I can see where CruisingRam is coming from.

Assuming that those who join these boards come from an essentially random pool of internet users, that there is no reason why the boards would attract more left wing users than right, and that all who come from to these boards are more dedicated than the average joe (who wouldn't be willing to post on these forums), we can say that the poll indicates those more dedicated to politics than average are more favorable of Kerry than Bush.

The break down of americas debate is here: Breakdown

Edited: Now that I think about it though, it might actually be "argumentative" than dedicated. I would change dedicated to, "those informed people who enjoy debating lean more towards Kerry than Bush." Thats a bit more accurate.

For me, I am more anti-neocon anti-social conservative than I am neccesarily anti-Republican- I have and do vote republican, when they are moderate fiscal conservatives- or perhaps libertarian leaning.

I absolutely despise GW however- and all he represents - though there are many in his party that I do like, but just disagree with them on an issue to issue or agree as needed.

I will stick by my first statement however- on an issue by issue stance of GW in the last 4 years- there is no debate, I would vote ABB- seriously, anyone can do a better job. When you have a driver that has haphazardly drove himself into a ditch, you need to take the wheel and give it to someone else.

I voted Kerry. It's academic anyway, as I don't have a vote in US elections (being a British citizen).

My concern boils down to something like the "Is Bush dumb or not?" line of argument that has gone on here. But not exactly like it.

I don't think he is especially stupid (nor is he a genius). What worries me is that he is ignorant, and unconcerned by his own ignorance.

His proclaimed preference for "instinct" over analytical thinking may appeal to some US voters. Indeed, there are circumstances where most people would say it was a good thing. However, can it be that one man's instinct will ALWAYS be correct? If he relies on the people in his administration to make his mind up for him where he is non-committal (and his use of instinct implies there won't be many areas where he can't go with his gut, so this may not happen often) that's just dandy, but if they are so good, why don't THEY stand so we can cut out the middle man?

In foreign policy, or any policy area, his ignorance is one thing. Worse is his insistence that, despite his ignorance, his first gut reaction must be correct, no matter what anyone else thinks.

France disagrees with him on such-and-such. Tony Blair agrees with him on such-and-such, but disagrees on so-and-so. Voters like his widget policy but hate his wodget policy. The assumption that comes with the elevation of gut instinct as the paragon of decision-making is that other people are right when they agree with you and wrong when they don't. Gut instinct does not come with a self-awareness that admits the possibility, however small, that THEY are right and YOU are wrong.

In short, guts do not have brains. IMO, a president - any leader, in fact - needs to have, and be seen to have BOTH, and to know when to use either.

So to heck with France - they're "Old Europe".

Thanks, Tony, for your support on such-and-such, but it won't buy you any leverage anywhere else. Sucker!

We'll implement the widgets and gain votes, and we'll implement the wodgets too, which is fine because nobody who doesn't like wodgets votes for or donates to us anyway.

In fact, we will govern to help the God-Fearing, Republican-voting, rich Americans we like get richer, and BOO! to the rest of the planet. Hardly the stuff of "uniting not dividing".

But ignore me, I'm just a liberal intellectual, and a foreigner to boot. America (as the current Bush II myth would have it) doesn't need to listen to any such folks, because it's already perfect. We won't listen when we're right, because we're RIGHT and all that is required is for everyone else to bow down and accept our rightness. And we won't listen when we're wrong either, because:
a ) we can't stand to admit the possibility that a liberal *spit*, and intellectual *gag*, or *shudder* a foreigner could have a better beat on things than us, 'cos we would then have to admit our God-given rightness was fallible. Since God agrees with us on everything , this would mean He had flaws, and the whole of our worldview would collapse into pagan anarchy. (Only exaggerating a little - honest )
b ) because of a ) we cannot possibly be wrong. The apparent rightness of others is part of an anti-American groundswell that must be defeated.

OK, I've convinced myself - Bush is not dumb. He is wilfully ignorant, and now, in my gibbering froth-mouthed diatribe (see what I mean about self-awareness?) I have come to the view that he is quite probably insane. As am I. (Now, anyway - look not into the abyss, lest it look back at you).

That's what motivates me to vote for him, yes. I look at it as a 2 man race, and while I may not think Kerry is the best person in all the land to be president, I think he is the best of the two running. If I had my pick of anyone in the country, it wouldn't be either of these men. But I don't.

I want a President that values our position in the world and our relationships with other countries. I want a President that doesn't feel the need to change the Constitution to fit his religious ideals. I want a President that can speak coherently. Bush possesses none of these qualities. Kerry at least offers hope.

Becoming Human!

I like your analysis.



Perhaps as your analysis perhaps also hints at: "Informed people who lean to the left are more passionate about politics than those that lean to the right"?

Surfer I honestly think that you were the one who started with the more aggressive language about liberals. If some jumped to "attack" as you "expected" ...well, if you poke a dog with a stick what do you think it will do?

Also, the breakdown of political positions on this board, without a doubt, has disproven your theory that this board is more liberal.

I think that Kerry (and hence intellectualism) is favored on this board because it is the ONLY one that is so skillfully moderated so that crackpots, name-callers, and troglodytes find no voice here. We are left with people who are willing to do their homework on an issue. (not necessarily all geniuses but avid learners) Am I wrong?

I couldn't vote for George Bush, too, because he is a dunce. He is a skillful politician in many respects but I think he loses his cool to easily. His little sneer comes through when he is confronted with tough questions or derisive issues. He gets passive-aggressive in debates and resorts to somewhat childish mannerisms that, sadly, appeal to viewers. (I honestly LOVE Oxford debate but it has no place in D.C.) It is because of Bush's aggrsssiveness and pettiness that "won" his debates with Gore, not due to his intellect. Watching those debates and looking for meaning was maddening! For the same reason Limbagh and O'Reilly have a huge following Bush has a great chance in the debates. Kerry, on the other hand, could lose votes from his core if he acts like a ninny on national TV to counter Bush's offensive style. It will be interesting to see what he does.

If I wanted a candidate who is willing to ACTUALLY talk about the real issues important to our country I would vote for Nader. Anyone who actually looks at his campaign, even if they disagree with some of his issues, will notice that he is being VERY concrete and not just shoveling platitudes. Unfortunately honestly doesn't sell.

edited to add this: I HATE myself for taking the perfectly good verb, "learn" and turning it into a noun! One of my pet peeves realized in my own post!

I don't think Kerry would make such a good President because he keeps coming up with a different side of an issue then his original view. He has voted for cuts in defense spending and intel spending. We can't have that type of person in the White House when we have people trying to kill us!

Yeah, it's not like Bush ever changed his stance on anything... the latest issue of Foreign Policy has a list of the "reasons" for invading Iraq used by Bush. Lets list them shall we:


Yeah, he never changes his mind. Could it be that Bush, like Kerry, will take a position that is politically expedient?

I really want to see a link to his congressional votes concerning defense spending and intelligence. Just saying he cut them doesn't work for me.
If he cut them, which I believe he probably did cut some, shouldn't we wonder exactly WHAT he really cut? I bey he voted against that base expansion issue in the '90's in which the military was trying to open bases in states that had the right "friends" in Washington and close bases in other, less-connected states.

Vote against that and you are "cutting the military" ....

Or perhaps he was voting on cutting pork-programs in the military?
There was a rash of military trimming in the '90's because the government decided that a smaller, smarter and more technologically advanced military was the wave of the future. Cutting wasteful military spending was the mantra back then, even for generals. I don't think it is relevant or fair to decide against Kerry because, in past (and wildly different) contexts he voted to cut military programs.

If you have ever seen the waste in military programs (and I have while working for one of their major jet engine makers) then you would know the reason cuts need to be made.

Pretty sure a search of AD will provide a list of many of those votes. The complaint is funny, though, because many of those votes to cut defense appropriations were urged by Bush I, Cheney, and Rumsfeld in an earlier Administration as part of the "Peace Dividend" from the breakup of the USSR.

But Republicans try not to mention that in mixed company.

Here's what he cut

John Kerry's defense record is appaling. We can't have a man like this in the White House in this day and age when there are people out there with the urge to kill us and our allies. We need to continue to fully fund our military to fight this threat here at home and abroad

I think the current heading in how we are fighting the war on terror is sour at best and wont cut it. The task we set out to do in iraq itself had many angles, from baath party, to wmds, to democracy. The first one for the most part is done, the second one has not come to be true yet, and the third one is very complex and not working out very well in my eyes. I dont know how many cities have been ruined now in the rebuilding or iraq, or the populous we cant seem to help, the same tactical angle that allows the "bad guys" to do what they do. The lack of any real plan is very bad in my eyes, the shifting of war funds to different functions i guess could be a sign of this. I dont think the democracy thing can be solved with tanks and bombs, but i guess we will have to see. As for the rest of the war on terror, the advances their are in the more cold war spy vs. spy ways i would like to see, rather then to engage with a populous in something complex with lack of plans and intelligence on how to win what you want done. post 9-11 administration has used that experience to basically run dehumanization and the various effects of racism that allowed for any iraqi not happy with life to be called a terrorist, as far as i know al-sadr is not a terrorist, but i guess the current heading in iraq is good for some reason.

To other issues, this administration does not have any environmental policy, international policy is not very good one could say. The secret meetings and denial of probes is scary to me. On to the concept of what some call smaller government of maybe more power to state rather then federal to me is more government. It will make many little governments. Like going to work and haveing 78 different rulers to work for, and would degrade issues, and to me human rights and the constituition in various areas, but i guess chaos is good now and then.
On to my last note of how the far right christian groups in america have been giving access to and hefty aid from the federal goverment. Plus one could bring up points on public education and healthcare, and the lack of jobs, and nasty economy. I dont think america could do much worse with voteing kerry into office. Of course this is all just my opinion.

This is utter absurdity. During periods of relaxed threat people see less of a need for government. That is why both republicans and democracts voted to reduce spending for intelligence and defense in the past decade. To pin it all on one side of the aisle is either ignorance or partisanship pure and simple.

So on the basis of what looks like 19 separate votes over the past 20 years, you claim his record is "appaling". I'll assume you mean "appalling" and not "appealing"

Let's look at that table: hmmm... you think that maybe there were more votes than that in the past 20 years? Could he have been on the pro-defense side of those and the article just chose to ignore it?

You're being intellectually dishonest, GA. And note that the table even backs that Kerry didn't "flip-flop" on SDI.

I especially love the "took $3 billion from Defense and used it for education" in 1992. Heh. Good for him. Even Bush Sr. at that time was trying to downsize the military. Guess we have different priorities. You want welfare for the military and I want it for the people who need it most... our kids.

My vote is for Kerry because he is a Democrat.

That means he is not a neo-conservative.

It means that he is socially progressive

And not all that interested in dominating the world.

My vote is for Kerry because he will place new leadership at all levels of his administration.

That means we'll have someone genuinely concerned about the environmnet in the EPA,

A real statesperson as Sec of State,

Someone with vision outside the status quo on energy as Sec of Interior,

And a different VP. A very different VP.

My vote is for Kerry because his administration will have as a top priority from day one the resolution of the Iraq situation, the improvement of the economic situation, and the bolstering of the middle class.

On defense, I expect a Kerry administration to be very attentive to the advice from top military leaders and taking care of the true needs of our troops.

Finally, a vote for Kerry is a vote for our future as a creative, dynamic, world-leading population. Well, okay, that last one was over the top. But it is what I feel.

I am going to have to vote for Kerry. Because, let's be honest here--George W. Bush has not left the country better than he found it.

The argument used by conservatives in this thread--that Kerry fliip-flops, won't examine his record--well, anyone with half a brain can see that's true about Bush as well. So maybe their both flip-floppers, and I am going to give the one that hasn't thrown the US into a $500 billion dollar deficit or has a fake Texas 'twang' a chance.

We were falling into recession when Bush took office. Now the economy is in a hot period of sustained growth, with unemployment numbers lower than they were in the 90's. We were obviously vulnerable to terrorists that had been targeting us since 1994, and now we are (somewhat) safer and slowly eliminating the terror threat by killing them in far-off lands and improving security here. Partly due to the PATRIOT act that John Kerry helped author. Bush promised to lower taxes, then lowered taxes. Ted Kennedy and Bush teamed up on the No Child Left Behind bill which has kids starting to learn how to actually read again... There have to be at least a few things that are better, no?



On the defacit, I totally agree with you, and think that Bush has been way to lax in curbing discretionary spending.

On the accent - Bush grew up in Texas. His accent is not fake. You can't have it both ways, saying that he can't speak English, can't even say 'nuclear' and then say that he's smart enough to fake an accent? He even speaks Spanish with a Texas accent. I've heard it and that would be extremely hard to fake for a non-native Spanish speaker.

Today the crawl below CNN Headline News reported that the owner of Lee & Wrangler jeans is pulling its operation out of Ohio and sending 1,000 jobs to Mexico. Levi Strauss already outsourced its jobs. Sure, the economy is hot, but who is it benefitting? What is our President doing to stem the tide of the job exodus from the United States?

It has already been mentioned many times in this forum that the unemployment numbers are inaccurate due to the fact that those who run out of unemployment benefits are no longer counted, and that there are many people giving up when the only jobs available are those that will not cover their living expenses.

I watched the designated "Compassion" night at the RNC at Madison Square Garden. Not one thing was said about what is being done by this administration to address the continuing need of America's workforce to find jobs that pay the bills.

I really don't care whether Bush's accent is authentic or not; I am more concerned about what he says and what he fails to address. Throughout this Republican convention there has been more talk against Kerry than for Bush's policies. Kerry's name has been mentioned more than George W. Bush's.

Just what is this President doing, anyway? So he's a born-again Christian and a leader who makes the tough decisions. There is a lot more to the Presidency than waging war and espousing socially conservative views.

I wish there was a guidebook for Presidents to read when they first enter office, or a The Presidency for Dummies book for someone who would find a regular guidebook tedious reading. Who trains these guys for the office?

On domestic issues, Bush stinks. On Homeland Security, his plans are too little. We may be kicking the terrorists' butts overseas, but our own borders remain wide open, with cargo coming in from everywhere that can contain whatever terrorists here would need to cause death and destruction. Our Army National Guard is overseas during hurricane season--whose people are more important to them?

Bush is having more nuclear weapons developed. This is money better spent on the precious troops Bush has been claiming that Kerry doesn't care about because he didn't swallow the $87 billion dollar package in its entirety. And yet, Bush sent these troops into harm's way before they were adequately equipped with body armor, not John Kerry.

Last night Dick Cheney said that Kerry talks about 2 Americas--wrong. That's John Edwards. I have heard a number of half-truths during the course of this convention that have not been questioned by the pundits. All they care about is the soundbite, not accuracy.

So why doesn't this convention emphasize the policies and plans of George W. Bush rather than continue to bash John Kerry? Is it because John Kerry has more substance than George W. Bush does, or that George W. Bush doesn't have a clear plan to promote? Why would George W. Bush keep his plans so close to the vest this late in the campaign?

One interesting tidbit: The pundits have mentioned that Osama bin Laden's name hasn't been brought up once during this convention. Why? Is it because we're gearing up to invade Iran instead of going after this murderer? Are we giving up on capturing or killing bin Laden?

Well, i don’t think the twisting of reality is anything that this administration has not used over and over again, so its nothing really new in that department. All the "stuff" that floats around this admin is rather novel though, good or bad i wont directly say. its modern day, and this admin is about as convoluted as history, that’s pretty bad to me. All i ever get from them is very romantic speeches, the same words and so on can never be found when they are directly approached in a situation in which they have to talk, i do not think in the slightest any of the speeches giving are though up by the orators themselves. Iraq is that quagmire that is not going anywhere really, and i don’t think that terrorists are really being fought there, but of course like my post its all opinion. To many issues that exist cannot be dealt with in my opinion by state government, such as the environment, which does not just exist in one state, but for dealing with such an issue, it might as well to this admin. I think it will be nice if this admin avoids itself when bashing Kerry, i think this will look nice for him, for as far as i can see they don’t really have any ammo for getting elected, more or less they can rely on the concrete base that will always be there, which in this world now i think will bring more voters for Kerry, again just opinion.

Kerry’s history right now is the only thing that can be used, seeing as he has not had four painful years in office yet. From what i look at of the history, Kerry seems to take charge in his moderate way, and does not just go with the flow. I feel he will be a far more dependable leader that works more for America rather then certain parts of it. Also his election may be able to gain a foothold back into rebuilding vital international ties that are stuck in the mud right now, which could get us aid not only in the Iraq war, but the war on terror overall. Again i don’t see how electing Kerry to office could be any worse then what America is living right now under its current "regime".

My biggest complaints about Bush/Cheney has been the Administration's blatantly poor management and their deceptions.

In the deceptions category, we have:

- the intentionally underfunded No Child Left Behind, which Bush takes credit for without actually having to commit all the promised money to it, leaving it as a money pit for the states to fund.

- environmental initiatives with names that turn out to be the exact opposite of their intended results. Anyone really think that letting aging polluting electricity plants get bigger without getting cleaner is a way to create "Clear Skies"?

- and who exactly DID Cheney meet with to formulate energy policy? Why all the secrecy about it?

And from Sen. Bob Graham's forthcoming book:

- the whole Iraq war was initiated 17 months before we actually went in, involved large-scale moving of troops and equipment from Afghanistan to the Gulf, but the drumbeat of war wasn't started until August 2002 in the run-up to mid-term elections.

- intelligence that is selectively declassified to suit the Administration's purposes. Graham charges -- and he was head of the Senate's Intelligence Committee leading into the Iraq war -- that Tenet was publicly revealing lots of intelligence reports that supported the Iraq war, but the intelligence that cast shadows on the de-classified intel was kept classified so that the public couldn't see or read about it.

Mismanagement:

- what else can you call it when the lead actuary who determined that the Medicare Drug bill's actual costs would far exceed the Administration's announced costs was told by his appointee boss to shut up about it or be fired? Why wasn't someone publicly and loudly fired over this intentional deception?

- what else can you call it when your very knowledgeable Sec. Treasury tells you that a second tax cut won't help the economy and will create a monstrous deficit and you tell him to take a hike when your greedy VP tells you that "it's our turn"?

- what else can you call it when your head of anti-terrorism's warnings are ignored for months leading up to 9/11 and no one is fired for it?

- what else can you call it when your Sec. Defense and all his underlings are kept on the job after first predicting that the Iraq war would be paid for with their oil, that we would be seen as liberators -- even Bush has admitted we're seen as occupiers -- that didn't plan for any kind of post-war activities (because then people would understand the true scope of the war), that sent the troops over there without sufficient body armor...? How do these people remain at their jobs??

He used his MBA in the 2000 election cycle to tell us he'd run the government more like a business and yet violates all the rules of good business practices.

I own stock in this US Government business and I will vote that the CEO and much of the board of directors needs to be replaced.

This is quite a generalized topic, so I'll stick to one facet of the debate:
Bush's actions as a campaigner I believe are evidence enough for who would make the better president.

Through the conventions, and Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ads, Bush re-directed the focus of the campaign away from his presidential record, onto Kerry's senatorial record and the notion that he is a "girlie-man." It worked, and Kerry is now, by all accounts, on the defensive. Yet comparing Bush to other incumbent candidates, we see that the shift in focus is a sign of a weak, unpopular record. The 1996 campaign was almost entirely focused on incumbent Bill Clinton, with no accusations of cowardice or medal-hunting directed towards challenger and WWII vet Bob Dole. Bush's father's campaign failed, precisely because Clintonians were able to sharply focus the election on the economy- now, the junior Bush has learned from the last one-term president's mistakes and is wanaging a campaign based on challenging the challenger, rather than defending his own actions; When, as a war-time president, his popularity should theoretically be through the roof, the president's shift in focus away from his own policy is a sure sign his campaign staff understands that much of his record is unpopular.

Now being an unpopular president does not neccesarily make one a bad president. In many, many ways, Jimmy Carter was absolutely correct- especially about oil and energy conservation, and today we are dealing with some of the consequences he warned us of.

However I can't say Carter's campaign was anywhere near as directed against the challenger as Bush's has been- Indeed, Bush seems long overdue for an apologetic "Malaise speech."

There really should be an other, or none of the above category in this poll.

Based on the records of both I don't think either are candidates for outstanding president or best potential president awards.

Now I think you've hit on the crux of the matter -- well, actually, two out of three cruses (more about that later). Not who WOULD MAKE the best president, but who WILL BE the best president, if you parse my differentiation. Someone will be elected. It won't be a small-government, balanced-budget, environmentally-active, anti-aggression, socially-liberal candidate with a penchant for involving all of America in a new militia organization to protect this country organically utilizing each and every citizen (my personal ideal, being a constitutionalist libertarian). It will be either Kerry or Bush.

Given the (First Past the Post, winner-take-all) mechanism of voting here in the U.S., the best we each can possibly do is to choose the candidate that -- in relation to each person's political orientation -- strategically represents the least capability of further degrading the state of the union. In other words, vote for whoever you decide would NOT be the WORST.

For me, that candidate is easily John Kerry -- especially when a Republican congress is factored in. If Kerry is a uniter (where have I heard that before?) he can work with congress to get some legislation passed, but given a Republican congress it won't be wildly-socialist. I think that a Republican congress, out from under the influence of the Bush administration, MIGHT be willing to work on getting us back on a more sound fiscal footing and out of our current military bouffe. And Kerry would be in a position to veto almost anything he considers too far-out to the right. In other words, very little would get done but what did would probably not be too onerous. I'm sure Kerry will be just as profligate as every other recent president in over-using executive directives, so oh well.

The only deal-breaker for me would be if I thought that Kerry would make the U.S. less secure than Bush; luckily, I think it is "a slam-dunk" (where have I heard THAT before?) that he would not only keep us MUCH safer than Bush, but might actually be able to create more international cooperation to ferret out terrorist activity without upsetting a delicate world balance that no one seems to be paying much attention to. Why? I'm glad you asked....

I am a great fan of a man named William S. Lind ( http://www.lewrockwell.com/lind/lind-arch.html ). He is an old-line conservative military historian/theorist and "defense intellectual" who was one of three people who were instrumental in moving the U.S. Marine Corps from 2nd generation warfare (2GW) to 3rd generation (3GW) in the 80's. He wrote much of the printed material and figured in on the strategy and policy creation. If you read his articles (just start at the bottom and work up, oldest to youngest -- you'll get a chance to see how uncannily accurate his Middle East predictions have been so far) you will have a better education in warfare, and especially the type of warfare we're forced into in Iraq now (4th generation warfare), than George Bush or any of the neocon boobs who are directing this so-called "war on terror."

Here's the point: Lind and his compadre John Crevald, two of the most respected military historians and theorists in the world, are deeply disturbed by the neocon "world empire" strategy of the Bush administration. Lind flatly states that we will lose in Iraq, we will lose in Afghanistan, and if we are VERY lucky we will not see those losses trigger the destruction of the "key Middle East states" of Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt. Which of course would mean 40 or 50 nuclear weapons in the hands of wahabists courtesy of Pakistan, the loss of the largest oil reserves in the world courtesy Arabia, Iraq, and Iran, and the loss of the Persian Gulf/Mediterranean passage courtesy of everybody -- and that's not to even mention Israel's position should that happen. Our only hope of preventing all this is a "more sensitive" (where have I... oh, you know) strategy of careful withdrawal of troops from Iraq, soon.

Maybe he's wrong. Maybe the neocons are right, we should just go ahead and (try to) take out Iran. But I get the sense, from reading him, and knowing his grasp of military strategy and history, and from listening to the (in my opinion) total drivel that passes for strategy of the neocons, that he's right. And if he is, John Kerry may be our only chance to prevent that catastrophic string of occurences.

So that's two of the three cruses I mentioned earlier. The last, improved security at borders, ports, airports, chemical, and nuclear plants and a more secure and controlled immigration and aliens policy, I don't hold much hope for either candidate on. Still, I KNOW that Bush's position is poor -- this is an issue he could have done so much on, and in my estimation has failed totally. So there you go.

Oh, and while it's not a dealbreaker, I'm for a strong environmental program; luckily enough for me, that's an area that I expect Kerry to shine.

So there you go. Four out of four!

(And you never know... Kerry just might make a great president. I am certain that will never be the case with Bush.)

Respectfully,
Delta

Where has Kerry shown steadfastness or consistency on an environmental issue? Perhaps here:

Kerry speaking before a union group in Detroit (SUV capital of the U.S.). When asked what kinds of vehicles he owns, he proudly stated “We have some SUVs…I have an old Dodge 600 that I keep at the Senate…and also a Chevy, a big Suburban.”

A few weeks later...

In responding to a reporters questions at a conference call, Kerry stated “I don’t own an SUV.” Later that day at an environmental rally, Kerry finally settled it saying, “The family owns it [the SUVs], I don’t have it.” Thanks for clearing it up John...

This fails to even mention the 5 mansions, Gulf Stream personal jet, and yacht which he owns. While I have no problem with how people spend their (or their wives money), for someone who advocated environmental "protection" and "efficiency" he sure does burn/waste a lot of energy. How many trees had to be "slaughtered" to build and heat his 5 homes? How many tons of "greenhouse gasses" are being pumped into the atmosphere in order to produce and combust the petrol for his fleet of SUVs, yacht, and jet?

Speaking of steadfastness and consistency, when has he ever shown either on an issue, perhaps his feelings toward the recent construction of the Israeli defensive barrier? Let's see:

In a speech to a pro-Palestinian group, Kerry directly came out against the wall saying it was a “barrier to peace," and being critical of Israel's leadership for "derailing" the peace process.

But wait, just 4 months later...

In an interview with the Jerusalem Post, Kerry reneged on his previous statements saying that the barrier is a “…legitimate act of self-defense…” Well John, common wisdom says you can't have it both ways, but shame on us for ever believing that common wisdom applies to you.

One must be either ignorant in their support of the Democratic Party or blinded by their hatred of President Bush in order to consciously and faithfully place their vote with John Kerry. Just remember, a year, month, or even week into Kerry's first term is not the time to realize that we've voted a double-talking, political opportunist into office. After all, he vote for the 87 billion before he voted against it.

Signing off,
Burke

Unfounded, blanket generalizations are difficult to debate, Burke, but very easy to reverse:

One must be either ignorant in their support of the Republican Party or blinded by their hatred of democracy in order to consciously and faithfully place their vote with George W Bush.

Such statements are entertaining, but don't add much to the debate.

If the Kerry family owning five homes is the best you can come up with for an inconsistent environmental policy, I'd say you're really groping. As to the "Israeli defense barrier", I fail to see the contradiction. Some could argue that invading and occupying Iraq was a "legitimate act of self-defense" (ludicrous though that notion may be, some actually believe it). Those same people would have to admit that waging war is, on some level, "a barrier to peace". Indeed, most acts of self-defense tend to disturb the peace. Where's this famous contradiction?

I am not a great supporter of John F Kerry, by any means - but the sheer desperation of those who oppose him makes me feel that they are the ones acting out of ignorance and hatred. That certainly seems to be the case in their public discourse.

If a man is known by the company he keeps, perhaps a candidate can be known by his supporters. The behavior of Bush supporters over the past three years is more than enough to discredit the man in my eyes - and lead me to cast my vote elsewhere.

I believe the topic is "Bush v Kerry: Who would make the better president," not "Bush v Kerry: Who's the bigger vacillator"; and certainly not "What are the character flaws of the people who favor one or the other candidate." I don't see where you made a case in the actual debate, since "proving" that Kerry changes his mind on issues is, to me, not necessarily a drawback. It can be the mark of a person willing to expand his mental horizons.

If you'd like to start a topic such as "Who's the bigger flip-flopper" I would be happy to document the multitudinous issues on which Mr. Bush has, shall we say, changed his mind; however, this is not the place for it.

As to Mr. Kerry's environmental policy vs. Mr. Bush's: as I said, that is not to me a dealbreaker. If Kerry were to suddenly go from the environmental activist that he has been over his 20 years in the Senate (and indeed, back to at least 1970 at Yale) to a fire-breathing forest-shearing pawn of the corporate interests -- in other words, were he to take Mr. Bush's position -- it would make no difference in my vote. Given my world-view priorities, I have bigger political fish to fry.

Not that I think that will happen. And here's why:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opin...63_lance10.html
http://www.envirovictory.org/?id=31
http://cleveland.indymedia.org/news/2004/0...877_comment.php (scroll down to "Kerry's Environmental Record")
http://www.publiceyestv.org/bush_kerry_env...tal_records.htm
http://www.johnkerry.com/about/teresa_hein...nvironment.html
http://www.lcv.org/Campaigns/Campaigns.cfm?ID=1818&c=4
http://forests.org/articles/reader.asp?linkid=28603
http://www.independentsforkerry.org/upload...nvironment.html
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5942727/

What politicians say means very little. They ALL lie. Ok, well, maybe not Ron Paul, but I certainly can't think of any others. What counts is their votes, or in Bush's case his acts, and on the environment Bush's record is fairly abysmal and Kerry's is pretty darn good, even to this Jeffersonian constitutionalist.

Not that I'm saying it's perfect. Again, as I said in my post above, I'm relying on a largely-Republican congress to keep Kerry in check -- and vice versa.

Now, if you'd like to debate my position I suggest you deal with the logic of my thesis -- not one sentence that, as I clearly stated, has very little to do with why I feel the way I do.

EDITED TO ADD:

Don't expect me, in future, to bother answering bullet-points on the daily RNC anti-Kerry fax blast. The fate of the world and this country that I love demand that I be better than that. And that you be better than that too.

Respectfully,
Delta

Burke, if you need explanation of this now famous Republican attack on Kerry please go to the topic "Kerry's Voting Record on Defense" and read Wertz's post (I believe it is the second or third post in the topic). It's a very good post.


As for who I think would make a better president, I would have to go with John Kerry for several reasons. First off whenever I've heard Bush speak he never mentions the deficit. He always makes sure to talk about low taxes, creation of jobs (which seem to be exported more than created), and terrorism (of course). The problem is Bush is making this deficit higher, but has no plans that I've heard of to help lower it.

Another reason I dislike Bush is the new information that has surfaced about his service, or lack thereof, in the Guard. I'm aware of all the criticism Kerry has taken. But there was never any conjecture about him being there and performing his duty. With Bush that's always the case. Did he show up? Did he pass his tests? Did he get preferential treatment? These questions are serious and need to be addressed; because if the claims made against him are true then he has a serious lack of responsibility and morality.

Source

Hardly the best I can do. But really, you have failed to answer the questions in contention: How can Kerry justify his position on the environment when most aspects of his daily lifestyle (houses, yacht, cars, plane) directly contradict what he says? How can he pander to a group of SUV hating tree-huggers when he himself (oh wait, I'm sorry, his "family") owns nearly a fleet of them? How can he advocate moderation in energy consumption when he owns a personal jet and a yacht? How can he advocate preservation of the environment when he owns not 1, not 2, not 3, no not even 4, but 5 multi-million dollar houses? Finally, how can he warn about "global warming" when he himself contributes more then his fair share to the problem (fleet of cars, 5 houses, yacht, private jet)?

Personally, I have respect for the environment and believe in moderate, rational, and logical amounts of conservation and preservation. I just disagree with many on the left as to what extreme this is to be taken.


Please, you can't be serious? This is just another example of Kerry's political opportunism. He just tells people what they want to hear.


For some reason I think that "Bush v Kerry: Who would make the better president" and "Bush v Kerry: Who's the bigger vacillator" are not mutually exclusive. I feel that Kerry's vacillations, inconsistancies, flip-flops, etc. reveal a crucial character flaw or lack of principle which would hinder if not impede his ability to be, in my opinion, an effective or "good" president.


Albeit, sometimes changing ones mind can be the mark of someone who is willing to "expand his mental horizons," the frequency, rapidity, and extremity to which John Kerry "changes his mind" doesn't point to "expansion of mental horizons" but rather to political oppurtunism


What exactly is that supposed to mean? Is this just an attempt to avoid answering legitamate and important questions?


This has been debunked, as have the recent allegations about documents which "show" that the Bush family used its power to get George W. into the Air National Guard. Refer below:
http://weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printe...596&R=9FCD2F192
http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewPolitics.asp?P...L20040909d.html

Now I ask the question, what has Kerry DONE, not said, to prove that he would be a better president then George W. Bush?

Signing off,
Burke

These statements you've made have almost no connection to the environment and it's preservation. You say that since he owns five houses he is anti-preservation. This would mean that to be pro-preservation he would have to own no houses right? Because even one house would be taking up land. So in essence if you own one house and I own two, by your argument, I am twice as anti-environment than you.

What I'm trying to say here is that owning things, especially houses, are not anti-environment. Did Kerry buy up some national forrest land to build these houses? I would assume that the "worst" case scenario is that he bought a lot and had it built on.

And owning multiple cars doesn't make you anti-env. either. Since he has five houses I would think that there would have to be at least 5 cars at a minimum. If he does own SUV's as you claim then that's slightly unfortunently, but millions of other people own them so his few extra aren't causing global warming by themselves. Also, if I am pro-env. do I have to own a Prius and ride my bike as much as I can? The point is one can be environmental on a national scale, which is far more important. What are his stands on factories and pollution levels? How does he feel about car pollution levels? These are the kinds of things that are more important than how much he and his family own.

Burke, your argument would be more suitable if he were saying that he identified with the poor. If he did that then his action and words would be incongruent, like the argument you've put forth concerning his environmental stand.



Well, not quite debunked if you read both articles. Both say that the memos are suspicious but could be real. CBS of course stands by its reporting and I'm sure the people that hired the document experts stand by them. But the fact is nothing has been proven for sure either way, yet. If they are fake then I would be very upset with these tactics to harm Bush's reputation. IF this is fake then this strategy of libel is despicable.

Edited for spelling and fixing quotes.

uuummmm not to stick a pin in your eye but he HAS done that too...

see NEW YORK POST June 29, 2004

Am I supposed to be looking for a specific article here or the whole paper?



I was trying to make an example, whether or not Kerry has identified himself with the poor is not the point of the my previous post.

Edited for clarification.

No, you have failed to answer the question in contention, which is: Bush v Kerry: Who would make the better president.

I'm not going to do your homework for you. If you can't see, from the information I've provided, including voting records, that Kerry has a better handle on environmental issues, then just go ahead and drink the Kool-Aid[TM].



Did I say they were? I don't think so. But let me refresh your memory



Kerry's and/or Bush's mental gymnastics are but a small part of the question; would you care to make a positive contribution to the larger subject?

Nope. Just pointing out that I've heard everything you've said so far from Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly, Ingraham, Malloy, and Boortz, ad nauseum; if you would care to make a useful argument then go ahead, but you really should do better than to just parrot the RNC party line. I suspect that, if anyone is making an "attempt to avoid answering legitamate (sic) and important questions" here, it's you.

Look at it this way: maybe if you actually address the question and come up with an idea I haven't already processed I could be pursuaded to vote for Mr. Bush!

Delta

Hmm, let me try to clear this up. I guess what I am driving at here is why doesn't Kerry practice what he preaches? A leader, at least a good one, is supposed to lead by example (e.g.: Perhaps he should use his vast amounts of money to power his 5 houses by using alternative energy sources [wind, solar, bio, etc.], maybe he should trade in his SUV's for more fuel efficient cars, or he could cut down on the number of miles flown in his personal aircraft in order to reduce fuel consumption and "greenhouse gas" emission). I am not advocating that Kerry sell all his houses, do away with his vehicles, and start "owning a Prius and riding his bike" as you put. Instead, I'm saying that I feel, if Kerry really feels as passionately as he says he does about the environment, that he should incorporate these precepts/values/ideas into his daily lifestyle - I listed several feasible ways of doing this above. As I said before, he needs to practice, in at least some moderate way, what he preaches. Basically, I feel that he is a hypocrite .


Sorry, I left out one of what I feel is the most important articles regarding Bush's Air National Guard service:
http://www.americandaily.com/article/4807


Sigh, I feel Bush would make the better president, is that better? My position is easily inferable by even casually reading my earlier postings...


Love the Clitonesque parsing of words here. Personally, I prefer to call Kerry's "mental gymnastics" hypocrisy or political opportunism, seeing as how thats what it is.


I would say that O'Reilly and Boortz hardly "toe the party line." O'Reilly is fairly moderate and Boortz is a libertarian. But this is besides the point. You are just attempting to sideline my arguments by saying that just because its been brought up before, it is now irrelevant. This is faulty logic. This would be like saying "well they've already brought up the Bush National Guard allegations months ago so clearly now they no longer have validity. As I said before, this is just an attempt to side step the questions or question at hand... in my humble opinion of course.

The question still stands, what has Kerry DONE, not said, to prove that he would be a better president then George W. Bush?


Signing off,
Burke

Ok, well I suppose we're looking at it two different ways here. Although I think that Kerry could probably buy more fuel efficient cars and fly less (although I have no idea how much he flies) I think it is more important what his views are nationally. I don't think his private life is contributing all that much to the environmental problems at hand, but I'll concede that he could be more environmentally conscious in his choices of cars.

As for his houses and their energy, I'm not sure if one can choose the type of energy one receives (ie. wind, solar, hydro), since I don't own a house.

The main point is, if we're going to talk environmental issues, we need to see if he's for stricter regulations on factories, cars, planes, and things of that nature. Those are what are causing the main problems with pollution.



Kerry holds the LCV (League of Conservation Voters) record for highest percentage (92%) of voting for conservation efforts.



LCV Site

This is more than Bush can say. So that's one things Kerry has done, not said, that would make him a better president environmentally. But back to the subject at hand, who would make a better president overall? I say Kerry.

[quote=BoF]a restrictive approach to embryonic stem cell research[/quote]
Restricting federal research funding to existing stem cell lines is a far cry from restricting research.

[quote=English Horn]So are you saying that his significantly reduced reading abilities influence his learning abilities, and as a result he got lower grades in school? That could be plausible, but do we really want a guy who has learning difficulties to be our President?[/quote]
There's a distinction between reading difficulties and learning difficulties. Bush may be dyslexic, but he was probably a C student because he was an alcoholic, and arguably a cokehead. If you're of the belief that what people did 35 years ago matters (on either side) then you have to factor this in. But it's probably more reasonable to say that he's dyslexic; that if he can't read something, he can hear it; that if he is genuinely stupid, he has a full cabinet of brilliant people to make policy for him; and that when you've got a four-year track record to look at, this kind of speculation is about as useful as an accordion on a deer hunt.

[quote=Paladin Elspeth]John Kerry, whether or not some spite-driven veterans want to credit him for it, distinguished himself in Vietnam sufficiently to receive medals for his service there...[/quote]
Spite-driven veterans with no valuable evidence to back up their claims don't generate this kind of controversy. The controversy, of course, is that he didn't distinguish himself enough to receive his medals, but rather lied for them. I haven't made myself an expert on all this business because I don't really care. But if you want to label George Elliot, who wrote Kerry up for a Silver Star, then thought better of it when he found out the true circumstances of Kerry's "heroism" (shooting a wounded young VC in the back) a "spite-driven veteran", so be it.
[quote]...That he didn't stay there to die shows that he had aspirations other than fighting a frustrating war in the jungle.[/quote]
It's a little unlikely to say, and correct me if I'm misinterpreting you, that every GI who chose not sneak his way out of Vietnam made that choice because the deadly jungle was where he most wanted to be.

[quote=popeye47]So because of his connections his stake was boosted from 1.8 to 11.8 percent. And what did he do for the Texas Rangers.[/quote]
[quote=Time magazine, June 21, 1999]
Bush critics charged that he was just a front for the moneymen who actually ran the team, an empty suit with p.r. skills. But according to his former partners and people close to the team, Bush was an engaged manager who played a substantial role in transforming the Rangers from a shabby franchise to a success story.

<snip>

Along with Rose and Rangers president Tom Schieffer, Bush led the drive to build a fine new stadium, paid for by local bonds.

<snip>

"George did a valuable thing for the franchise," says Schieffer. "He gave it glitter and celebrity. The first thing you've got to understand about him is that George is the most likable person you will ever run into."[/quote]

[quote]The new stadium and the real estate around it greatly boosted the final sale price.[/quote]

[quote=Paladin Elspeth]insufficient funds in state government coffers to observe federal mandates (read: education)...[/quote]
read: No Child Left Behind? Schools can ignore the education demands of NCLB if they're willing to decline the funding. I know because my high school, in a fabulously wealthy district with a huge racial achievement gap, threatened to do that very thing.
[quote]...a trade deficit where the U.S. imports far more goods from China than it exports (and with China being one of the worst nations for human rights violations)...[/quote]
The influx of foreign capital into China's markets does two things for us. One: it creates a Chinese middle class. The existence of a middle class often forces governments to go democratic, middle classers being obnoxious little buggers that want their voices heard. This should be particularly true in China, where the central government doesn't have nearly as much power (particularly over local governments) as it would like you to think. And of course, democracies aren't so bad on human rights.
Two: okay, two is that it creates a Chinese middle class. (Arrow keys are anathema to me.) An increasingly wealthy, increasingly capitalistic nation of a billion people is gonna be a friggin' great export market someday.
[quote]...George W. Bush's record speaks volumes for itself. That is why, I suspect, Bush needs those Swiftboat Veterans for Spite to distract from his record and make Kerry look bad.[/quote]
I didn't know there was any connection between the Swift vets and the Bush campaign. Okay, there was that one lawyer who was working for both, but dropped the Bush campaign when he saw complaints like yours in the near future. Remember that Bush called Kerry's service honorable and denounced ads by 527s.

[quote=popeye47]The opposing candidate is so busy defending himself or herself they don't have time to ask George any questions...[/quote]
The problem with Kerry's campaign is he doesn't seem to talk at all (a la Swift Boat controversy). And if I recall, his speech at the DNC was more a laundry list of boring, fine-point policy proposals than a defense of, say, his voting record.
[quote]One last item. After 9/11, Bush's approval rate shot up through the roof. And now less than 3 years later he has lost at least 30-40 % of that. Now what kind of a normal intelligent person could do that.[/quote]
The fact is, Bush's incredible approval ratings immediately after 9/11 were part of the fervor of phony, overzealous patriotism that ruled those long weeks. In the end, didn't please the people who like his policies will like him, and the people that disagree will dislike him. Are you suggesting that it's his fault he hasn't continued to please everyone the last three years? If 9/11 had happened on Al Gore's watch, do you think everyone would still be with him today? And if you answered no, would that be because Al Gore is an "idiot"?

In summarization, this is why threads should have more specific topics. I'm done here unless I see something really egregious.

Edited to add:
[quote=Ultimatejoe] Yeah, it's not like Bush ever changed his stance on anything... the latest issue of Foreign Policy has a list of the "reasons" for invading Iraq used by Bush. Lets list them shall we:

• To prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction
  
  
• For regime change
  
  
• To further the war on terror
  
  
• Because of Iraq's violations of U.N. resolutions
  
  
• Because of Saddam Hussein's evil dictatorship and actions
  
  
  
• Because of a lack of weapons inspections in Iraq
  
  
• To liberate Iraq
  
  
• Because of Iraq's links to Al Queda
  
  
• Because Iraq was an imminent threat
  
  
• To disarm Iraq
  
  
• To conclude the Gulf War of 1991
  
  
• Because Hussein was a threat to the region
  
  
• For the Safety of the world
  
  
• To support the United Nations
  
  
• To preserve peace around the world
  
  
• Because history calls the United States to action

[/quote]
A lot of these are redundant; (4), (9), (10) and arguably (6); (1), (3), and (8); (5) and (7); (4) and (14); and (12), (13), and (15). It's like calling Kerry a flip-flopper because he likes both "cruncy peanut butter" and "peanut butter with actual whole peanuts in it," as opposed to - say - taking opposite sides on the first Gulf War in a single week in letters to the same constituent.
And I wasn't aware that having more than one good reason to do something made one inconsistent.

Edited again:
[quote=nileriver]The lack of any real plan is very bad in my eyes...[/quote]
Yeah, I wish Bush had a plan too. But I honestly feel better about Bush's no-plan than Kerry's plan:
[quote=Washington Post, August 8, 2004]Kerry and Rubin also are detailing a new Iraq policy to "significantly" reduce the number of U.S. troops in Iraq during the first six months of a Kerry administration. In an NPR interview Friday, Kerry said: "I believe that within a year from now, we could significantly reduce American forces in Iraq, and that's my plan." His comments took several aides by surprise. Until the interview, Kerry's stated policy was to significantly reduce troops by the end of his first term.[/quote]
I don't think pulling troops out of Iraq in the midst of a deadly struggle is the best course of action for American national security.
[quote]...On to the concept of what some call smaller government of maybe more power to state rather then federal to me is more government. It will make many little governments. Like going to work and haveing 78 different rulers to work for, and would degrade issues, and to me human rights and the constituition in various areas, but i guess chaos is good now and then.[/quote]
If the government embraces subsidiarity, you don't have 50 different rulers because there are 50 different states. You have one ruler because your primary residence is in one state. He's just more accountable to you than the president would be because you're one of, say, 20 million constituents rather than one of 280 million. It's interesting that you speak of states' rights eroding the Constitution, when the Constitution enshrines states' rights above almost all else (particularly in Article 1, Section 8 and the Ninth Amendment,) and where states can be sued in their own Constitutional courts or the United States Supreme Court.

Wow PocoBell,

I’ve heard of “Anybody But Bush.” (ABB) Now, you’ve given us the quintessential “Bush is Never Wrong” (BINW) list.

Specifically, to cut federal funding out from under stem cell research is to undercut realizing it's full potential.

More importantly, it's just one of many things Bush has done to placate religious conservatives. Other items include support of the gay marriage amendment, advocating educational vouchers for religious and other private schools as far back as Governor of Texas, signing an executive order to release federal funds to religious organizations doing social work, pronouncements against a woman's right to choose and on an on.

Just a small point about stem cell research.

The current administration is the only one to allow federal funds to be used specifically for stem cell research. Policy Memorandum: Bush Administration First to Fund Embryonic Stem Cell Research

This issue seems to be turning into something similar to the red herring involved with Ronald Reagan and AIDS research funding. Reagan funded AIDS research, but not to the degree that some wanted. Bush is allowing funding for stem cell research, but some feel it is not the right way or not enough.

On one hand, these people scream about the exploding deficit and then turn around and disparage Bush for not doing enough in this area or that area. In this thread, that "area" is stem cell research funding. The funny thing is, Bush does have funding going towards this.



Perhaps if you called these issues: protecting marriage (which is supported by the majority of Americans), school choice (very popular in traditionally poor school districts), non-discrimination against religious charities, and "what the heck does a governor or President (unsure here what exactly you are talking about) have to do with abortion" then you might view Bush's stance on these issues a tad more favorably.

That is a fair argument, Amlord. Bush DID provide the first Federal funding for Stem Cell research. And that message certainly got lost amid the remainder of his message regarding any creation of embryos for stem cell research beyond the 60 lines currently in existence and the moral implications.
From his speech in 2001 announcing the funding:


Very implicit in that message is that once the 60 lines are exhausted, Federal funding for further embryonic stem-cell research is gone. Evidently, just 3 years later, only 19 of the lines remain.



Hence the controversy. If my crude math is correct (not counting contamination issues), the remaining lines have another 18 months of research left. Bush does deserve credit for funding it, no question. But at the same time I think its perfectly fair to hold his feet to the fire for his unwillingness to fund it beyond the 60 lines due to bundling it with the right to life chorus. I think this is very different from the Reagan/AIDS funding debate, because its a qualitative distinction (ie, was it enough).

While I respect Bush's opinion in the "is it life" debate, because its a credible question, I also reserve the right to disagree with it.

Though, ironically, this issue for me is way, way, WAY back in the line of issues I have with the Bush Presidency but is indeed one of many why I think Kerry will be a better president.

Doc

As far as I understand, the private sector is still allowed to invest/fun stem cell research?
If stem cell research was a panacea to all of these terrible illnesses, why isn't private sector money flooding in? After all, in a business sense, a cure to alzheimers would be worth billions in profits.

Bush was mistaken (or lying, if you prefer) when he made that speech; only 19 of the lines were ever viable. According to my crude math, then, federal funding for stem cells will never cease. It makes sense; the cells are pluripotent and it's hard to believe that every dish in the world of a certain specimen could become so easily contaminated.

One of the local myths is that when George W. Bush campaigns in Michigan, he is trying to reach the undecided voter.


Typically, tickets are distributed to loyal members of the Republican party before it is even announced that he will be in the area. The local newspaper for instance, published rumors of a Bush speech on Friday. and confirmed in Sundays paper that the entire 2000 tickets to hear His Highness speak in an airplane hangar on Monday had already been distributed.

I was able to locate on line, the text of a speech he delivered later on Monday. (His local remarks were not reported in full.)


Wow, four years in office and he keeps repeating that the most important reason to re-elect him is so that his wife doesn't have to leave office for four more years. I believe that we still vote nominally for a President and Vice President, not for "Best First Lady."

We've been helping a friend get ready to move of late. Maybe Laura has told George that she has no intention of moving again.

He went on to say,

(Yes George, if you had studied American history, you might have learned that this "most startling change of all" occurred during the Second World War. Your wife is a librarian, George! Is that a typical home based job?) I am left with a feeling that he is sadly out of touch with the average American.

George "understands" that "today people change careers and change jobs often"

Most Americans have been well aware of that fact for quite awhile.


(Yes George, it's hard to plan a stable career when your administration helps employers outsource American jobs to other countries.)

Well you get my drift, I intend to vote for a regime change; and I firmly believe that any American of average intelligence, native born, 35 years of age or older, who has been living in the United States for the past 15 years will have a better understanding of America, and what it means to be an American than George W. Bush.

This is, quite possibly, the stupidest thing I have ever read on this board, bar none. Thankfully, Bell, Marconi, Edison, Salk, and a slew of other researchers whose work has contributed tremendously to our lives didn't think that the full potential of their work was dependent on federal funds.

As far as "potential" goes, it doesn't matter where the money comes from.

Bell, Marconi, Edison and Salk came from a different era.

Funding for stem sell research is, in some cases, being done by states. With state budgets being tight, it would make more sense, at least from my point of view, for funds to go through NIH. Apparently, Professor Yamamoto agrees with me.

Bush's stem cell decision was, in my opinion, not about money--but about placating religious conservatives. To paraphrase you, It's perhaps the stupidest thing any American president has done for the stupidist of reasons in my memory.

Bush's decision came early in his administration and was one of my first vehement disagreements with his policies, although I didn't like much of what he did as Governor of Texas. It is but one of many reasons I think KERRY would be a better president.



http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...MNG5T5KMGK1.DTL

Took me a heck of a long time to find this number.

BoF, you're telling me you believe that private sources couldn't come up with a measly $24.8 million to replace federal funds for stem cell research? Particularly when the average cost of developing a new prescription drug is $802 million, and the ostensible payoff, according to the proponents of increased federal funds for such research, will be phenomenal? 'Cos Harvard don't.

PACO,

Would you please provide a link to the U.S.A. Today article? I would like to read your quote in context with the rest of the article.

Perhaps we need to start a new thread on stem cell question, for example total funding needed vs. federal funding provided, availability of stem cell lines and the motivation driving Bush's position.

I voted for Senator John Kerry. I don't agree with some of his policies but I even agree less with Bush's policies(or should I say I don't believe with any of his actions while he has been president).

The Bush adminstration has brought us a disastrous war, a mind-boggling budget deficit, an economy that hemorrhages jobs, yet He has a good chance of winning the election because he has chose the perfect constituency.

President Bush's religious voters believe what they are told rather than what they see. They choose to believe the simple fantasy over the complex truth. They do not notice that the Bush doctrine of pre-emption and his ability to collect enemies make us less secure, not more,because they are told that Bush is the "ANTITERROR PRESIDENT".

They do not notice that their paltry tax cuts are a smokescreen for huge cuts for the rich and will be paid for, with interest, by their children and grand-children because they have been told tax cuts are good.

They do not notice that Bush has flip-flopped many times because they have been told that John Kerry is the flip-flopper.

They gleefully challenge Kerry's Purple Hearts but do not seem to care that Bush MAY NOT have fulfilled his National Guard duty during the Vietnam War.

What politician could ask for a better constituency?

What democracy could ask for a worse decision?

Tommy Thompson on stem cells

Thanks PB for the link. So, it was in an editorial in USA Today by Bush's Secretary of Health and Human Services, Tommy G. Thompson.

Thompson's thinking reflects that of the administration, not that of many in the scientific community. Should anyone be surprised? To quote an old and perhaps trite saying, this is like "putting the Fox in charge of the chicken coop." Generally, although not specific to your quote, that saying has new meaning in a day when Fox News is the leading outlet for conservatives. lol