwed up, but both screwed up and both are the only realistic candidates for President, is not exactly convincing. (Sorry Nader. I voted Nader in '96 because he tells the truth about his views even if I don't always agree with them, but... well... sorry.)
In fact, I think the foundation for my flip-flop (as Slithery D put it) on this election was laid by an Edwards interview I saw a few weeks ago. I wanted to toss my television set out the window as I watched him tell NBC's Tim Russert that both he and John Kerry would vote exactly the same on the war resolution if they could go back in time, and doing so was not a mistake. These men are all a bunch of manipulative, dishonest tricksters. Wherever my vote goes, it will be a vote for the lesser of two evils.
UCL said:"...These men are all a bunch of manipulative, dishonest tricksters. Wherever my vote goes, it will be a vote for the lesser of two evils."
Only just about 8 or 10 years ago, I wrote the words... "picking the president is just like picking between 'lesser of two evils'...". I was about 18 then and I could never understand how people can trust those that high up.
Nothing but respect for your open-mindedness, UCL, but I want to comment on Kerry's vote to "give Bush a blank check."
Bush didn't wait for Congressional authorization before declaring that we would invade Iraq if Saddam didn't give up his WMDs. He just went ahead and declared it. For Congress to deny him the power to invade Iraq after he brashly declared that we were ready to invade would have completely undermined Bush's power to intimidate Saddam. That wouldn't have been good for anyone, and would have sent the absolute wrong message in the war on terror.
What Bush did with his cowboy antics was create a situation in which responsible Senators had no choice but to authorize him to go to war. The alternative would be to castrate the president and to embolden terrorists. Still, most of those who voted in favor of the authorization expected Bush to use it wisely as a bargaining chip, not immediately plunge us into a $200 billion quagmire. Kerry made the right decision on the vote, not because the war was right, but because to vote no would have had extremely negative consequences. It's Bush's war, not Kerry's, and in my opinion it's anything but "a wash."
It's David Giacalone (haiku/ethicalEsq) again. I just want to add that virtually every election for higher office is between/among very imperfect, or at least significantly atypical, human beings. You cannot want to be President without having a skewed sense of yourself, and an overweening need for power and/or fame.
You cannot get nominated by a major party without making many compromises (on issues, tactics, and on principals).
You cannot win without conduct (directly or indirectly through staff and surrogates) that would make most of us common folk cringe.
Yes, it is hard to "trust" politicians. But, that might be asking too much. That lack of total trust is perhaps the price we have to pay to get people who are willing to hold these offices, which entail constant pressure from all directions to cut deals, make promises, appease constituencies, and bend your values in order to get re-elected. The most we can ask for is that the "lesser evil" is actually "just a little less than virtuous and trustworthy."
The Annenberg Center for Public Policy is part of the Kerry spin machine? Someone ought to tell Dick Cheney. But seriously, this wasn't Kerry spinning, this was a direct quote from President Bush at the time of the debate. That happens to be a fact.
Perhaps I'm the wrong person to be arguing this, because I supported the war in Iraq and to me the utter importance of Iraq and making into a successful endeavor is one of the best reasons to vote for Kerry. But it strikes me a little unfair to simultanously argue that 1) Bush should be lauded for having the balls to make a tough decision 2 years ago (IE, he's right on substance) 2) Bush's incompetence in dealing with the issue (IE, wrong on procedure) should be offlimits because we're voting about the next 4 years not the last 4 3) Kerry's vote, even if it supported the "ballsy" action, wasn't done in the right manner or for the right reasons (IE, it was procedurally wrong), and 4) Kerry's very valid criticisms of how the war is being conducted now (IE, substantive criticisms) are irrelevant because they look towards the past and not the future. That's not an equitable standard, and doesn't lend itself to conducive debate.
I agree with at least part of what you said, we're voting for the next four years, not the last four. I happen to think that, regardless of whether Kerry was right or wrong on Iraq, regardless of whether he did it for the right or the wrong reasons, regardless of whether the resolution was a "blank check" or a "necessary threat," that's all in the past four years. What matters now is who wins the NEXT four, and Kerry, unlike Bush, appears to recognize the reality of the war we're fighting and that it isn't the preordained will of God that we're going to win it. Merely being "ballsy" isn't going to win this war. We're going to win it by being smarter, tougher, craftier, and more flexible. But to do it, we need a president that can exercise our greatest assets, and that man is John Kerry. No, he's not perfect. Hell, he's not even that good. But he's the best we've got, and sometimes you just have to bite the bullet.
First off I want to comment about bringing France into this whole war in Iraq. They are under investigation for gross misappropriations during the oil for food scandal and are suspected of selling arms to Iraqi insurgent groups. Not really someone you want to bring to war with you. Second off I am tired of hearing about the war in Iraq being a major Bush folly. He made a decision. He took his decision to Congress. John Kerry rubber stamped his decision. They are both just as culpable. Don't give me any crap about how Kerry was forced to rubber stamp it because it would hurt our dealins with Saddam had he not. It is his constitutional responsibility to do what is right for our nation. He says war should be the last, final resort. He allowed them to resort to it before it was the only and final answer.
I agree with UCL about the candidates being very similar. These candidates are at the extreme opposite ends of the spectrum on maybe one or two issues. Othe than that they are about the same. They don't have nearly as much control over the economy as they say they do. Most presidents have an extremely hard time implementing even a fourth of their campaign promises once in office. A change from Bush to Kerry is not that big of a change. I generally like election time because good debates take place about the position of our country and where we want it to go in the future. This has been the worst political discourse I have seen in my life. I think the most blameworthy people are the media. They are all partisan hacks and just push their own point of view. Let's take CBS's little 'typewritten' memo. They knew it was very much potentially a fake, but it supported their position so they looked past it to air it. Their are examples just as gross on the other end also. The media has become repugnant and people believe the media, unfortunately. We are one mass of un-informed people making knee jerk decisions about candidates that aren't that dissimilar.
Lastly I think in the past we have had some great presidents that have made our nation what it is today. To run for president one hasn't always had to compromise and bend thier morals and their views. It used to be an honorable decision that people made so they could make our country better. The man who I think was the best president of all time, George Washington, exemplified my earlier statement by stepping down after two terms. He felt it was better for the country. I think candidates today, for all types of federal offices, are pushing their own careers and their personal interests. If we as a people could force people to be like that then we would be better off. It starts with decisions like UCL made. he didn't get 'sold' on a candidate and is trying to objectively view who he thinks will make America a safer/better place for the next 4 years. Pure conjecture, but I bet that 90% of the people that responded on here knew they would vote for the democratic ticket in the next election the day Bush took office.
I voted for Bush and thought it didn't matter which one got in. I can't believe the poster above still thinks there's no difference who wins.
> Here's what I would ask John Kerry if I had him before me in a deposition: Why did you give the President a blank check on going to war?
From Slate:
[The video shows Kerry announcing his presidential candidacy on Sept. 2, 2003.] "I voted to threaten the use of force to make Saddam Hussein comply with the resolutions of the United Nations," he says. The video omits Kerry's next sentence: "I believe that was right, but it was wrong to rush to war without building a true international coalition and with no plan to win the peace."
No conflict here. Kerry thinks he was voting to turn up the heat and get compliance with inspections. He thinks Bush betrayed two of Kerry's principles: process and allies. --http://slate.msn.com/id/2105096/
--Noumenon
Okay, take Iraq and net loss of jobs out of it. That still leaves the President's dishonesty about both Iraq, and the economy. It still leaves judicial appointments-- by itself enough for me. It still leaves the manifest willingness of this Administration to dismiss the rest of the world, at the cost of our country's standing in leadership in the world. It leaves us with a President who has instituted a tax policy that is a disaster, and promised further "reform" that we can only guess at.
Forget about achieving something positive, like universal health care, for example. What is it going to take to undo the calamitous things that this President has already done to our country? And how much more will be required if we see him running things for four more years? You think our military is depleted now? You think our standing is the world is as low as it can be already? Do you really want to know what could happen to civil rights over the course of the next quarter century if this President gets a hold of the judiciary? I don't. Bush has been the worst President ever. Kerry's biggest faults are that he is not charismatic, and that he has been a legislator for too long. One is irrelevant to me, and the other will fix itself if he sits in the big chair.
THE ENVIRONMENT ALONE IS REASON ENOUGH TO VOTE FOR KERRY. CONSIDER THIS:
Environment losing federal protection
For Bush, there's just too much wilderness
Last summer, President Bush appeared on a TV fishing show to chat about how much he loves the great outdoors. He said the same thing in a penetrating interview with Field and Stream magazine. He even posed with bird hunters in rural Minnesota, waxing poetic about the wetlands.
It was all part of an intense White House effort to reassure the so-called hook-and-bullet crowd that Bush was one of them, and not a stooge for marauding oil and energy conglomerates.
Whether or not the president has fooled the hunters and fishermen won't be known until Nov. 2, but he hasn't fooled everybody. His radical, plunder-and-pillage environmental policy is changing America's landscape in ways that have distressed even some of the party faithful.
The Bush-Cheney view of wilderness is simple: There's too much of it. So, for nearly four years, the administration has tirelessly worked to open hundreds of thousands of acres on public lands to the oil, gas and timber companies.
Under pressure from the White House, the Bureau of Land Management is issuing more and more drilling permits, especially in the Rocky Mountain states. Oil and natural gas operations are primed to take off from Montana to New Mexico, intruding on some of the country's most scenic and pristine ecosystems.
The nonchalance with which Bush stripped away federal protections throughout the West has drawn flak from constituencies that are usually Republican -- outfitters, sportsmen, even farmers and ranchers.
For months, the administration has been trying to make peace, dispatching high-ranking officials to convince the locals that rampant drilling and logging won't harm the wildlife, foul the rivers and ruin tourism.
Selling this president as a nature lover hasn't been easy, considering his pathetic record.
Since Bush took office, only 529,604 acres have been set aside for conservation under the Wilderness Act. By contrast, more than 10.6 million acres were preserved during the Reagan years.
Who made the energy policy?
It doesn't enhance Bush's credibility that he so shamelessly packed his administration with big shots from the oil and gas industry, starting with Diamond Dick Cheney. The vice president still refuses to reveal who served on his energy-policy panel, but it's hardly a mystery. Just check out the prices at the gas pump.
As unprecedented as the current assault on the environment is, it hasn't made much of a ripple during the election campaign. Pollsters say that voters are more worried about Iraq, terrorism, jobs and healthcare.
Yet back in Wyoming, Cheney's home state, ranchers are watching cattle die from drinking contaminated water, courtesy of the natural-gas companies. The extraction process pumps 60 million gallons daily from methane-rich coal beds to surface ponds and other storage areas in the Powder River Basin.
The ranchers, most of whom were Bush voters in 2000, are understandably disillusioned. These aren't folks who can be snidely dismissed as liberal tree huggers; they're die-hard conservatives who are getting shafted while the energy tycoons get richer.
Ironically, Florida has been spared a similar fate because the president's brother is governor, and because the state's electoral votes are crucial to the president's reelection hopes.
Offshore drilling is passionately opposed by most Floridians, and Jeb Bush couldn't have won in 1998 without speaking out strongly against it.
If George W. gets reelected, all bets are off after Jeb leaves office two years down the road. When Big Business pushes, this president caves.
Nothing rings so hollow than to hear him invoke the natural glories of the Everglades. Until last fall, the administration was drafting a plan to roll back federal jurisdiction over protected wetlands, making it easier to drain and develop them.
`The greatest disaster'
When the news leaked, hunting and fishing groups protested that the plan would destroy large tracts of irreplaceable wildlife habitat. The White House backed off quickly, and President Bush later announced he actually wanted to expand national wetlands.
You don't have to love the wilderness to be worried about the next four years. If your kids breathe the air or drink the water, you've got a major stake in this election.
Regulations intended to protect the public from mercury emissions, arsenic, carbon monoxide and other toxic wastes have been continually targeted by the administration, with varying success. The president has made it plain that he thinks that pollution laws are just too darn burdensome on Big Business.
Sen. James Jeffords, the Republican-turned-independent, says that the Bush years will go down as ''the greatest disaster for public health and the environment in the history of the United States.'' The administration says that it's seeking to strike a balance between a healthy economy and a healthy ecology. Unfortunately, we have neither.
Bush will be a friend of the hunter until a timber company wants to clear-cut the forest. He'll be a friend of the fisherman until a mining company wants to use the stream as a latrine.
Then he'll look the other way and be a friend to those who wrote the largest campaign checks.
Four words for ya UCL: Chief Justice Antonin Scalia.
Just kidding.
You said, "Bush made a mistake in invading Iraq. What partisan Democrats are not understanding is that that reason alone is an inadequate argument for voting against him." You may be right (emphasis on "may"), but that's not the only reason I'm not voting for Bush (and thankfully, being from Ohio, my vote might actually count this time around...). The education system in our society is a sham, as is the medicare system, as is the health care system.
Whether you believe health care is a fundamental right or not, the simple fact is that Americans work longer hours than workers in any other industrialized nation (http://archives.cnn.com/2001/CAREER/trends/08/30/ilo.study/) and we remain the only industrialized nation without some semblance of a universal health care system for our workers or working poor. Bush can say all he wants about the flaws in the Canadian health care system, and he's probably right, but universal health care does not always work the way the Canadian system works. I've lived in Japan, England, and Denmark for extended periods of time and was covered by the universal health care systems in 2/3 (Japan & Denmark). In both countries, I chose my own doctors and I chose my own hospitals when needed (yes, I had to make more than one emergency room trip, sadly enough), and I never had to wait more than a week for an appointment or more than an hour for an emergency room visit. In Japan, about two weeks before returning to the States, I thought I had broken my foot. My emergency room visit, including X-rays and bandaging (and the time it took to translate some of the information, which included a phone call or two) was under two hours, and I was into the see the doctor within 20 mins. Coming back to the States, and starting as a student, I had to rely on the pathetic excuse for health insurance my school provides. During a flag football game my first year, I again thought I broke my foot, and had to wait in the emergency room from 9-12 before I was *seen*, let alone the X-ray, bandaging, and we wasted no time with translations. Bush has no solution for providing health care. Kerry does. Is it perfect? Not in my opinion. Does it go far enough? Again, not in my opinion. But, it's a start and its moving in the right direction.
And don't get me started on education! :) As a former school teacher and the daughter of a dedicated school board member (she's served for more than 16 years on the school board of an inner-city school system which is consistently lauded by the State for the way the schools are conducted, even though our test scores don't reflect it), all I can say is No Child Left Behind will leave thousands of Ohio children left behind. Our educational system in Ohio is flawed in its own right - its been ruled to be inconsistent with our State Constitution for over a decade - we really don't need the federal government messing it up even more. If there was a real solution in NCLB, that'd be great. There's not. Just a lot of testing without the funds to back it up.
So, no UCL, its not just about Iraq. There are lots of reasons to vote our Bush. You're right - the past won't indicate the future, and this isn't about the last four years. It's about the next four years and making sure we get the solutions as quickly as we can. It won't ruin the republic, but it may ruin some lives - those of kids in struggling schools or those of people without health insurance.
All of these issues could be debated for hours on end with meaningful input on both sides. it is how you look at the issue. I feel sorry for the people that think that if Bush is elected president than nobody will have health care, not a universal right, nobody will have civil rights, and the environment will be gone. If you people took a less drastic stand then maybe you would have a chance at convincing people that don't feel the same way as you. You remind me of the catholic church, all fire and brimstone.
As a footnote don't think that if a judge gets elected than he will do exactly as the president hoped. There are numerous examples where judges 'dissapoint' their appointers. Also to have this little faith in our judiciary is bad. To think one new judge will tip the scales to scaling back civil rights is a bit drastic. Also there are checks on the supreme court. I seem to remember that Congress can change the Courts appellate jurisdiction. Let's not forget that our government is run by many people not one president.
Look as the individual who asked only semi facetiously if you treated deponents like this, what I was commenting on was how cavalierly you treated your audience, not the fact that you switched. Your reaction to my post tells me that you're not paying attention and you're extremely sensitive to something you posted yourself. Gotta ask yourself why that is?
You can change your mind, but if you're going to treat us all like teaser ponies, you'll get the honest reaction I gave you. And, thanks, I have a life.
Mr. Bush is already well on his way to undermining the Constitution and restricting civil rights and liberties. Those who claim that those who are afraid of Bush for this reason are being silly are dramatically underestimating what he's already done and what he will likely do in a second term when he faces no re-election concerns.
Consider the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Amendments to the Constitition. The wall between church and state has been seriously breached, and will likely continue to be further breached under Bush; probable cause and right to counsel have been pretty much completely put on hold in this "war on terror"; judicial review of such actions was all but nonexistent. Although Abu Ghirab wasn't in this country, it sure says something about Eighth Amendment implications. And don't forget this whole "Marriage Amendment" bull which write discrimination INTO the Constitution for the first time since its original ratification.
Bush/Cheney/Ashcroft and crew are using the Constitution as their own personal toilet paper. I'm not exaggerating when I say the implications of this next election are tremendous.
From my perspective, there are three big, scary problems with voting for Kerry.
/1/ A Bush loss would be perceived as an admission to the world that the policy of pre-epmtion was wrong. This would increase the domestic terror threat and further erode our standing in the world. They might not respect us, at the moment, but they do fear us. An important distinction.
/2/ With news today about Chief Justice Rehnquist's cancer, it's more likely that the next President will name at least one new justice possibly as early as spring 05. We don't need another activist Supreme.
/3/ Kerry is going to raise taxes, which will be disaster for our already fragile economy.
In response to an earlier commentator, a Kerry election is not an admission to the world that the doctrine of preemption is wrong (although some international law scholars would tell you that it is). It's an admission that the way *this* administration went about activities is wrong. Also, I think its blind partisanism - or a complete lack of our current standing in international community - to suggest that electing Kerry would "further erode our standing in the world." Last time I saw a stats on it, 72% of the world would vote for Kerry if they could and 70% of Europeans think G.W. is the *biggest* threat to international peace and stability. A rejection of his rogue leadership style would not lose us international esteem - it might actually help!
Additionally, a Kerry election may serve as an appropriate rebuke to our political branches for not providing the American people with an appropriate and sufficient amount of information re: the real vs. possible causes for a war and the real vs. possible outcomes for a war. Hopefully, in the future, it would also encourage opposition parties to stand a little stronger and ask tougher questions since it would show that a robust debate on issues does not necessarily sound the death knoll for our politicians. I blame our entry into the war almost as much on the Democrats as I do on President Bush (although I blame a failure of Bush's leadership for the way in which we have conducted the war). Ideally, the purpose of a two-party system is that the parties hold each other accountable while each party's members, independents, and voters hold the party leadership and representatives accountable. Our system fails us when the opposition party does not appropriately hold the administration or the majority party accountable for their activities, actions, policies, or justifications. This war is the perfect example - there were sufficient doubts about a connection between Hussein/Iraq and 9/11. People in Congress - primarily Democrats, but also Republicans - should have been asking tougher questions and they didn't. This is our time to suggest we as voters want to be treated differently - better - in the future by having realistic and worthy debates before we get into a situation like this.
Second, re: the activist Supreme Court members. Most of the current Supreme Court members are activists when they feel it necessary. Bush v. Gore resoundingly suggested that. If the same vote had occurred with the eventual outcome favoring Gore, I'm not sure one would make the same argument (although many would have felt they were living in the twighlight zone). But, if the same outcome had occurred favoring Gore but with the majority including Breyer, Ginsburg, Souter, Stevens, & O'Connor, you can bet your bottom dollar that conservatives throughout the country would have labeled it as inappropriate judicial activism. Often Scalia and Thomas are advocating their political views their calls for judicial restraint or textualist readings, even while their calls tend to be consistent with each other. Roe v. Wade being a perfect example. I don't think one side is legally 'right,' while the other is legally 'wrong.' I think both can be legally correct, but both positions require a degree of advocacy by the judge/Justice making the determination. So, to suggest Kerry would appoint 'activist' judges while Bush would not is to ignore the history and stances of the current - and past - Supreme Courts.
Finally, UCL has already suggested he doesn't believe a President's positions really influence the economy so this argument probably won't fly very far with him. Additionally, to suggest Kerry's economic policies would damage a fragile economy while Bush's would not again ignores reality and history. This is the first President since the 1920s to leave with a worse job situation than he came in with. *That's* what's hurting our economy - not taxes. Finally, there's nothing to suggest that Kerry will raise taxes - he pledged not to in the 2d debate and as Bush the Elder showed, a President always stands by those promises once elected. Or, er . . . I mean, . . .
The reason the mind door opened doesn't matter. To me the only significant thing is that the dead bolt was retracted, the knob was turned, and the jam hardware proved to be functional. Too many people allow their partisan prejudices to rust their hinge pins.
I will walk in with a premise that has not been put forth. "Bush has demonstrated that he is a brilliant strategist." I could build a case that he showed his political prowess in his successful campaign to unseat Ann Richards and gain the governor's office in Texas. I could comment on how in his Presidential campaigns he out thought and out maneuvered Gore, and now Kerry. That is all water that has passed, or is now passing under a relatively unimportant bridge.
Let's consider instead what he has done during his time in the Oval Office in confronting global terrorism. In the international arena this was a sleeping volcano. The world built a fence around the cinder cone that sent lava into Kuwait. Clinton ignored the ash from the WTC basement bombing, the smoke from the Cole, and ignored the rumblings and passed on the opportunity to "pre-empt" Bin Laden's ability to carry out his stated intentions by taking him into custody.
(I pause for a brief moment to mention that the Clinton Administration's anti-terrorist actions were directed at 87 weirdos at Waco, and a woman armed with an attack baby at Ruby Ridge. I point this out because the Democratic attitude then, and currently being expressed by Candidate Kerry, is that terrorism is a problem that should be "handled" as a law enforcement and legal situation rather than a war.)
The WTC/Pentagon attack on 9/11 was an eruption. Bush immediately identified the event as an act of war, which demanded a military response. It was clear thinking, and prompted some powerful POTUS and VPOTUS rhetoric, but it was the strategy (perhaps I'll say "strateegery") that followed which showed the brilliance I mentioned.
Bush, as the civilian Commander in Chief, gives the Military a clear objective and then is smart enough to get out of the way and let them do their job. He doesn't micromanage or interfere. Bush has a bond of trust with people in uniform. He respects them and they respect him. (I doubt the same could be said for candidate Kerry.) The effect of that attitude and the rapport and success it creates was obvious in Afghanistan.
In his various appearances before the UN, Bush always reminds that august body of the principles in their own charter. He challenges these "diplomats" to cease the endless dialogue and meaningless posturing and become a relevant organization. His message is clear, "the UN has done nothing effective to confront this menace and the time for action has come." This is much needed leadership. In my opinion it was long overdue. (The "plan" Kerry has put forth is more talk from a better talker.)
Speaking of things "long overdue," that brings us to Iraq. A lot of people felt it was a mistake not to have finished things during the first Gulf War by going into Baghdad and toppling Hussein. The UN inspired policy of "withdrawal and containment" rather than absolute victory was a tragic mistake. It lead to the massacre of the Kurds. It forced the people of Iraq to endure a decade of suffering. It demonstrated to terrorist groups and harboring nations that the "world" did not have the will to end a repressive regime and defiance was possible.
It also showed unscrupulous individuals in positions of power that dealings that circumvented the sanctions placed on Hussein could be very lucrative. By going in to Iraq Bush made a decision that solved a lot of very nasty problems. He gave millions of people in a country that hasn't had it a shot at trying out some freedom, and an example for a lot of other countries in that troubled part of the world to watch. He exposed a bunch of double dealing pocket liners for the scoundrels they really are. He eliminated two major terrorist strongholds, make that three since Libya decided to change its terrorist WMD ways, and there are probably more that will come. He certainly has a bunch of really troublesome types at least wondering if they're next. Not bad W. Not bad at all. I'm glad you're coming around in time for the election, and realizing that you're becoming inclined to vote for a Head of State, rather than a head of hair.
If you are undecided at this point of course I would like to take this moment and ask you to look at some of this information, thanks. I will not try and pick any one issue; I know it is not that simple, only if it was:)
http://nadernow.blogspot.com/
http://www.watchblog.com/thirdparty/archives/001691.html#more
http://www.issues2000.org/default.htm
http://www.votenader.org/why_ralph/index.php?cid=166
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Nader
OK, stated what I wanted too. Good luck to you with your choice and everyone else on theirs!
/3/ Kerry is going to raise taxes, which will be disaster for our already fragile economy.Bush raised your taxes when he signed that $500 billion Medicare bill. Bush raised your taxes when he decided to spend $200 billion in Iraq without cutting anything to pay for it. Bush raised your taxes, sure as someone who puts your credit card in an ATM and hands you $500 cash has raised your monthly bill. The fact that Kerry will be the one who signs the tax increase into law does not make him responsible for it. Spending causes taxation.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home