Simple questions for debate:

Why should John Kerry be President of the United States? Why should he not be President of the United States?

Have fun and be excellent to each other

What is it about two-party politics that has left me feeling like my votes in 2000 and 2004 was about NOT voting for the "lesser of two lessers"?

Kerry is not particularly inspiring and doesn't appear to have much vision. Bush & Co. have a vision that scares me. Gee, what a choice!

No, I won't waste my vote on a third party. There is NO socially liberal, fiscally conservative party out there that can field a full slate of candidates and run in every state.

Why should John Kerry be President? ABB: Anybody But Bush.

Why should he not be President? Because he hasn't shown the strong leadership needed to lead the entire executive branch. Neither has Bush (he defers so much to Cheney that we end up in Iraq for the wrong reasons), but that wasn't the question.

I don’t think he should be president. I have only heard him once actually answer a direct question on what he thinks about a subject and that was after three attempts of evasion.



1. Will repeal the tax cuts.
2. Will run to the UN
3. Does not seem to actually stand for anything. Too much flip flop
4. He is a senator

These are actually reasons I think he would make a good President. The tax cuts did nothing to help anybody, the trickle-down theory only works in theory, and has not shown to work in practice. Corporations who get tax breaks do not pass those on to employees (and I'm fully aware of this--when my company received a tax break, they switched insurance companies which now costs employees more and the company less).

Plus, the United Nations is about unity, and President Bush has shown how well it works when you don't get support from the UN. Look at the mess we are in right now. Simply because Saddam Hussein is in our possession does not mean Iraq is any better off. Our oil companies, however, are vastly grateful (though we haven't seen a drop in gas prices).

Furthermore, flip-flopping on issues is not a problem--it shows he is learning and changing his decision with new information. I'd much rather have a President flip-flop on an issue than stick to an issue without being fully educated, and then admitting later he was wrong (*cough*WMDs*cough*). As long as the President makes a decision at some point after obtaining the necessary information, I'm fine. Bush obviously did not do this--now he's scapegoating George Tenet. Furthermore, he's just not a very bright individual. At the very least, Kerry knows how to speak well without stumbling over his words.

Why Should Kerry Be Prez: He shouldn't be.

Why Shouldn't he be Prez: Because he has refused to answer any question directed towards him. He has flip flopped on more issues than I can count...He has brought in more special interest money than any senator in the Senate. He criticized the President for going into Iraq unilaterally, then suggested that the President should have gone into Haiti without allies. The list goes on and on.

CP

It helped me, and I am someone who earns less than 50,000 a year. The economy is getting better (as always happens with taxcuts), my stocks are doing better (as always happens with taxcuts) and where I live, there are 3 major buisness opening up (as in brand new NOT moving already established) manufacturing plants. What was their reason for doing so? The economy is doing better, and they got some tax cuts. 5,000 jobs expected to be produced because of these companies.



the "Unity" the UN tries to represent is the same reason so many things get bogged down there, they can't come to a definitive stance or agreement and then act on their own sanctions. I don't want to be part of that "Unity" and Kerry does.

And I guess that blows the theory of the war was for oil and the oil companies huh?



Just as long as you are not one of the ones that have called Bush a liar when he flip-flopped after chaning his mind because of new information I can agree with you on that one.



And I refer back to the running to UN to make the decision. I want a President (with the backing of a vote in Congress *cough Kerry's vote*) to do the same. Kerry doesn't seem like the candidate who will make those decision he will run to the UN or to the polls.



I have, each time, I have listened to the president understood exactly what he was saying. I don't need the candidate or President to be a polished speaker. The bright individual comment is really stupid considering what the President has done in his life.

I suppose we look the candidates and how we choose a bit differently /shrug

Then I assume that Democrats and liberals will stop complaining that Bush said he wouldn't nation build, right...After all, he gained more information, learned and changed his decision. It's not a problem There's a difference between learning and changing your mind based on fact and flip flopping for votes. He doesn't answer questions, and then he expects people not to question that because he's a Vietnam war hero.

CP

I don't like Kerry--I voted for Kucinich myself. But it's back to that ABB--anyone but Bush. What do you call it when President Bush demands we should go to war with Iraq, and then later admits the reasons for going to war were based on faulty information? This isn't simply flip-flopping--this is an act of aggression against a country!! That in itself is reason enough to have Bush removed from office. You can say, "Oh, but Saddam was evil" but how are we to judge that? What if some country decides Bush is evil and comes to remove him from office? We have a very egocentric attitude in America ("we are right, you are wrong") that is detrimental to our place in this world. This is the type of mentality which breeds contempt, and is probably a good reason for why terrorists want to destroy this country.

I love this country, but those who think we can do no wrong in this world can seriously doom our society to destruction. President Bush utilizes this type of mentality, and that's why he should be voted out. Frankly, what he did is far worse than anything President Clinton ever did while in office.

Like father, like son = one term. Bush out, Kerry in (lesser of two lessers, but it is lesser).

I think he should, one because he stands for something unlike bush he seems to bite off more than he can chew, second of all what the hell does him being a Senator have to do with the fact that he's a Presidential Canidate? And who ever said ABB (anybody but bush) i totaly agree as long as the Executive Office of the United States isn't controlled by the Republicans, and when the Elections for new senators and Reps. come the Country will be ran by the Democrats anyways.

HistoryofGod8: He stands for something? What? So far Kerry's campaign has been: Bush was in the guard, I was in Vietnam, and that's about it. He has dodged every question posed at him regarding important issues. I would have more respect for him if he stood for something.

CP

I think Kerry is a good candidate for president and it will be a honor to vote for him and have him for a president.

Now to answer your question why he should not be a president.

1. Repealing the tax breaks that mostly benefited the rich is ok with me and probably with a lot of americans.

2. I would rather go to the UN then use erroneous info to invade a country.

3. Oh yes the flip flop. He has changed his mind on some issues.

But talk about flip flopping like a poor fish out of water.

Bush tells us that Saddam has wmds--then it is changed to program related activities or something of that sort--then he just said that Saddam was a bad man.

Bush predicts 2.6 jobs in 2004 but his advisers won't repeat it so Bush changes his mind on the prediction.

4. He is a senator. Now that is the most powerful reason that I have ever heard of to not vote for Kerry. Congratulations on that one.

Is there an issue Kerry _hasn't_ flip-flopped on? Besides partial-birth abortion, I mean.

I think if I were liberal, the best I could say about Kerry is that since he doesn't seem to stand for anything, it's at least possible that he may vote my way more than Bush would. But I wouldn't count on Kerry to control terrorism, restrict the free trade he voted for, withdraw from the war he voted for -- he doesn't seem to be too good on following through on his rhetoric.

Could I see some actual, CLEAR, condemnable cases of where Kerry has "flip flopped"? I've heard a ton of accusation with nothing to back it up. Kerry's position on the Iraq war has remained consistent with the op/ed piece he released at the time of the vote. His views on free trade are much the same- he hasn't switched on issues like NAFTA, he just thinks their should be disincentive added to companies that want all the benefits of being a U.S. corporation without employing any Americans or paying U.S. taxes. He did, however, start believing in the death penalty for terrorists after 9/11. GASP!

Kerry's problem- and it is a problem- is that he commits the political sin of having positions complicated enough they can't easily be reduced to a bumper sticker. This was a tremendous problem at the beginning of the campaign- he DOES answer questions, it just takes him a long time to divulge all the information he deems necessary. If Unvarnished Kerry returns during the presidential debates, we'll have a very boring show- one candidate that takes an hour to answer any question with a complicated answer, and another that takes ten minutes of verbal stumbling to produce an empty catch phrase.

FInally, I think Kerry's experience in the Senate and grasp of issue complexity are strong reasosn he'd make a good President. He'd likely have an easier time getting things done with Congress than our last two Presidents did during their first months. Additionally, it'd be nice to have a President who isn't so dependent on advisors.

Bush has reversed himself completely on the foreign policy positions he took during his campaign in 2000. Hes also completely flip flopped on the environment when it comes to arsenic levels, CO2 emission reductions and the state of global warming research. His environmental flip flops took place within 90 days of being elected. Bush also flip flopped on the department of homeland security creation, etc. This seems like another case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Its similar to his attack on Kerry for taking donations from special interests when Bush has taken FAR more (and heartily rewarded his donors). Bush will have probably have trouble finding traction with this "flip flopper" tack when his own record is mocked by Kerry.

If a politician isnt flip flopping, check for a pulse.

Why should Kerry Be Prez? Well because George Bush has to go. I do not like John Kerry. He is far to liberal but I would say even Ralph Nader would be in upgrade to Bush and Nader is so left he makes me sick. I just hope Kerry nominates a solid VP choice. As a Moderate neither Bush or Kerry or Nader is attractive but Kerry gets my "good enuff" vote.

The same could easily be said of President Bush CP. A large percentage of the things Bush claimed he stood for in 2000 have not come to pass. Bush also doesn't give satisfactory questions to direct questions. So, this is really a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Why should Kerry be President? The realist in me say that he should be president simply because he will at the very least not screw the country up any more than Bush has. I can't possibly imagine another four years of the Bush administration. The idealist in me hopes that he'll actually be able to keep his campaign promises and take us in a new direction.

- Stop this whole insane deficit business.
- Improve the economy by trying to bring some of the jobs back by at the very least eliminating tax cuts and loop holes for farming them out.
- Make the environment a priority again and hopefully restore some of the 10 years of environmental legislation Bush has destroyed.
- Allow the states to make their own decisions on social issues and not write discrimination into the constitution.
- Change our foreign policy and build the UN.

Why he shouldn't be president? Obviously I dont see a reason why he shouldn't be president.

Those that feel he doesn't have a solid stance on the issues are ignoring the fact that he is not the official candidate yet, he has mostly been trying to distinguish himself amongst Democrats. When he goes head to head with Bush I'm sure there will be much more clearly defined issues.

The first and foremost reason Kerry shouldn't and never will be president is quite simply that the safety and security of this nation cannot be entrusted to him.
while there are a multitude of others, this is by far the most important.

He is not willing to face the terror mongerers in today's world head-on, alone if we have to. He comes from the group hug with the UN crowd and they have proven woefully ineffective.

Now toss in that he wants to raise taxes, cut defense spending, increase the size of govt and appease those who hate freedom and you have a mix that only a leftist/liberal could love.

And to those who try to defend his flip-flops, I say you are defending the indefensible. Much like the Clintons, this man will say anything to get elected. He wouldn't know a principled position if it jumped up and bit him.

He is actually a worse choice than Clinton or Gore and that's pretty hard to do.

Handwaving away the Bush flip-flops I see. Good for you. You sound a bit like Sean Hannity, btw.

Hard to predict elections this far away from november so I wont bother commenting on your certainty

That's a great description- of Bush. I got really tired of Repubs asking many of us why we hated Bush, even after Dems, Greens, moderate Repubs, and Libertarians have all expressed their misgivings in detail. But the rhetoric I've been seeing directed toward Kerry is just as vitriolic, but rarely supported by clear facts. Most of what I've seen so far is complete misrepresentation- claiming he held a position he didn't in order to say he changed positions, etc. I'd have much more goodwill to listen to opposition "misgivings" if most the criticisms so far didn't amount to an unexamined acceptance of RNC talking points.

For Kerry because he is a moderate Democrat who will not scare too many independents and moderate Republicans away (especially if they feel safely in control of the House and Senate). He has survived several terms in the Senate and a long democratic party contest without having made a major mistake. He has shown resilience by dropping away from being the front runner and saw that period through to reemerge on top. He has a credible record on foreign policy. His speech about the Vietnam War was heroic. He will address the problems of the fiscal policies of the Bush administration. He will be more likely to use cooperation and diplomacy when it is possible while still being tough on terrorism.

My major reason for being for Kerry is that I want Bush out of the White House because I do not like the way he rules my country and represents my country in the world. Honestly I am an anyone but Bush person, in almost all ways he acts as President against the policies that I would want my president to. I would gladly trade another decade of Republican control of Congress for a defeat of Bush at the polls in 2004.

I wanted to see Dean get the nomination. Oh well.

Kerry too liberal? Huh?

Seems that Attila the Hun would be too liberal these days. And I met people who thought Dean was too conservative for them!

Kerry should be president because (no particular order):

- He makes attempts at explanation beyond one-liners. He'd be a good AD member .

- He looks like a president. I know, I know, so what? Well, we got Alfred E. Newman and just look at the mess we're in! (What mess? What hump? What me worry?)

- He has a deep sense of complexity in the world. The fly-by-the-seat-of-pants folks need to retire.

- He understands how a budget of a grand scale works.

- He's taken unpopular stands when the stands were right. I trust him better to do something(s) good for the country rather than worrying too much about reelection.

- He does not hit the panic button. I trust him to not fiddle with the nuke button.

- He's a leader. He would not let advisors set his agenda, only influence.

- He will read and question the speeches put on his desk. He will not mislead.

- He won't be a fake buddy. He will be a president.

- He won't take away freedom to save freedom.

- He won't shove religion down our throats.

- He will get uppity with a Congress that wants to shove religion down our throats.

- He will actually talk with the press rather than doing the absolute minimum of talking (experience and confidence versus images of fake photo ops). Oh, this might turn off some impatient idealogues, but what the hey. They need to be turned off.

- He will not have an Austin/Crawford accent.

- He will have international credibility.

- He will ignore the PNAC's faith-based world agenda.

- He will bring a more interesting first lady to Washington.

- His family is not cozy with Saudi Arabia nor the traditional energy self-interests.

- He will realistically assess the actual family situations in the US. No stupid tinkering with the Constitution just because judgments don't go his way. No closing of eyes and wishing for something to happen. No denial of the plight of the American workforce.

And this last one points to the strongest reason Kerry should be President of the United States: realism versus wishful thinking. We're in deep kimchee and need someone who can at least smell the sauce.

No it isn't, because I never said that Bush hasn't done the same things...This is exactly what I hate so much about the Kerry campaign. Whenever there is a criticsm of him, he always turns it around so Bush looks bad...I really wish that he and his supporters will take responsibility for what he has done...Can anyone actually adress that?

CP

Sounds like politics at work CP.
Criticism directed at Kerry should be contrasted against the other option. And if you are going to make speeches about your challenger waffling on issues and making that a criticism, you are implying that you don't engage of the same behavior.



Bush takes on critics

There are complicated reasons to vote for and against legislation. But if you are going to attack someone for something be careful if you are living in a glass house.
You can be certain that Bush's team will try to portray Kerry in a negative light, why would Kerry's team do anything but turn it around so that it reflects poorly on Bush. You don't here Bush saying that he vacillated (sp?) on several policies while he is making the above speech do you?

Reason to vote for Kerry: Anobody But Bush. This can't be understated -- none of my progressive friends were prepared for how much damage he could wreak on the world.

Reason not to vote for Kerry: he voted to give GW the power to go to war with Iraq and voted for the Patriot Act, plus I'm just so darned sick of moderate Democrats!

I personally voted for Kucinich in the primaries here in Utah, since his values of all the Demos fit mine the best.

I'm still undecided on how I will vote. Most likely, since all of Utah's votes will go to Bush even if he promised to end the world in the next four years, I'd be best off supporting my own party, the Greens. Even voting the lesser of two evils (which I abhor) would have no effect on this election in this state.

Eeyore, I completely understand...I think Bush should take responsibility for his shortcomings as well...But I would just love to hear John Kerry explain himself on just one issue.

CP

I heard Kerry try to explain his stances on a Sunday morning political yak show before he became the shoe-in nominee. He did well at not falling into logical traps that the journalist set for him.

I'm sure we will hear a lot more of Kerry explaining his positions. Then I suppose the criticism will be different. I suppose Republicans will complain that he talks too much, or is aloof, or some other nonsensical thing.

And I suppose such criticism will take with a certain segment of the population. We certainly don't want an aloof president who explains things too much! Let's keep the one who hardly ever talks to us, and when he does, it leaves us wondering what the heck is going on in that White House anyway.

I find it amazing the so-called Kerry supporters cannot cite reasons to vote FOR John Kerry, instead they mostly cite reasons why they will vote AGAINST Bush.

While that may play well to political wonks (like AD residents... ), it will not be such a compelling reason to the general electorate.

The general population wants to vote FOR someone, not against someone. A Presidential candidate must inspire people and appeal in a broad sense (not necessarily an issue oriented sense).

If Kerry doesn't inspire even his base, how can he win the general election?

While normally I would agree with this -- that people want to vote for someone (this is the reason I'm a Green), never before have I seen people so mobilized to vote against someone as I have this election. The last time people stayed home because they weren't inspired to vote we got handed GW by the Supreme Court.

Bush's stances on war, the environment and civil rights have got a lot of people willing to do anything to get him out of the White House. I think a lot of people think it's better to vote for someone that's just okay than allow someone that's the polar opposite of their beliefs to get in.

I understand what you're saying here, but I don't think it makes much of a difference. I'll bet a fair number of moderates and extreme rightists voted for Bush merely because he was NOT Gore. I think in any presidential election, there will be a fair number of people voting against one candidate, rather than for a candidate. Not the majority, but some. I wonder how many of the so-called "Reagan Democrats" were really voting against Carter? More than a couple, I bet.

I will agree with you on one point, however: I find Kerry particularly uninspiring, and that worries me. Will I vote for him? Of course.

From what I've seen on these forums, there are a number of conservatives who will be voting for Bush as the lesser of two evils, as well.

Actually no, "Reagan Democrats" were really one of President Reagan's "core groups" of support. They were as energized in their support of him as were the more traditional Conservative Republicans. Heck, back in those days some of those folks were more vocal in their support for him than I initially was. But, that's another topic for another thread.

I think Amlord's observation is a good one and doesn't bode well for Kerry in the long run. 8 months is a very long time to go when a candidacy is sustained primarily by dislike for the other candidate rather than advocacy for the one you support.

I have to agree with Amlord on this and think this is the Achilles heel of Kerry, if he does not address it. Okay, we all hate Bush- but why change? He must carry forth his message of a positive change from where we are now, and must be very pragmatic about it. Just because we hate bush doesn't mean we love Kerry!

Aquilla



I disagree.

Normally you would be correct. But this time I believe those rules are out the door. I have voted Republican and Democrat for past presidents all the way back to the 1960s. Never in my life have I and many co-workers, neighbors,friends been so disgusted with a current president.

Bush could not be more disliked if he tried to be that way. I am assuming he has reached this position because of mistakes he has made instead of on purpose.

This president has promised or predicted(for our republican friends) so much and delivered so little.

Examples are: jobs created, environment,compassionate,uniter not divider and the list is on and on.

You could say: This is not a election for Kerry to win but a election for Bush to lose.

Saying that, I believe Kerry is a decent choice(maybe not the best) and definitely will give Bush more than he bargained for

I think its fair to say that much of the Bush support in 2000 came from an "anyone but Gore" mentality and a general desire to get away from the Clinton years. I know I clearly remember republicans voicing that exact sentiment. I cant see how anyone who remembers the 2000 election would be suprised by anti-bush sentiment driving this years election (for democrats at least).

Maybe some people just live in a permanent state of surprise. I don't know.

I got this from;

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=12386

In particular, of interest to me are the comments of one of Kerry's commanders, Admiral Elmo R. Zumwalt Jr;

“[T]he fabled and distinguished chief of naval operations, Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, told me — 30 years ago when he was still CNO —that during his own command of U.S. naval forces in Vietnam, just prior to his anointment as CNO, young Kerry had created great problems for him and the other top brass,by killing so many non-combatant civilians and going after other non-military targets.‘We had virtually to straitjacket him to keep him under control,’ the admiral said. ‘Bud’ Zumwalt got it right when he assessed Kerry as having large ambitions — but promised that his career in Vietnam would haunt him if he were ever on the national stage.” And this statement was made despite the fact Zumwalt had personally pinned a Silver Star on Mr. Kerry.

--------------

And I have to wonder, why will Kerry not release the medical records pertaining to his Purple Hearts?

The main reason Kerry has no chance is that Americans are not going to elect another 'I'll say anything to anybody to get elected' type again anytime soon. Clinton exposed the danger in allowing that to happen. Gore tried it but failed. Kerry is cut from the same cloth.

Real Americans want real leadership in the White House. And one of the foundations of leadership is principle. Another, steadfastness. While you might not agree with his policies, you certainly know the direction GWB intends to lead this nation. Feel free to say 'no, I dont want us to go there'. But when you say that it might be a good idea to ask the other guy where he intends to take you.

So far he hasnt offered anything solid. Each time he ventures into that arena he contradicts his previous positions. Some call that growth, I call it pandering. Eventually when challenged he falls back to his fail-safe 'Vietnam war hero' posture. I even heard him bring it up when he was being asked to explain his stance on gay 'marriage'. I dont know, maybe there was more going on in those spider--holes than we thought.

Anyway, if and when Kerry puts forth his game plan and if and when he gives any indication that he will stick to it, then we will have a choice. A legitimate choice. One grounded in policy and program rather than hatred and haughtiness.

Policies and programs are up for debate. Kerry is more than "hatred and haughtiness" and the other simplistic analyses given in connection with the above quotation.

Here's a link to Kerry's pitch:

Kerry and The Issues

For contrast, here's President Bush's Agenda (interesting choice of terms):

GWB's Agenda

Don't have time right now to argue for Kerry's stuff, but will eventually get to it. Meanwhile, dig into the meat & spuds!

I just voted for Kerry today.

It was terribly exciting. I almost voted Sharpton for kicks but stopped myself. I suppose I voted for him based on the fact that he was the only credible candidate still running. That about covers it.

That's from the Kerry site.

I like the part about investing in new energy industries and restoring technology.

We won't create jobs until we innovate and develop the industries and technologies of the future. A huge opportunity for both is the development of new energy sources--not simply drilling and digging for more of the same, but striving as a nation to divorce ourselves from dependence on the Middle East.

people keep saying kerry is soft on defense and he wants to raise taxes among other things. (these are the two I take the most issue with at this time)

on defense and homeland security. (also repealing tax cuts and possible raising taxes) in order for homeland security to work it needs money. taxes are the governments income. money they get from taxes is used to fund government agencies and programs. it is simple logic that if you cut your income you will have less money to spend on things you want or need (in this case, homeland security) bush tax cuts cut into that income, and their is less money to spend on agencies and programs. HLS very well can't protect the homeland if the can't buy new technologies and pay their agents. what if we need 100 (for a round number) agents to protect america, but HLS can only afford 50? they can only do a halfway job.

from john kerry's site:


the way some republicans put it, it sounds like he wants to line his pockets with our tax dollars, not spend it on government agencies and programs that need funding. it seems that people are getting all their info from one single source, and it isn't kerry's website (just because FOXnews says it doesn't make it true!)

don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of kerry, and would rather see dennis Kucinich in the oval office. I don't like the fact that he is part of skull and bones, an elite, highly secretive, fraternity at yale university (15 freshmen are picked to join each year, not all make it, and they need to be very connected (such as bush is)) I also don't like the fact he does seem to flip on issues a lot (but then most politicians do nowadays) but I would much rather see kerry as prez then bush. (although under bush, the system might collapse sooner what a dilemma )

oh well, either way, the republicrats win, the systems rigged anyway, and both sides play for the same team. that's why I won't vote again anytime soon

Kerry should not get within a mile of the Oval Office because:

1- Kerry will lose the war on terror for the United States. He has been quoted as saying that he considers it primarily a "law enforcement operation." Clinton dealt with Al Qaeda in similar terms, and made way for the 9-11 attacks.

2- All major economic indicators are positive now. Kerry will stultify the recovering economy by unnecessarily taxing Americans and small businesses, to pay for useless and ineffective government programs.

3- Kerry's flip-flops are important because they reveal that the only thing he believes is that John Kerry should be President. Voters should see power-hungry individuals without convictions like Kerry ought to be seen as a danger to democracy, because there is no way to know what the candidate actually stands for. One thing not even liberals will challenge is that George Bush has convictions and principles.


DEFEAT TERROR. VOTE BUSH.

-Chris

It is logical only in the limited context presented. We must remember to think things through thoroughly!

In fact, it is widely recognized that when a tax cut gives money back to people and business, and they in turn re-invest it, stimulating economic growth. That growth creates higher wages and or more jobs, which result in higher tax revenue to the treasury.

By example, you may want your boss to expand his business and give your more responsibility and higher pay. He would like to, but after all the bills are paid, their is no money for your raise and the tools you need to expand the business. He buys everything needed to run the business from the cheapest sources, so their is no money there.

If the government reduced his tax bill, he would have the money needed to give you the raise and expand. Your salary goes up, so do your taxes. As business grows, so do the taxes it pays, and as your customers use your services to do better, they also pay more taxes!

Even if your boss does not listen to you, and blows the money on a new truck, at least the guys at the dealership earned some dough!

Or, you can not reduce his taxes, and the dimwits in Washington will get around to spending it after they have fought over it for a few months, and if your lucky, the dimwit who wins might steer the cash to a campaign contributor who might actually deliver the services promised you in the last election, but more likely the dimwit politician will pay himself to sit on a committee to decide how best to spend the money on his next election campaign!

As an aside, America is where your innocent until proven guilty. The way to secure our homeland is to eliminate the threat, not make all of us innocents pay by being treated as criminals. Do you like being spied on at home and nearly strip searched before you fly? as 'the unabomber' I'd think you would be wary of Ashcroft and also the Dept. of Homeland Security? (No, Kerry wont be more trustworthy!)

I like to educate! Feel free to ask questions.

Ace

Actually, it's not "widely recognized" at all. It's a THEORY. One that continues to not prove true. Over and over, we find that when you give rich people extra money, they save it. When you give poor people extra money, they spend it. Those that spend are the ones that generate more economic stimulus, not those that save.

The problem with cutting taxes now to supposedly get more tax revenue later is this: what happens if it doesn't work? What if -- for whatever reason -- you DON'T get a commensurate amount of increased tax revenues at some later time? Did you cut government spending in the interim? Or did you just float bonds so that the current size and services of government can be maintained?

The only SURE way to actually increase tax revenues... is to increase tax revenues. Everything else is either an unproven theory or has an inspecific timeframe for payoff ("well, eight years later, we had more tax revenue after that big tax cut!" ).

Many principled conservatives who believe that there is simply no other place to turn will be holding our noses to vote the GOP this year, but some of us think that doing so will only weaken conservatism further. If you believe in free market principles--and the general justification for our current extreme partisanship is "the free market of ideas"--there is no longer real competition for conservative voters or ideas. Purging first liberals and then any dissidents from the GOP while demonizing the Democrats has produced a political fraud wherein neither party need demonstrate the values ascribed to it, and conservatives have become just another GOP constituency, like NASCAR dads or Hispanic suburbanites, to buy off with symbolic gestures. The GOP has marginalized the disversity of traditions of conservatism that place principle above personality, integrity above partisan loyalty, and honesty above self-advancement.

The GOP has shown contempt not only for Libertarians, fiscal conservatives and small-government/modest-foreign policy traditionalists. From the populist nationalists like Pat Buchanan to the clean-government reformers like John McCain, we have seen a marginalization of diverse but traditional conservative opinions and a obfuscation of values, policies, plans, and facts of life that shame those of us who hve actually read Aurelius and Seneca, Augustine and acquinas, Burke and the great modern conservative thinkers who followed from Madison to Kirk, Hayek nad de Maistre. I listened to Dick Cheney talk to a small group of Heriotage suppporters last year as if we were star-struck ignoramuses, refusing to address serious alternatives to policy options, to evaluate both successes and failures or to relate to bad news as anything but media distortion. I have rarely learned anything simultaneously wise, honest and original from an unscripted commente of our genial president. On the contrary, I have heard radical left rationalizations for policies that demand scrutiny.

Who believes in using the coercive powers of the state to impose plans based on abstract theories on traditional societies, regardless of culture, institutions, understanding of the basic imperfectability of man, the preferences of localities and the wise processes of history? It seems to be that an administration that defies the warnings in "reflections on the Frenc h Revolution" to mobilize for total war against "evil" or "terror" or their unspecified allies, and on behalf of "feeedom" and "democracy" about which one claims superior knowledge. we have seen unprecedented damage to state and local government relative to massive growth of national executive powers, particularly police powers and control of information, education, science, and deliberative processes of government itself. Of all the terrible things done in the name of our recent Medicare prescription legislation, the violation of the institutional rules and traditions of Congress should most outrage every conservative who underrstands tradition.

It is not that the GOP has served the values of Christian conservatives. Just look at the GOP's stance on gambling and the financial influence of the gaming industry on Republicans at every level, compared to the position of every Evangelical organization. Numerous Family Values leaders are sitting out this election after getting only verbal support on their concerns. The entire notion of "Compassionate Conservatism" has turned out to be a fraud, doling out funds to pay off sectarian organizations that deliver votes more than acts of charity. We Catholics cannot point to a single abortion prevented, a single execution stayed by this president. The great US contributions towards world-wide disease have so far not been funded, and our "moral leadership" has never been so disreputable in the world. My Church does not recognize marriages performed among the vast majority of people in this world, who are neither baptized properly nor participated in the seventh sacrament properly under the auspices of the Church and its ordained agent. That is truye whether they are marriages between gay people, Hindus, Jeww, protestants or atheists. Why should Christians be more swayed by verbal support for an impossible anti-gay Consititutional amendment that Christ never mentioned than we are about properly caring for the poor, sick, widowed and orphaned (and there are almost 30 million AIDS orphans alone) whom Jesus told us to help regardless of citizenship.

If i sound angry, it is because I am just leaving a meeting of old conservative friends who have decided that the onbly way to make serious conservatism an issue again is to rebuild real conservative competition within the Democrt Party. There are any number of positions of Jo0hn Kerry which we have identified as more justified by elements of conservative tadition than the opportunism of the current administration.

We want the GOP to fight for our votes by proving their conservative values, not just mentioning them. D3emocrats should know that, by taking more conservative ACTIONS, they can win more conservative votes than the GOP with mere words. The issue is not George Bush or even Karl Rove, it is the selling out of conservative think tanks and journals and spokessmen to a few rich peoplke and businesses more interested in short-term personal gain than national welfare. How can a magazine like National Review (whose first issue I read at Yale), state that it is "patriotic" to take a business out of a community and move it (or just its taxable address) abroad without regard for neighbors or history or national wellbeing? Have we conservatives gone from "Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori" (It is sweet and fitting to die for one's country) to "it is patriotic to subordinate all values to marginal increases in profitability"?
Conservatives will be best served in a competitive political arena by making it clear that no one owns our votes. If we can demonstrate that large numbers of us support Kerry for reasons of principle, perhaps principle will be retored to the center of politics.

John A.


the Homeless - Foreign Policy - Constitutional Debate Social Issues - Education - Principles and Personal