My problem with Bush is that he has been unable to reduce spending. Since the Dems won't reduce spending either, and will probably raise taxes to boot, I will certainly not be voting Democrat. With the Governership falling to the GOP (Schwarzenegger) I will probably still vote Bush in the hopes that he can somehow take Commufornia.
Tough to say on these things. I didn't fall for Bush's "compassion" gimmick, although I tend to vote for the other side anyway. My antipathy deepened after 9/11 and learning how Florida's votes went for Bush. But I can honestly say that I don't know much about Kerry. If I have two main issues with him, they would be: he voted for the Iraq War and now has to talk in loops when questioned about it (he did fight in Vietnam and then later marched against it; shouldn't he have learned his lesson then?); and, uh, shoot, I forgot the other thing, but it also involves flip-flopping and long-winded answers (hey, it's Friday, I can't be expected to remember these things). I'll vote for Kerry because he doesn't follow the Project for the New American Century (see also, Richard Perle), but Kerry doesn't entirely get me singing his praises. Guess I'll hold my nose at the voting booth (which won't make a difference in the Electoral College in Texas, unless no other white men vote here).
I think it was Chris Matthews who recently said, "Isn't tax and spend better than don't tax and spend?" Anyone who cares at all about a balanced budget or the record deficits this administration is passing on to future generations would have to admit that, given this less than palatable choice, yes it is. That said, I don't concede at all that Kerry would be a big spender relative to Bush, who by all accounts has presided over the biggest government (and biggest gov't spending) in our country's history.
There are many things I don't like about Bush, but two fairly non-partisan issues are: 1)screwing with overtime 2)the complete disregard for science while at the same time elevating political considerations in the development of policy.
oh yeah, and 3) not following through on promises to first responders while wrapping the political package with same.
Everyone needs to pay their fair share, Democrat tax proposals are not that out of proportion to what we receive in return.
There are plenty of people who pay nothing and take a lot. I would prefer a consumption tax as I outlined in the tax thread we had around here earlier. I don't think I should have to pay for Los Angeles freeways, somebody's kid to go to school, or some junky to get off the smack, even though there are some ancillary benefits for me.
Some of these "defenses" presented only reinforce my desire to see Bush voted out. It will make a great future Trivial Pursuit question, "What father and son were the only one-term Presidents in US history?" Like father like son.
When did medical care become a right rather than a service? No one will answer that question. Socialized medicine would be a disaster of epic and biblical proportions. And on this whole myth of the uninsured, thanks to our laws, hospitals have to stabilize patients, no matter what their bank account. I know it makes me sound cruel when I say that, but govt. is the last agent you want involved with your health care. I think the Libertarian Party offers an excellent solution to the health care "crisis." Getting rid of the FDA, which is a pathetic policing agency anyhow (look at all the fad diet drugs on the market minus FDA approval!) would go a long way toward making our drugs faster and easier to obtain. As for malpractice, we've got to start a loser pays legal system to take care of all of these ridiculous lawsuits that cost billions to everyone every year. I donate pretty heavily to the Shriner's Hospital and Catholic Social Services, two charities that do more good than any govt. program has ever done. link
George W. Bush was hand picked and annointed by the right-right wing of the Right and the religious hypocrites. George W. Bush will eventually end like his father - one term and out. This was revealed to me. This nonesense, joke and nightmare will thankfully end in a matter of moths. Monica Lewinski still has a huge hand in all of this nonesense. Bush would not have been president save for her "developement".
We had this point in one of the other threads about how the "right wing" has totally redefined the political landscape. I think that the same effect is dogging you as well. Bush is not annointed by "right right wing of the Right." In fact, much of the right, like myself, have been critical of the Prez. GWB will get a second term and Kerry will be reduced to laughingstock loser and you liberals, well.....you will get four more years to spend conspiracy yarns, post stupid bits of rubbish from your boy Krugman and four more years to whine and b**** about how unfair life is and how corrupt Bush is. And I'm going to enjoy every second of it.
Bush was appointed by Richard Perle (Muslims are evil, civilian casualties are OK in this holy war, including our own), the religious fundamentalists (everything is OK when God gives you marching orders; never mind Jesus preaching against money-worshippers and violence) and Antonin Scalia and the rest of the Republican-appointed bench....and Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris, who illegally purged black voters from Florida voter rolls (I'm not making it up, but you'll claim I did) and yet got away with it....so much for that liberal media?
Man, you're about as far off the deep end as anyone here. Everything Bush does is some kind of evil conspiracy to enrich his contributors and give him more power, right? You people sound exactly like the right when Clinton was prez. A lot of conspiracy theories about him were ridiculous, but the real ones were just swept under the rug under the credo of being products of some "right-wing" conspiracy when in fact, there was truth to them. As for Bush, this man is not crooked nor is he a liar, unlike Clinton. If anyone tried to steal the election, it was the armies of Democrat lawyers who descended on Florida like a plague. Your party down there invented all of "minorities being blocked from voting" and hanging chads to try to sway an election they felt there was no way they'd lose. If dumbass Gore would have won his home state, he'd be president and our nation would have been in a world of hurt. Thank God for Tennessee! You people have become a caricature and your reaction is proof positive that your rage has corrupted you.
Actually the fact that a number of minorities who weren't convicts but listed as convicts and denied the right to vote, is not made up. Nice try though. As far as Florida goes the only reason for looking at it is to make sure that kind of travesty doesn't happen again. I think Gore didn't believe he'd Florida to begin with, but once it looked like he would, he wanted to make sure that the votes would be counted.
I think the thing that bothers me the most about the Bush junta is their habitual, Orwellian manner of completely inverting the truth.
What the hell does this have to do with anything? Look, you live in a monochromatic world - everything's black and white. If someone passionately opposes Bush, then s/he must be a Clintonite. This sort of thinking amuses me, briefly. (Monochromatic - what a plus it is that AM radio broadcasts in mono! Extra credit, Pappy: grab a Spanish dictionary and look up the word mono. Underscores a point, what?) Yeah, well, anyway, I did not and do not support Clinton. I will own up to voting for him in 1992, and I regretted it almost immediately. I have not since cast a Democratic ballot, save the screen I poked in favor of Kucinich in the Florida Presidential preference election a week ago. I'll almost surely vote Green in November. You should be well pleased. No, Clinton was a bizarrely corrupt Governor, and he was/is a liar. Everyone knows that. He ran Arkansas like it was his own S&L/Coke Factory, although he did seem to tone that action down once he became President. But I don't understand your antipathy towards him. He signed all sorts of rightist legislation that his predecessor would have been laughed out of town for proposing with the Democratic Congress he was working with. Oh yeah, I forgot that for you politics has all the subtlety of finger painting. The point though is how does Clinton's being a small time liar and a champion of Republican legislation and economic policy make him evil to you? And how does Bush's being an inveterate liar and a champion of reckless economic policy make him a figure worthy of respect and admiration to you? To me, Clinton's lies, while numerous and very avoidable, stained him personally. Bush's lies and the actions pursuant to them have made the global political terrain very, very precarious. And it's obvious to most of the world that the Bush junta is not nearly adroit enough to navigate the terrain that they have created.
My biggestest issue with GWB is that he is incompetent. His handlers are indeed very competent. Ask yourself this question. If GWB was appointed the new CEO for your company, would you be i) happy as a clam since he would lead the company to the promised land, ii) terrified since he is clueless and his random, bad decisions will certainly sink the company, or iii) looking for your next job asap.
... deleriously happy and relieved, because I would be secure in the knowledge that the company would be continually propped up and bailed out by rich, corrupt Bush family friends seeking (and receiving) political cronyism. See also Arbusto, Harken Energy, Spectrum 7, etc.
