1. He promised to be a more middle of the road president, and unite the parties, while in fact he has been FAR more conservative than most of us were lead to believe. 2. His fiscal responisibility has been for crap. These 2 things alone may make me switch my vote, though I despise Kerry's politics. At this point I wish Gore were running. DD
Yeah his fiscal policies are enough to drive this sometime republican to vote libertarian. I always figured I'd vote Democratic if they'd put up a better candidate...but alas....
3. I'd probably be labeled by many as pro-Business, but the extremes to which this Admin went to are excessive. There must be some balance. An addendum to your #1 DaDakota, he was also quite effective at dividng the US and much of the rest of the world. If not remedied soon, we will feel the ramifications for a very long time, and could hasten the inevitable departure of the US as the hyperpower.
Let me add: 1. His paranoid foreign policy. 2. His paranoid domestic security policy. 3. Flip flops on trade. 4. His ability to not let facts get in the way of ideology. (See paranoid foreign policy and also the complaints by noted scientist regarding Admin. policy.) 5. Finally that the guy has not learned the art of rhetoric. Even when I agree with GW Bush I find listening to his speeches painful. I knew Clinton was full of it but boy could he deliver an eloquent speech. Heck listening to commentators just read GW Bush's speeches they sound so much better than his rambling and bumbling behavior. I know Conservatives love to point this out as a strength by showing what a plain spoken man he is but that is like saying we are proud of our failings.
But he's just a "compassionate" conservative, something I still don't know what the heck means after all these years.
i'm curious, re #1 above, what are you surprised by? he really had very little opportunity to be a "uniter" since the democrats pretty much came out swinging, even before he was sworn in, not to mention their scorched earth tactics in florida, which have permanently poisoned relations between the two parties. as to his conservative leanings, are you referring to social policy, abortion, etc.? are you really surprised that a president would act on his convictions? i guess after 8 years of clintonism it'd be easy to assume that presidents don't mean what they say, but nothing bush has done has surprised me w/ the exception of his spending policies, which are indeed screwed up. that said, the tax cuts are having the desired effect, and most serious economists agree that the recession would have been far worse w/o them. true, the job market has been slow coming back, but then jobs are always the last thing to recover. if congress, and the president, were able exercise any self control over spending we'd be in great shape. kerry won't change this dynamic, he'll only make it worse. comparing their positions on the major issues of the campain, foreign policy, the war on terror, the economy, tax cuts, trade policy, and social policy, gay marriage, etc., i have trouble imagining that any reasonably sentient person could prefer kerry. Kerry want's to outsource our security to the UN, a body that can't even figure out how to send a peace keeping force to haiti, much less enforce it's own resolutions on terror. iran has virtually attained a nuclear bomb, and what is the UN response? a collective yawn. Kerry thinks fighting terror is primarily a job for prosecuters and the intelligence community. yet, he voted to cut funding for intelligence, and it wasn't interpol who chased the tailban out of afghanistan and captured saddam in his spider hole. he want's to raise taxes on those making over 200k. fine, i suppose if you want to indulge in class warfare (rather ironic considering kerry's own finances), but he doesn't want to use the money to pay down the deficit. instead he'll just spend it, so where's the benefit? he'd also enact more restrictive trade policies, which can only result in the loss of more US jobs. raise taxes, cut jobs: stupid economic policy. Kerry and president bush both want to ban gay marriage, they just differ on how to do it. at least W is forthright in his methods. while i don't agree with W's approach, nor for that matter his view on this issue, he's right that it should be decided by the state legislatures and not by the courts. we don't need a repeat of the roe v wade debacle. no, if one really considers the issue, W is the clear choice. btw, interesting stat-let: Harding and Kennedy are the only two US presidents that have been elevated to the office directly from the senate. true, other former senators have become presidents, but most were VP first.
Here goes: -His domestic policy of basically spending more money than a sailor in a bar after payday is just ridiculous. You're a damned Republican, a party that claims to be for smaller govt and yet the govt is bigger under you than Clinton? The farm bill, education bill and Homeland Security bills were disasters loaded with more pork than a smokehouse. He did not veto one bit of bloated legislation from Congress. Fiscal conservative my ass! - Rather than stand up for his judicial appointees and use the recess appointment method to get around the stonewallers in the Senate, he just simply backed down. Only now has he appointed a few via the recess appointment, but it is a case of too little, too late. - This "new tone" is a disaster, as he's allowed himself to be constantly savaged by liberals without so much as a response. These people can not be bargained with or reasoned with. They must be defeated, period. They're going to demonize you whatever you do or no matter how nice you are because you have a R by your name. -The amnesty program for illegals is probably the worst proposal to ever come out of the mouths of the Republicans, a party that claims to be more in tune with our national security needs. How can you give amnesty to someone whose first act in this country was breaking the law? Build a wall on the border, put the military down there and secure the border. Any numbnuts with half a brain can evade the border patrol. But there is no way I could vote for John Kerry, a candidate who stands for: -Higher taxes -increased environmental regulation -a less aggressive foreign policy far too dependant on entangling alliances and subject to the whims of nations acting in their own self interest. -more entitlement spending. Want proof of that? Here it is: link Middle class tax cuts? Bill Clinton promised us one and instead, all we got were tax increases. This is just code-words for making more people not liable for income tax. link In other words, spend more of our tax dollars down a sinkhole tilting at windmills. When we run out of gasoline, our free market economy will be forced to act and it will. Trust me on that. But John Kerry can't trust that, because he believes that govt knows best. link So now I and other producers foot a bill for everyone else's medical bills, eh? It is impossible to balance the budget and yet proposal a boondoogle like that! I don't like Bush at all, but I like Kerry even less and realize that we can ill afford a disasterous Kerry presidency.
bama -- when you pay your medical bills, you're already footing the bill for those who can't be refused treatment. medical expenses are out the roof...and i simply can't weigh my own income against the need of a child to receive medical care.
Once upon a time, medical care was not considered a right, but now, it is. Why can't people pay for their own medical bills? I pay mine. Nothing worth having is cheap. Our medical expenses have risen because: -Malpractice litigation is out of control and simply destroying the medical profession. Our litigation-happy society is literally sucking the marrow out of life. - There is too much govt. regulation of the medical industry. Cut that red tape and costs will go down.
bama -- 1. doctors simply can't refuse patients care because they can't pay...certainly not in emergency situations. that's what i mean when i say ultimately those of us who can pay are shouldering that load, anyway. 2. just because doctors used to be able to refuse care in those situations, doesn't mean that's the "right" thing. 3. i hear your arguments...but i think that puts capitalism and the market economy ahead of real people...sick people...dying people. i'm just completely uncomfortable with that. there's a certain idolatry about that that really freaks me out.
bama, they had "tort reform" here in Texas and doctors insurance premiums haven't gone down... and in many cases, they have gone up. There are a couple of hundred thousand children in this state that just got cut from healthcare services, and they had the bad luck to be born poor, because the state refused to raise any revenue to cover any part of a 10 billion dollar shortfall. Why should these kids suffer when we can do something about it? As for government regulation of the "medical" industry, why does Lipitor, an excellent anti-cholesterol drug manufactered in Ireland, cost a fraction in Canada of what it costs in the States? Your being very 19th century here, bama, and it's not very attractive. Nice post, Max.
when did drs. ever turn patients away because they weren't able to pay? as the child of two drs., the brother of another, and the step-son of yet another, i have to say i've never seen or heard of a single instance of this happening. the high cost of medical care in this country has everything to do with the cost of liability insurance which is driven up by lawsuits filed by the likes of current dem poster boy john edwards.
Bama might seem like he doesn't give a damn about uninsured children. However, he doesn't really want them to suffer or die. In his belief system nothing can be done This is not personal for Bama. He has helath insurance. Bama believes in the free markets and the Bible. It would destroy the "personal responsibility" of these children and their parents if you subsidized their health care. These children or at least their parents or sinners. They don't have the bucks to demand healthcare so they must suffer and die. If you get the government involved, it is atheistic communism or socialism or liberalism, or John Kerry-- you know all the same thing. It is God's will. the survival of the fittest. (To this extent only Bama believes in Darwinism, but God created the world in exactly 7 days!).
On the neo-con revolution and the new third way: http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2003/cr071003.htm
One problem here. GW Bush's solution takes the decision out of the hands of state legislatures since a US Constitutional Ammendment will overrule any state law or court decision.
... Our medical expenses have risen because: -Malpractice litigation is out of control and simply destroying the medical profession. Our litigation-happy society is literally sucking the marrow out of life. Nope. Medical expenses have risen because market forces were turned upside-down. Most recently, due to unmitigated increases in prescription drugs. Litigation has only had a small effect in the increases. - There is too much govt. regulation of the medical industry. Cut that red tape and costs will go down. Care to share specifics? Is that all of those regulations in place to try and reduce deaths in hospitals or at the hands of doctors (when studies show that more than 100,000 lives stillcould be saved annually)? Is it all of those new, expensive reuglations in place to protect the confidentiality of your healthcare data? Pls. be more specifc, which are the superfluous regulations that you speak of?
