So Andy you are saying kerry will raise taxes but then turn around and give those credits to selected groups? Lovely.
Any argument which reduces complaints against Bush's actions to saying he's the Devil shows just how receptive said poster is to any valid discussion of Bush's Presidency, and makes the whole debate pointless. There are real conservatives and Republicans in here who have looked at the war, the preamble for the war, the budget etc. and come away gravely concerned, so it isn't a biased witch hunt to say he's a problem, and it isn't akin to saying he's the Devil.
Ok Suppose he's been mediocre. I can even buy the possibility. What, in GWB's C.V. rose to that level? His scholastic career? his armed service? His business days? His term as Governor? What? His Presidency, for God's sake? When you're looking at a jack high, a pair of sevens looks awful nice.
Faos; Its a fair question but in our system of adversarial politics dominated by two parties any election with an incumbent is largely going to be a referendum on that incumbent. Its almost always going to be a vote for other guy because he isn't the guy in office. As I've said repeatedly though this election need not be about the choice of the lesser of two evils. If you're a true political conservative then this election should be about restoring divided government which means voting for Kerry. In terms of fiscal discipline, restraining government and protecting individual liberties (all core conservative beliefs) its obvious the current Republican dominated government has failed. Historically Democratic dominated governments haven't done any better and often worse. Its only under divided government where those things have occured. Right now the easiest way to divided government is a Kerry victory because it is extremely unlikely that the Congress will become Democratic. That way the excesses of the executive branch will be checked by the Congress and you need not worry about Kerry raising taxes or restricting trade because a Repub Congress will block him on those. Its only the situration like we have now where Congress and the Executive are controlled by the same party where the excesses occur, like increasing spending and intrusive police powers, because the Congress is willing to lay aside their check of Executive power in the interest of supporting the leader of their own party.
Good points. Carter wasn't just raising hell covertly he was doing it openly and even on the most public of stages by boycotting the Moscow Olympics. IMO not a good move to politicize the Olympics but you can't knock him for being weak on the Soviets there. Also most Republicans seem to have forgotten that the Carter who to them is the paragon of cowardice, was willing to try a military operation to rescue the hostages while Reagan, the paragon of strength, traded arms to our sworn enemy to get them back.
Sishir Chang make some points. Does Kerry winning really change that much? He's going to have to fight through a Republican congress to get his plans into policy.
What did GWB accomplish between his 18th and 40th birthdays, besides setting the record for closing down bars and being the poster child for privileged upbringing.
John Kerry lead the fight to stop the illegal activities of Iran/Contra. Let's also look at one of his pet issues. John Kerry has worked tirelessly for people with disabilities. That's not a high profile issue that will bring in loads of corporate money, but it's an important issue and Kerry has been champion of it for years. What has Bush done on the issue? In fact what had Bush done before becoming President? He was a failure in every business venture he ever entered into. He was arrested for drunk driving, he wasn't elected to conress, and he served as controversial governor of Texas. I'll take Kerry's pre-presidential record any day.
Yes, it's good that he worked tirelessly on such an issue. But the most important issue of this election is the fight against terrorism and that is something over Kerry's head. And Edward's too for that matter.
I think it all depends on how you look at the war against terror. Those that believe Iraq was an important part of it prior to our invasion will likely think it's over his head. Those that think it hurt our efforts in the war on terror and like Kerry's proposal of targeted military strikes on terrorist targets are looking forward to giving Kerry the opportunity to carry out his plans.
Seems like with the sharp increase in terrorism over the last year, it may be over our current President's head as well.
Probably the same reason that Bush supporters are not even attempting to run on W's record and instead bash Kerry / Edwards. The Bush Presidency has been one of the most divisive in recent American history. The truly ironic thing is that Bush said he was a uniter, not a divider. Well he is right in one aspect. He has certainly united the Democratic party...
Here's a piece from Henry Waxman... I wonder how much investigating of the Executive Branch theses same Republican leaders would countenance if Kerry is President? By the way, we will spend about $14 million (it was originally only going to be 3, but Congress eventually caved in to modest requests from the commission) trying to figure out what happened on 9-11 and we spent over $70 million trying to drive Clinton from office. ___________________ Free Pass From Congress By Henry A. Waxman Tuesday, July 6, 2004; Page A19 In the past four years there has been an abrupt reversal in Congress's approach to oversight. During the Clinton administration, Congress spent millions of tax dollars probing alleged White House wrongdoing. There was no accusation too minor to explore, no demand on the administration too intrusive to make. Republicans investigated whether the Clinton administration sold burial plots in Arlington National Cemetery for campaign contributions. They examined whether the White House doctored videotapes of coffees attended by President Clinton. They spent two years investigating who hired Craig Livingstone, the former director of the White House security office. And they looked at whether President Clinton designated coal-rich land in Utah as a national monument because political donors with Indonesian coal interests might benefit from reductions in U.S. coal production. Committees requested and received communications between Clinton and his close advisers, notes of conversations between Clinton and a foreign head of state, internal e-mails from the office of the vice president, and more than 100 sets of FBI interview summaries. Dozens of top Clinton officials, including several White House chiefs of staff and White House counsels, testified before Congress. The Clinton administration provided to Congress more than a million pages of documents in response to investigative inquiries. At one point the House even created a select committee to investigate whether the Clinton administration sold national security secrets to China, diverting attention from Osama bin Laden and other real threats facing our nation. When President Clinton was in office, Congress exercised its oversight powers with no sense of proportionality. But oversight of the Bush administration has been even worse: With few exceptions, Congress has abdicated oversight responsibility altogether. Republican Rep. Ray LaHood aptly characterized recent congressional oversight of the administration: "Our party controls the levers of government. We're not about to go out and look beneath a bunch of rocks to try to cause heartburn." Republican leaders in Congress have refused to investigate who exposed covert CIA agent Valerie Plame, whose identity was leaked after her husband, Joe Wilson, challenged the administration's claims that Iraq sought nuclear weapons. They have held virtually no public hearings on the hundreds of misleading claims made by administration officials about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and ties to al Qaeda. They have failed to probe allegations that administration officials misled Congress about the costs of the Medicare prescription drug bill. And they have ignored the ethical lapses of administration officials, such as the senior Medicare official who negotiated future employment representing drug companies while drafting the prescription drug bill. The House is even refusing to investigate the horrific Iraq prison abuses. One Republican chairman argued, "America's reputation has been dealt a serious blow around the world by the actions of a select few. The last thing our nation needs now is for others to enflame this hatred by providing fodder and sound bites for our enemies." Compare the following: Republicans in the House took more than 140 hours of testimony to investigate whether the Clinton White House misused its holiday card database but less than five hours of testimony regarding how the Bush administration treated Iraqi detainees. There is a simple but deplorable principle at work. In both the Clinton and Bush eras, oversight has been driven by raw partisanship. Congressional leaders have vacillated between the extremes of abusing their investigative powers and ignoring them, depending on the party affiliation of the president. Our nation needs a more balanced approach. Congressional oversight is essential to our constitutional system of checks and balances. Excessive oversight distracts and diminishes the executive branch. But absence of oversight invites corruption and mistakes. The Founders correctly perceived that concentration of power leads to abuse of power if unchecked. The congressional leadership is wrong to think that its current hands-off approach protects President Bush. In fact, it has backfired, causing even more harm than the overzealous pursuit of President Clinton. Lack of accountability has contributed to a series of phenomenal misjudgments that have damaged Bush, imperiled our international standing and saddled our nation with mounting debts. Asking tough questions is never easy, especially if one party controls both Congress and the White House, but avoiding them is no answer. Evenhanded oversight is not unpatriotic; it's Congress's constitutional obligation. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A29810-2004Jul5?language=printer
That's a great piece, but I doubt it will silence those who claim the current investigations are unfair, and just people who hate Bush.
This was probably Clinton's biggest mistake. Congress dogged him for 8 years. Most of it was minor BS but the impeachment should have been the last straw. Clinton should have dropped the hammer after the impeachment, taken off the gloves, and gotten even.
I think it will be lovely when people will have the opportunity to go to school. You may prefer that the richest Americans get hundreds of thousands of dollars PER YEAR, but I think we will improve this country FAR more if that money was used to educate people who would not otherwise be able to afford it.
Well, if Democrats controlling the House and Senate from 1993-1995 were dogging him, too, maybe there was something up with him that needed to be investigated.
So tax teh richest americans. Set up a nex rate for people making over a million dollars. All kerry is doing is taking money from everyone who pays federal taxes (rolling back Bush's tax cuts) and giving it to his selected groups (you have kids, bingo you're in luck). And tax breaks are their currently for college, including tax credits and interest deductions on student loans. Bush was the one who got the interest deduction to be continual rather than just for a set numer of years. it was his tax package that include the tax credits (Hope, Lefe Time Learning credits) which have caps on income so the ultra-welthy would not benefit from them. So I have no idea how anyone could say college is more expensive because of Bush. if college is more expensive it's simply because the colleges are raising their tuition more than in the past.
