what policy differs bush and kerry in the northwest?

[nomorelies]

I have looked at Kerry and Bushs domestic policies, as Al Queda are never going to bomb the northwest states- i mean  nebraska,iowa, the dekotas, wyomming and kansa excluding oregan and wash - i cant understand how bush is helping them more than kerry. i know they are heartlands for the republicans, but bush has failed to give the agricultural trade enough subsidies, bush promotes foreign trade hence china will compete with northwest farmers produce. the gunlaws and hunting laws are the same, but kerry says he will keep jobs in america and make  10 million new ones. Yes, the people tell liberals to go to the twin cities if they have a hint of supporting a liberal but Surely, partisan family history must be removed for THEIR OWN LIFES. Kerry will help the northwest more than Bush. Am i wrong? Is this a plausible strategy?

[Lunar]

With lower population densities, they tend to be way more republican.  (8/8 of the highest density states voted Gore in 2000 and 8/9 of the lowest went Republican).  Things that the Democrats value such as economic equality ring a lot more in urban areas, and the areas are of course more sociall y conservative.

[nomorelies]

so its just the name that people vote for, its not policies that matter?

[Lunar]

Policies matter, but I don't think it's the ones you're thinking of.  I'd be surprised in the majority of the people in Idaho could name exactly what Bush's agricultural plan is.

What is the main difference is the fact that people living in lower density areas have a much different idea about the roll of the government and its priorities, and have a different social mindset.  Probably more pro-military, pro-tax cut, anti-gay marriage, anti-abortion, stuff rather than agricultural policies.  Civil rights, the environment, and economic equality probably aren't priorities for most of the voters.

[angus]

I have looked at Kerry and Bushs domestic policies, as Al Queda are never going to bomb the northwest states- i mean  nebraska,iowa, the dekotas, wyomming and kansa excluding oregan and wash - i cant understand how bush is helping them more than kerry. i know they are heartlands for the republicans, but bush has failed to give the agricultural trade enough subsidies, bush promotes foreign trade hence china will compete with northwest farmers produce. the gunlaws and hunting laws are the same, but kerry says he will keep jobs in america and make  10 million new ones. Yes, the people tell liberals to go to the twin cities if they have a hint of supporting a liberal but Surely, partisan family history must be removed for THEIR OWN LIFES. Kerry will help the northwest more than Bush. Am i wrong? Is this a plausible strategy?

Look man, if you live in Manhattan, you worry about your kids' safety.  You worry about gangs and firearms.  You need someone to come and take away your trash and provide electricity and running water.  You make laws against playing stereos too loud and you learn to keep yours quiet too.

If you live in montana, you need your gun because the nearest cop is fifty miles away!  You don't worry about your kids getting involved in gangs because there are no gangs.  Or anyone else.  You burn your trash.  You play your radio as loud as you want.

This is not complex, nomorelies.  How much taxes am I willing to pay?  In manhattan quite a bit because I need quite a bit of help.  In Montana, not much because I don't need much help.  Want a subway?  Me too.  Well, that costs money.   In some places it's dense enough that it'll pay for itself in a few years, get the voters to realize this and they vote for the tax increase to pay for it.  In others, it doesn't make sense.

Want clean air?  Me too.  In LA that means restrictions on auto emissions.  In BFE that means let 'em drive whatever they want as fast as they want because there aren't enough to matter.

It should come as no suprise that that voters in the West are more concerned with property rights and individual liberties, whereas voters in the East are more concerned with protection (environmental, personal, etc) and are willing to hand over a big chunk of their personal fortunes to provide that protection.

There's also the issue of nationalism.  The GOP has a lock on that.  If you live in the west, damn near 100% of everyone you know is white anglo saxon protestant umpteenth generation US national.  If you live in the Somerville, MA, probably more than half the people you know don't even speak English all that well.  This is neither bad nor good, but it will affect the way you think about things.

[nomorelies]

Well Conservative is now a badge of respectibility by a number of different groups . It is claimed by intellectuals who wish to emphasise a spirit of progression in keeping with american tradition. They care for individual rights without discrimination on the grounds of race, religion. Hence, bush played the gay-marriage card, but these are social issues. If you are having senior republicans in the area worried about their economy, if China deals agriculture to the US from 2005. I dont get it coz a vote for Bush is threatening their future especially if your middle class.

[nomorelies]

you cant play your radio aloud, if you cant pay the electricity bill. you cant burn trash, if youve got no food on the table. i understand that you have to have a gun in this isolated states, but Kerry has the same policy as bush on gun control. Money makes the world go round, just ask north korea - they shout wmd when they have no food left- im not saying everyone going to starve. the people in these states gives this country a part of its character, and if the economy screws them, then we will have more ghost towns as everyone will have to pack up and move as you cant afford to live.

[angus]

Money makes the world go round, just ask north korea -

Now you understand the GOP.  any more questions?

[nomorelies]

im just saying that its a reality that they may face if they vote for bush. they have to be cautious because we will have to pay for wars in Iran and Syria in 2005/2006/2007

[angus]

I seriously hope this congress has learned a thing or two about funding grand projects like the one we're stuck in for at least a decade.  And about expecting other governments to help with that funding when they have precious little to gain except the contempt of their populace.  I really do.  (I may be overly optimistic, and wrong, but I'm sufficiently confident to make that bet.)  But I don't the next president, whoever it is, will be able to convince this congress to go to Iran and Syria.  It's a bluff that this administration is playing, and, goddamnit, as much as I *hate* to admit it, the Bush doctrine (the threat of preemptive force) seems to be working.  Even John Kerry notices that, which is exactly why he skillfully evades the question rather than blatantly lying.  I'll give him that much credit.

[nomorelies]

Unless theres an attack on the UK, Blair cant support Bush in Iran and Syria. The country would go crazy. they went absolutely nuts when bush came to the uk, as they think he should be done for war crimes, the US will be alone in the next campaign, unless an attack on the uk occurs. 83% of brits think bush is a mindless cowboy, so they may back iran, it if Kerry wins but i have my doubts.

[angus]

of course, if you don't like the nationalistic, plutocratic, or individualistic aspects of the GOP, don't worry, it's a big enough tent.  Consider the aspects brought to mind by the gentle voices of Carrol O'Connor and Jean Stapleton singing these catchy lyrics by Adams and Strouse:

Boy the way Glen Miller played,
Songs that made the hit parade,
Guys like us we had it made,
Those were the days.

And you know who you were then,
Girls were girls and men were men,
Mister we could use a man like Herbert Hoover again.

Didn't need no welfare state,
Everybody pulled his weight,
Gee, our old Lasalle ran great,
Those were the days.


(But therein lies some internal friction, but neither you nor any democrat I know is strong enough to exploit that, as we explored on one of JMFCST's threads called "W's Legacy."  Check it out when you have the time.)

You will all be assimilated.  

[angus]

Unless theres an attack on the UK, Blair cant support Bush in Iran and Syria. The country would go crazy. they went absolutely nuts when bush came to the uk, as they think he should be done for war crimes, the US will be alone in the next campaign, unless an attack on the uk occurs. 83% of brits think bush is a mindless cowboy, so they may back iran, it if Kerry wins but i have my doubts.

I don't know what planet you're from, but on the one I'm from Cowboys are heroes.  I, and every little boy I knew, had a little broomstick horse, a little hat, and plastic guns.  I will not go into the mindless part, as I consider it beneath me to play that parlor game of educational pop psychology.  Democrats seem to love it though, the way they love "Fear Factor" and "Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire?" so enjoy yourself.

[nomorelies]

thats the difference between americans and brits. Brits are liberals. We think they are wacky. they dont. they think we are disrespectful to the environment, the american dream is a myth (which its not). they are very different from texans. the only people they identify with are liberals like ted kennedy. Speaking out gains respect over the pond.britain is the size of Wisconsin, so imagine what 60 million liberals think when they are told that george bush is coming to town!

[opebo]

With lower population densities, they tend to be way more republican.  (8/8 of the highest density states voted Gore in 2000 and 8/9 of the lowest went Republican).  Things that the Democrats value such as economic equality ring a lot more in urban areas, and the areas are of course more sociall y conservative.

Rural areas seem more equal in that everyone is poor.

[angus]

With lower population densities, they tend to be way more republican.  (8/8 of the highest density states voted Gore in 2000 and 8/9 of the lowest went Republican).  Things that the Democrats value such as economic equality ring a lot more in urban areas, and the areas are of course more sociall y conservative.

Rural areas seem more equal in that everyone is poor.

Yeah, judging by the palatial estates, those country folk in Tolland, CT, for example must be really poor compared to those rich city folks in the Bronx, with their well-appointed projects.  

[nomorelies]

WOW, ANGUS I AGREE WITH YOU. ONE OF US MUST SEE A DOCTOR

[angus]

I just got back from a dental check up this morning, perhaps that was the problem.  

[bejkuy]

There I a lot of us in the Northwest (I know you excluded my state) that vote and principle, not just our best economic interest.  

It is not in my best interest to vote Rep and support a flat tax.  However, because it's the RIGHT thing to do, I support it.

[classical liberal]

If everyone voted in their own best interest.  New England would be bloc GOP, the West and the Midwest would be bloc Democrat.  CA and WA would be GOP too.  Suburbia wouldn't be voting increasingly liberal as time passed.  MS would be 80% for the Dems and MA would be 80% for the GOP.  Pretty much everything would be reversed.

[angus]

If everyone voted in their own best interest.  New England would be bloc GOP, the West and the Midwest would be bloc Democrat.  CA and WA would be GOP too.  Suburbia wouldn't be voting increasingly liberal as time passed.  MS would be 80% for the Dems and MA would be 80% for the GOP.  Pretty much everything would be reversed.

not that simple.  for example, many easterners, specifically Bostonians and Washingtonians, get 100% of their income from the Federal Government.  I know, I did for a long time.  Rich doesn't necessarily equal GOP.  Private Sector Rich pretty much does, though.  Your analysis is interesting, but your assumptions are faulty.

[classical liberal]

Those within the actual city limits yes, but those in the suburbs don't.  NH, CT, RI, MD, NJ, DE are dem because of liberal suburbs.  Boston, NYC, and Philly don't outnumber their instate suburbs.  The suburbs that went to Regan but eversince have voted increasingly democratic.  Like the one I live in.

[angus]

Those within the actual city limits yes, but those in the suburbs don't.  NH, CT, RI, MD, NJ, DE are dem because of liberal suburbs.  Boston, NYC, and Philly don't outnumber their instate suburbs.  The suburbs that went to Regan but eversince have voted increasingly democratic.  Like the one I live in.

Not true.  You are aware that even though Harvard, MIT, BU, and BC are all private schools, all those low six-figure top professorships are generally funded out of the dole.  And a huge chunk of those faculty do live out in Newton, or North Cambridge, or outside the 128, etc.  Same holds true for Washington.   In fact, even more so.  And that's just academia.  Consider the multitudes of federal offices and their occupants with huge bloated budgets.  The census bureau has a reem of study available for you to peruse.  Check it out.

[bejkuy]

Those within the actual city limits yes, but those in the suburbs don't.  NH, CT, RI, MD, NJ, DE are dem because of liberal suburbs.  Boston, NYC, and Philly don't outnumber their instate suburbs.  The suburbs that went to Regan but eversince have voted increasingly democratic.  Like the one I live in.

Not true.  You are aware that even though Harvard, MIT, BU, and BC are all private schools, all those low six-figure top professorships are generally funded out of the dole.  And a huge chunk of those faculty do live out in Newton, or North Cambridge, or outside the 128, etc.  Same holds true for Washington.   In fact, even more so.  And that's just academia.  Consider the multitudes of federal offices and their occupants with huge bloated budgets.  The census bureau has a reem of study available for you to peruse.  Check it out.

Makes sense.  I now live in Lewis County which is very Conservative yet below average in terms of income.

Thurston country to the north (Olympia, state capitol) is much more affluent and liberal.  They ALWAYS vote dem.'

I guess they're smart enough to know they need to protect their jobs.

Liberals make a big fuss of Scalia not reclusing himself from the case involving Cheney.

Why can't we conservatives encourage public employees and those on the welfare roles to recluse themselves from elections because they have such a stake in them.

It's almost graft!

[opebo]

With lower population densities, they tend to be way more republican.  (8/8 of the highest density states voted Gore in 2000 and 8/9 of the lowest went Republican).  Things that the Democrats value such as economic equality ring a lot more in urban areas, and the areas are of course more sociall y conservative.

Rural areas seem more equal in that everyone is poor.

Yeah, judging by the palatial estates, those country folk in Tolland, CT, for example must be really poor compared to those rich city folks in the Bronx, with their well-appointed projects.  

Angus, you're describing far-flung suburbia there in Connecticut - rural areas are very far from cities, there's nothing to do, and everything's dirty and dusty.  Trust me, I know by bitter experience.

And most people in rural areas make very little money - anyway well below the national median.