Why I'm Voting for Kerry

[spurster]

I'm sure I won't persuade many people here, here is my not-so-short summary of why I'm voting for Kerry.

Roughly, I would describe myself as libertarian on moral issues, a socialist on social issues, and a capitalist on fiscal issues. [I know many of you think "socialism" is a red flag word, but what is Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, and public education but socialism?] I believe the government should stay out of my life if I am not harming anyone else, that the government should provide a helping hand to the needy, and that the government should strive for fiscal soundness both in its own spending and in economic policy. I believe that market forces provide much good, but government regulation is needed to curb its bad tendencies. I believe the government should provide services (such as public education) if it can do it better than the private sector.

Broadly, Kerry is more oriented toward government solutions to social problems (health care) than what I would like, but Bush is more oriented to govenment solutions to moral issues (abortion, gay marriage, stem cells) than what I would like. Both of them want to extend the government for homeland security, education, drugs more than what I would like. Both of them will fight terrorism.

Kerry is overly pragmatic, while Bush is overly dogmatic. I think a large part of Bush's appeal is because he has strong beliefs about right and wrong and about what to do, and he sticks to them. Acting on your beliefs is very good when you right (Afghanistan), but very bad when you are wrong (Iraq, rights of prisoners, tax cuts, global warming). I'll explain later why I think he's wrong on those issues.

Kerry is like Clinton in that he can see two or mode sides of every issue, and unrestrained, he'll talk about them all. It can be maddening, but in a complex world, I would rather have a leader who can seriously consider both sides of an issue rather than make his decisions in advance and then make the facts fit. We would all love to have the world as black and white, as good guys and bad guys, as Bush pictures it. However, the world is complex whether we like or it, and oversimplifying it is dangerous.

Iraq is an example of fact-fitting in the extreme. Bush (I will often just say Bush when I refer to his whole administatrion) had decided in advance that Iraq was an imminent threat to the world with WMDs, nuclear weapons, and cooperation with terrorists. All intelligence was interpreted to support his preconceived beliefs. Every one of these rationales have been thoroughly refuted. The result is an unnecessary, expensive (life and money) war and occupation that has created more terrorists and separated ourselves from the rest of the world. While the invasion was carried out brilliantly, everything since then has involved a lot of bungling. Bush believed that we would be out of there in a few months, and that Iraq's oil would pay for it all.

Bush has taken a huge step backwards in human rights with the treatment of war prisoners: abuse, torture, indefinite detention, no POW Geneva Convention rights, no right to a fair hearing, no right to legal representation, no communication with the outside, secret jails. I am appalled that anyone would support this. Bush believes they are bad guys, so they deserve what they get, but we are supposed to be the land of the free, not the land of the oppressed. We gain no friends in the world by these actions, we lose respect by these actions, we gain dangerous enemies by these actions. Our harsh treatment has become an excellent recruiting point for the terrorists. They think we are the axis of evil, and the government-condoned abuse and torture will persuade others to this thinking.

Initially, Bush presented tax cuts as the solution to all economic ills in his 2000 campaign, and he finally got a good reason with the recession after 9/11. However, his tax cuts have not had the economic impact they should have because mostly they just gave money back to the wealthy without an overall economic policy. Outsourcing, $2/gallon gas prices, increasing health care costs, and a stagnant minimum wage take up all the tax cuts to the lower and middle class. Perhaps Bush could not do much to have an effect, but he has done nothing to try. What we have is a stagnant ecomony by many measures, and the largest federal deficit ever.

Finally, I pick on global warming not only because I think it is a major issue, but also because it represents how Bush's unchanging beliefs do not reconcile with the way the world works. Bush believes there is no global warming, and because he believes that, it must be true. However, the data and the scientific consensus (and the consensus of the rest of the world) is that we have it and we will continue to get it if we keep on our current track. Bush, however, sticks to his beliefs despite the science. Believing in market forces, he had done nothing to curb the auto industry emphasis on gas-guzzling SUVs, he has done nothing to further reign in global warming gases, he has no energy plan except talk about hydrogen fuel cells conveniently envisioned 10 or so years in the future.

That was more of an Anybody-But-Bush rant than being enthusiastically for Kerry. Before the debates, I thought both candidates were disgusting with Bush multiply so. After the debates, I have upgraded my opinion on Kerry from disgusting to acceptable. Kerry promised way too much (so did Bush), but I think his pragmatism will bring this country more on the direction it should be going, and he will work with Congress to be more fiscally responsible and to fashion policies that will achieve a compromise of our differences. Bush never deviated from his beliefs, never admitted any mistakes, and never changed his mind. Bush's dogma appeals to my wish for a simpler world, but wishful thinking works poorly in reality.

[Marcus Bryant]

Bush's dogma appeals to my wish for a simpler world, but wishful thinking works poorly in reality.

Time to examine a part of your critique of his "dogma"...


Initially, Bush presented tax cuts as the solution to all economic ills in his 2000 campaign, and he finally got a good reason with the recession after 9/11. However, his tax cuts have not had the economic impact they should have because mostly they just gave money back to the wealthy without an overall economic policy.

If you believe that a government should pursue an active policy to move out of a recession how does that not include reducing tax rates, increasing govermment spending, and leaning on the Fed to keep rates low? The last time I checked Bush's tax cuts were across the board, not just for the "rich" as you claim. If I am not mistaken the average family of four with an income of $40K saw their tax bill cut by $1500. Sure, the "rich" got larger tax cuts in raw dollar terms but that is because their taxable income is at higher levels and income tax rates are progressive.

And tax cuts for the "rich" aren't necessarily a bad thing, certainly if you are hoping for increased business investment to pull an economy out of a recession. And it is that investment which drives an economy, as we saw in the 1990s. The "animal spirits" of an economy as Keynes referred to it. Once the unsustainable market bubble burst in early 2000 such investment dried up. 9/11 pretty much hit a weakening economy in the head with a 2 by 4 and kicked it over the ledge. The federal government cannot force businesses to invest, but it can try to entice them to do so.

Given the GDP growth we have seen over the last couple of years I'm not sure what you are basing your claim on Bush's policies not having an impact simply because "they just gave money back to the wealthy". What do you think the "wealthy" do with that money? Put it under their matresses?

Bush did have an "overall economic policy" if I ever saw one. Not that I agreed with all of it, but it's a tad bit hard to honestly claim otherwise.




Outsourcing, $2/gallon gas prices, increasing health care costs, and a stagnant minimum wage take up all the tax cuts to the lower and middle class. Perhaps Bush could not do much to have an effect, but he has done nothing to try. What we have is a stagnant ecomony by many measures, and the largest federal deficit ever.

With respect to health care, you can thank the fact that most individuals in this nation pay for their health care expenditures through 3rd party payers (ie insurance & govt). Not that I agree with the Bush solution of more government entitlement spending on health care but if given that you are a self described "socialist" in favor of Medicare I don't think you should be complaining about this.

Minimum wage? Minimum wage laws simply limit employment opportunities for those who most in need of gainful employment and disproportionately hurt non-whites. If you increase that then most likely you will hurt the people you think you are helping.

Outsourcing is part and parcel of having an open economy. If we want the benefits of free trade (lower prices for goods, more choice, more markets for what we produce in this country) then we will have to put up with the costs.

If you want to complain about government tax policy then perhaps consider the federal payroll taxes that are regressive and effectively take away 15% of the earnings of lower and middle class workers.

"Stagnant economy"? Based on GDP growth you are dead wrong. What measures do you suggest to use?

As a percentage of GDP the federal deficit is not the "largest ever", in fact it is about half of the "largest ever." Basing that claim on the nominal value of the deficit doesn't really mean much.

[mouse]

Nice to see someone has a GED around here.

for me it will be easy why I will vote for kerry.
I want a job and I want to see NY w/o getting killed in the process.

[Useruser666]

I understand why you believe in what you do. I feel overall that Bush's plans and ideals will lead to stability in the US and the world given time. I feel Kerry may feel genuinely about what he promises, but he will be unable to deliver on many of them. Or he will deliver on them on the detriment of my income.

[Useruser666]

Nice to see someone has a GED around here.

for me it will be easy why I will vote for kerry.
I want a job and I want to see NY w/o getting killed in the process.

Why would you get a job under Kerry? Will Kerry add pot smoker/beer drinker as positions to his cabinet?

Why would you get killed in NY under Bush? You do realize there hasn't been another terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11?

I see the reasons you give for electing Kerry as exactly the reasons we should elect Bush.

Steady leadership will spur the economy and Bush will keep the terrorists running and not leave them a place to call home.

[JoeChalupa]

I'm voting for John Kerry for some of the same reasons as Spurster.
I'm not one of those who is simply voting against Bush but [b[for[/b] Kerry.

Yesterday evening I heard a local talk show host say that a vote for Kerry would be sending the wrong message to Al Queda and the terrorist world.
WTF!? So I should change my vote just to send a "message"?

I'm voting for whom I feel best represents my views and the course of our Country and I feel I am entitled to do so without being called a "terrorist supporter" or an "idiot".

I respect all those who vote regardless of whom they vote for. Having a different view point doesn't make that person any different.

[mouse]

I understand why you believe in what you do. I feel overall that Bush's plans and ideals will lead to stability in the US and the world given time. I feel Kerry may feel genuinely about what he promises, but he will be unable to deliver on many of them. Or he will deliver on them on the detriment of my income.


Dude look in the mirror you might have a lump on the back of your neck. it could be a micro chip of some sort, you sound really like a Bush Robot.
have you any logic? Bush is the reason we are at war.

[Useruser666]

Bush was the name of the dictator in Iraq? Bush was the terrorist who planned the 9/11 attack? Bush was president when cruise missles where fired at Osama in a failed attempt to assasinate him? Bush is responsible for the dot com bubble busting? The shoddy accounting practices of several major us companies? Can you honestly say that's true?

[mouse]

Why would you get a job under Kerry? Will Kerry add pot smoker/beer drinker as positions to his cabinet?


With Kerry I can use the GI Bill that Bush got rid of to go back to school.


Why would you get killed in NY under Bush? You do realize there hasn't been another terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11?


Do you realize that Bush's father is who got all those diaper wearing camel jockeys mad in the first place?

And how long was the first attack on the WTC? around 8 years?

Maybe they are planning another. I guess you need more attacks to not want bush, 9/11 did not convince you enough. what death toll can we reach for you to be happy?


I see the reasons you give for electing Kerry as exactly the reasons we should elect Bush.

Bush had his four years I am worst off than before, at least with Clinton I had a job.


leadership will spur the economy and Bush will keep the terrorists running and not leave them a place to call home.

Did you say steady? Like we are steadily going down the toilet?

[Marcus Bryant]

Kerry is like Clinton in that he can see two or mode sides of every issue, and unrestrained, he'll talk about them all. It can be maddening, but in a complex world, I would rather have a leader who can seriously consider both sides of an issue rather than make his decisions in advance and then make the facts fit. We would all love to have the world as black and white, as good guys and bad guys, as Bush pictures it. However, the world is complex whether we like or it, and oversimplifying it is dangerous.

Thank you for equating Kerry's approach to dealing with the Islamofascist terrorist threat with that of Clinton's approach. Now where did that get us? Clinton had 8 years and ample opportunity to pursue an aggressive course of action. Instead we saw the original WTC attack treated like a criminal matter and the American response to that attack and the attacks on the US in Somalia, Khobar Towers, the African Embassy bombings in 1998 and the USS Cole was simply weak and ineffectual.

You also ignore the fact that the 'box' that Hussein was in was coming apart. Yes, it was believed Iraq had WMD, a belief shared by the US intelligence community for years, other major foreign intelligence agencies, the Clinton administration, the UN, and Saddam's own military.

The Clinton administration also believed that Hussein had ties to terrorists. It was also the Clinton administration that first adopted the regime change policy with respect to Hussein. In a post 9/11 world must we wait on a Commander in Chief who wants to debate with himself all day long? How hard is it to not understand that we are indeed under threat and that we need to aggressively deal with that threat? It may be a tad bit simplistic for your tastes but I suggest you imbibe your complex taste with an aged Chardonnay.

Sometimes issues are black and white. Sometimes a fascist movement which posits that innocent men, women, and children are legitimate intentional targets and seeks the destruction of our society is about the close to being "evil" or "bad" as you are going to find. You fault Bush for his invasion of Iraq but now Hussein sits in a jail cell instead of in power with him buying his way out of the UN sanctions he had already found ways around and in hot pursuit of WMDs. Note also how quickly Qaddafi gave up his nuclear program after Hussein was pulled out of a hole in the ground.

Now either we get serious about this or else we can sit around as we did through the 1990s drunk, happy, and stupid while our enemies gear up for another assault on us...assaults which could be prevented through recognizing the threat today and taking steps to deal with it instead of waiting until we are hit again to 'justify' the response.

The Clinton Years saw America project weakness in the Middle East, a weakness exploited by al Qaeda. The best recruiting tool for them are successful attacks. Running the US out of Somalia, blowing up US embassies, putting a big fat hole in a US warship, and slaughtering 3,000 people in lower Manhattan, PA, and DC on live TV are the most effective means for them to attract more to their cause.

This is not to say that the Clinton administration was the only one to not take these Islamofascist groups seriously. Reagan ran away from Lebanon after the Marine barracks there was attacked and close to 300 died.

But the Clinton/Kerry approach is tantamount to the approach offered by the Democratic Left in the 1970s and 1980s with respect to the Soviet Union: seeking blissful pragmatic coexistence instead of simple prudent confrontation. You don't coexist with the threat that faces this nation, you deal with it, no matter how boring or simple some feel that view might be.

[mouse]

At least he didn't use force to take over a country and have no real plan afterwards while our young boys and girls die as they sit there like sitting ducks waiting till the next bomb to go off.

Sure BUSH is much better,,, Dude stop living in the past pull your head out of your ass and do the right thing on Tuesday Vote for a real leader John Kerry,

[Marcus Bryant]

Good idea mouse. Let's wait to have 3,000 slaughtered on our shores again.

[JoeChalupa]

I already voted for Kerry!

[AlamoSpursFan]

I already voted for Bush!

[ClintSquint]

You don't need to explain to anyone why you voted the way you did.
It ain't nobody else's business and if they don't like the way you voted that's just tough caca.

[gophergeorge]

Mouse,

YOU DID NOT LOSE YOUR G.I. Bill....

Try again.... or have another hit.... :)

[SpursWoman]

Nice to see someone has a GED around here.



:lmao :lmao

[JohnnyMarzetti]

And what is wrong with a GED? I suppose you think you better because you have a degree? :rolleyes

[Useruser666]

With Kerry I can use the GI Bill that Bush got rid of to go back to school.




Do you realize that Bush's father is who got all those diaper wearing camel jockeys mad in the first place?

And how long was the first attack on the WTC? around 8 years?

Maybe they are planning another. I guess you need more attacks to not want bush, 9/11 did not convince you enough. what death toll can we reach for you to be happy?



Bush had his four years I am worst off than before, at least with Clinton I had a job.



Did you say steady? Like we are steadily going down the toilet?

I don't know where to begin with what you said. Bush's father is the reason we were attacked by terrorists? Give me a break! Should we have allowed Saddam to take over Kuwait? That is plain stupid. He would have controlled #2 and #3 oil producng countries then. And what would the US do about it? How about pay him directly for the oil so he could go hog wild and further advance his WMD and military. Then what if he wanted to invade Saudi Arabia? You know the #1 oil producer? What happens then when oil prices go through the roof? How would the US look invading some one for overcharging for oil? Should we wait until all hell breaks loose? Now we have to fight a few terrorists here and there. We have to stay diligent at home and abroad. I think that's way better than fighting one of the largest military powers in the world after letting it become well financed from years of us buying oil from them. I believe one of Osama's biggest beefs with the US is our presence in Saudi Arabia. So what would we do if we hadn't sent troops there, and left Saddam alone?

I think it is rather poor of anyone to blame some one for the acts of their father. How many people have fathers that have done things they're not proud of? The policies of Bush's father should not be issues in this race for presidency.

How can you say America is not safer than before 9/11? Maybe you haven't been on an airplane since then. I had to turn over a pair of nail scissors I had in my carry on. I doubt I could have taken down a plane with them but that's how tight security is now at airports. Sure you hear stories about things getting past screeners, but what do think happened before 9/11? I think the US is more secure than before just because we are all more alert to the dangers terrorism can pose to us. It brought the reality of death right into our homes from off the TV screen. We will never be 100% secure against anything, but at the very least we can try to do our best to keep 9/11 from happening again.

Mouse, I'm sorry you don't have a job. you seem like a good guy that's pretty funny. Unless you worked for Clinton's campaign staff then I don't see why Bush being president is the reason you lost your job or can't find one now. If you can look from my perspective, since Bush has been in office I have held a great job. I have had wage increases and my company is doing very well. Our sales have doubled every year for 3 years and look to keep up that pace. While you may or may not justifiably blame Bush for your personal woes, I don't necessarily give him credit for my succeses. I do feel that even though there have been some tremendous "bumps" in the last few years that if we keep working together as a country we will heading down the road to a better tomorrow.

[SpursWoman]

And what is wrong with a GED? I suppose you think you better because you have a degree? :rolleyes



Oh, WTFever. I've heard mouse say that at least a hundred times....and it's funny every damn time he does. You can't possibly know mouse if you didn't get it.



What a shitty, paranoid attitude you have. Of couse nothing is wrong with a GED...some of my best friends have a GED. :)

[Useruser666]

Oh, WTFever. I've heard mouse say that at least a hundred times....and it's funny every damn time he does. You can't possibly know mouse if you didn't get it.



What a shitty, paranoid attitude you have. Of couse nothing is wrong with a GED...some of my best friends have a GED. :)

No, I think I'm better because I have a college degree! And for those of you that have Ph.Ds, to hell with you smarty pantses! :lol

[Hook Dem]

Thats Johnny Marxetti SW. :lol

[SpursWoman]

And what is wrong with a GED? I suppose you think you better because you have a degree?


And you know what? I am better because I have a degree.....isn't that the whole purpose of getting one?


Duh.

:lol

[Tonto]

Tonto have GED also. Giant Enormous Dick

Tonto make joke Tonto laugh at himself make himself proud

[Hook Dem]

And you know what? I am better because I have a degree.....isn't that the whole purpose of getting one?


Duh.

:lol
You'd be better whether you had a degree or not SW. :eyebrows

[mouse]

And you know what? I am better because I have a degree.....isn't that the whole purpose of getting one?


Duh.

:lol


^RACK^ :lmao

[JoeChalupa]

Be nice Joe and keep your pie-hole shut.

[SpursWoman]

Why's that, Joe? You wouldn't agree that most people go to college to make themselves better?


He didn't say I thought I was better than everyone else....just better. And I am better than I was before I went. I know more, I'm better qualified for the jobs that I've had....the people I met there......etc.

I'm sorry I had to spell that out....kind of ruins the joke, you know?

[spurster]

Possibly this is another fruitless comment after having this thread hijacked.

Thank you, Joe and uu666 for your comments.

MB, I understand that you think Saddam was a grave threat. I don't agree, and I can only point again to the lack of WMDs, nukes, and AQ terrorists in Iraq before the invasion. I also understand that you thought Clinton was weak on terrorism, but I wouldn't say Bush was any better or worse than Clinton prior to 9/11. The 9/11 commission had plenty bad to say about both of them.

To say that any President post-9/11 will be like our Presidents pre-9/11 on terrorism is bad reasoning. Even Bush changed, and he is being strong on terrorism following his beliefs of where the problems are. I just don't agree that Iraq was a "front on terror" pre-invasion. Even if you wanted to be completely cynical, being strong on terrorism is good politics, and Bush, Kerry, and future candidates/Presidents will act on that if nothing else.

[Useruser666]

Possibly this is another fruitless comment after having this thread hijacked.

Thank you, Joe and uu666 for your comments.

MB, I understand that you think Saddam was a grave threat. I don't agree, and I can only point again to the lack of WMDs, nukes, and AQ terrorists in Iraq before the invasion. I also understand that you thought Clinton was weak on terrorism, but I wouldn't say Bush was any better or worse than Clinton prior to 9/11. The 9/11 commission had plenty bad to say about both of them.

To say that any President post-9/11 will be like our Presidents pre-9/11 on terrorism is bad reasoning. Even Bush changed, and he is being strong on terrorism following his beliefs of where the problems are. I just don't agree that Iraq was a "front on terror" pre-invasion. Even if you wanted to be completely cynical, being strong on terrorism is good politics, and Bush, Kerry, and future candidates/Presidents will act on that if nothing else.

I agree with that spurster. I just believe the comments Kerry has made about the war and terrorism leads me to believe he doesn't have a clear plan on what things need to be done. I feel he is more likely to give in to popular beliefs than the best course of action. I could see critisizing Bush for handling security here or for the war in Iraq if we were getting attacked here on a daily basis. We have not been attacked here since 9/11 and that in some ways leads me to believe something about what the US is doing has worked so far.

[Marcus Bryant]

My view is shaped by the fact that whether we like it or not we are facing a vicious enemy who doesn't play by the rules of a 21st century civilization. It is a different enemy, one that is not solely comprised of enemy states but rather a confederation of like minded individuals spread across the globe who are connected through various religious institutions and who definitely have contact with and support from certain dictatorships.

The problem with Hussein basically was that certain 'allies' let us down. If France and Russia were not so desirious of a relationship with Hussein then the scenario would have been quite different.

A simple minded focus in dealing with this threat is desirable. It's good to have clarity on this issue. Also it should be noted that the Bush administration has not been ardently unilateralist (in tone) in its approach to other global hot spots. I think Bush's approach to dealing with the North Koreans is much more sane and coherent than Kerry's proposal. With respect to the Iranians the US has not disregarded the efforts of France and Germany to find a resolution to that situation. Yet at some point you have to be firm and be willing to use force to deal with situations that get out of control. I for one do not think that you use force with Iran. You don't need to. You just gave them an example next door of what can happen if you aren't cooperative. Iran itself seems much more ripe for a revolt from within. It probably didn't hurt the US in the eyes of the Iranian people to be the nation that finally removed Hussein from power.

As for 'complexity' in leadership, that is better suited for domestic policy, but for threats to national security one needs a singleminded focus. The Kerry anti-terrorism policy was basically the pre-9/11 approach of this nation's government, one which Reagan was as guilty of as Clinton. We tried wishing it away. Didn't work.